Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.
- Erik Krause schrieb:
> Am Saturday, November 01, 2008 um 17:55 schrieb Philipp B. Koch:I've made some tests with an equirectangular 4742 x 2371, downsampling
>> 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:
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.