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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Some more tests on Optimal Cubefaces.

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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.