Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.

Expand Messages
  • Erik Krause
    ... How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks. -
    Message 1 of 24 , Nov 1, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 17:55 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:

      > Thanks a lot, Erik! I've tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP
      > like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much)
      > longer processing time it takes compared to spline64...

      How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found
      no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks.
      -> http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41713#msg41713
      I stopped testing, since the old fixed kernel size interpolators and
      the anti-alaising ones are not comparable. The kernel size (and hence
      the execution time) highly depends on whether downsampling or
      upsampling, and they increase for downsampling:
      http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41703#msg41703

      best regards
      --
      Erik Krause
      Offenburger Str. 33
      79108 Freiburg
    • Philipp B. Koch
      ... I ve made some tests with an equirectangular 4742 x 2371, downsampling it to 1052 cubes (=~ / 4.5) with spline64, Mitchell and Lanczos3. I did not count
      Message 2 of 24 , Nov 2, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Erik Krause schrieb:
        > Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 17:55 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:
        >
        >> Thanks a lot, Erik! I've tried both Lanczos3 and Mitchell with DOSUP
        >> like you proposed. The visual difference is surely worth the (much)
        >> longer processing time it takes compared to spline64...
        >>
        > How much do you downsample? I did some tests some time ago and found
        > no big difference for a 4000x2000 to cubefaces 1200 remapping tasks.
        > -> http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41713#msg41713
        > I stopped testing, since the old fixed kernel size interpolators and
        > the anti-alaising ones are not comparable. The kernel size (and hence
        > the execution time) highly depends on whether downsampling or
        > upsampling, and they increase for downsampling:
        > http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/41703#msg41703
        I've made some tests with an equirectangular 4742 x 2371, downsampling
        it to 1052 cubes (=~ / 4.5) with spline64, Mitchell and Lanczos3.
        I did not count the time for each task, but both Mitchell and Lanczos3
        took well three times as long as spline64, I'd estimate.

        Regards, Philipp
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.