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

QTVR File Sizes

Expand Messages
  • andrew334513
    Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing too much quality? I m taking pictures in JPEG on a D200 and 10.5, stitching in PTGUI and
    Message 1 of 15 , Sep 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing
      too much quality?

      I'm taking pictures in JPEG on a D200 and 10.5, stitching in PTGUI and
      outputting to PSD at 6000 x 3000px. After some touching up, levels
      etc. and flattening the images, I've been resizing them down to
      3000x1500px and then saving the image as a TIFF file without
      compression and passing across to Pano2QTVR.

      I suspect this is where the problem lies. At one stage I could easily
      output at about 1MB, upto 1.8MB for full screen. Recently though I've
      been struggling to get below 2MB.

      Am I making some fundamental mistakes before output to Pano2QTVR? I've
      changed everything in Pano2QTVR but none of this seems to really
      impact the filesize.

      What image dimensions should I be aiming for for a full screen QTVR? I
      don't really want the panoramas to go over 1.5MB.
    • Erik Krause
      ... Perhaps the recommendations of the WWP are of any help for you: http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/wwp/practical/Sizes.html best regards -- Erik
      Message 2 of 15 , Sep 16, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        Hello andrew334513 you wrote:

        > Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing
        > too much quality?

        Perhaps the recommendations of the WWP are of any help for you:
        http://geoimages.berkeley.edu/wwp/practical/Sizes.html

        best regards
        --
        Erik
      • William Donelson
        I have found, through long experience, that you are *generally* better off having a larger area of picture at higher compression ratio, than a smaller area at
        Message 3 of 15 , Sep 16, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          I have found, through long experience, that you are *generally* better off having a larger
          area of picture at higher compression ratio, than a smaller area at less compression.

          At the extreme limits, this General Rule may not hold true.

          For difficult panoramas, I often make 4 or 5 different compressed versions at difference
          sizes, all having about the same final data size. Then I look at them in the way that I think
          most people look at panos, i.e. most visitors to our websites do NOT zoom in or out...

          Hope this helps.

          William

          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "andrew334513" <andrew@...> wrote:
          >
          > Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing
          > too much quality?
          >
          > I'm taking pictures in JPEG on a D200 and 10.5, stitching in PTGUI and
          > outputting to PSD at 6000 x 3000px. After some touching up, levels
          > etc. and flattening the images, I've been resizing them down to
          > 3000x1500px and then saving the image as a TIFF file without
          > compression and passing across to Pano2QTVR.
          >
          > I suspect this is where the problem lies. At one stage I could easily
          > output at about 1MB, upto 1.8MB for full screen. Recently though I've
          > been struggling to get below 2MB.
          >
          > Am I making some fundamental mistakes before output to Pano2QTVR? I've
          > changed everything in Pano2QTVR but none of this seems to really
          > impact the filesize.
          >
          > What image dimensions should I be aiming for for a full screen QTVR? I
          > don't really want the panoramas to go over 1.5MB.
          >
        • georgesur2003
          ... I made comparisons between different output sizes (8000 x 4000, 6000 x 3000, 4000 x 2000) and different quality settings (from 10 to 100.) Examples (mostly
          Message 4 of 15 , Sep 17, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "andrew334513" <andrew@...> wrote:
            >
            > Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing
            > too much quality?
            >
            I made comparisons between different output sizes (8000 x 4000, 6000 x
            3000, 4000 x 2000) and different quality settings (from 10 to 100.)
            Examples (mostly crops) can be found there:
            http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/360x180/size_vs_quality.htm
            I concluded that large size (8000 x 4000), medium quality (50 or 60)
            AND appropriate max and min FOV limits are the best settings for my
            own camera/lens combination.
          • andrew334513
            Thanks for all your advice! Perhaps I wasn t too far out with a 2MB full screen. Many thanks Geaorges for the excellent page you have put together on quality
            Message 5 of 15 , Sep 17, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              Thanks for all your advice! Perhaps I wasn't too far out with a 2MB
              full screen. Many thanks Geaorges for the excellent page you have put
              together on quality comparisons.

              Andrew
            • Hans Nyberg
              ... Exellent comparing, however you have not at all included the proper compression for Pano2QTVR. Quality 50 is a large compression and 90 is very small. The
              Message 6 of 15 , Sep 17, 2006
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "georgesur2003" <georges.lagarde@...> wrote:
                >
                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "andrew334513" <andrew@> wrote:
                > >
                > > Whats the best way to reduce the file size of a file without losing
                > > too much quality?
                > >
                > I made comparisons between different output sizes (8000 x 4000, 6000 x
                > 3000, 4000 x 2000) and different quality settings (from 10 to 100.)
                > Examples (mostly crops) can be found there:
                > http://slash72.club.fr/gurl/360x180/size_vs_quality.htm
                > I concluded that large size (8000 x 4000), medium quality (50 or 60)
                > AND appropriate max and min FOV limits are the best settings for my
                > own camera/lens combination.

                Exellent comparing, however you have not at all included the proper compression for
                Pano2QTVR.

                Quality 50 is a large compression and 90 is very small.
                The medium is actually 70.

                Photoshop, Stitcher and all Mac converters use the standard scale which has 50% as an
                average good quality.
                However both Pano2QTVR and panocube use another scale were this corresponds to a
                setting of 70.

                The best compression for windows users who use Panocube or Pano2QTVR is 60-70

                70 will usually give you no banding in flat areas.
                With more details you can go up to 55-60 corresponding to 40% on Mac.

                I really which that Thomas had been taking the step to use a scale which most people
                know from Photoshop WEB

                Hans
                www.panoramas.dk
              • Carel
                ... Hans, Most programs other than Photoshop use a 1-100 scale. So Photoshop with its 1-12 scale is the aberrant one here, not Thomas. Digging around for more
                Message 7 of 15 , Sep 18, 2006
                • 0 Attachment
                  Hans Nyberg wrote:
                  >
                  >
                  > Exellent comparing, however you have not at all included the proper
                  > compression for
                  > Pano2QTVR.
                  >
                  > Quality 50 is a large compression and 90 is very small.
                  > The medium is actually 70.
                  >
                  > Photoshop, Stitcher and all Mac converters use the standard scale which
                  > has 50% as an
                  > average good quality.
                  > However both Pano2QTVR and panocube use another scale were this
                  > corresponds to a
                  > setting of 70.
                  >
                  > The best compression for windows users who use Panocube or Pano2QTVR is
                  > 60-70
                  >
                  > 70 will usually give you no banding in flat areas.
                  > With more details you can go up to 55-60 corresponding to 40% on Mac.
                  >
                  > I really which that Thomas had been taking the step to use a scale which
                  > most people
                  > know from Photoshop WEB
                  >
                  > Hans
                  > www.panoramas.dk
                  >
                  >

                  Hans,

                  Most programs other than Photoshop use a 1-100 scale. So Photoshop with its
                  1-12 scale is the aberrant one here, not Thomas. Digging around for more
                  info on jpg compression I came across this informative website:
                  http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-compression.html

                  "....Unfortunately, each graphics program tends to use its own compression
                  quality scale and quantization tables, and therefore, one can't simply
                  transfer quality settings from one application to another."

                  For the Canyon de Chelly pano I had to reduce the size to 4000x2000 because
                  it would not compress to under 2MB otherwise
                  http://www.sphericalpanoramas.com/dechelly.html
                  It seems that jpgs compress more when there is less detail in the image. But
                  is it really possible to compress an 8000x4000 equirect to 2MB with a
                  quality of 70 (Thomas-scale)?

                  Carel


                  --
                  View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/QTVR-File-Sizes-tf2282291.html#a6381855
                  Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                • Hans Nyberg
                  ... Carel I was not talking about the 1-12 scale but the Web save quality scale which I assume all Photoshop users know unless you have a very old Photoshop.
                  Message 8 of 15 , Sep 18, 2006
                  • 0 Attachment
                    --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Carel <cs@...> wrote:

                    > Most programs other than Photoshop use a 1-100 scale. So Photoshop with its
                    > 1-12 scale is the aberrant one here, not Thomas. Digging around for more
                    > info on jpg compression I came across this informative website:
                    > http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-compression.html

                    Carel
                    I was not talking about the 1-12 scale but the Web save quality scale which I assume all
                    Photoshop users know unless you have a very old Photoshop.

                    This scale is using the 50% as a medium which gives you a quality with almost no visible
                    loss. And this has been used by Quicktime always.
                    Setting the best medium compresssion to 50% is of course a very good way of leading
                    people in the right direction.
                    Also the 1-12 scale is similar. (the last 11-12 options has been added in recent years, it
                    used to be 1-10)
                    You can see that George also believed that as he said

                    >I concluded that large size (8000 x 4000), medium quality (50 or 60)

                    The problem is that this is not the case in Pano2QTVR but 50% is a compression which
                    gives you large banding in the sky.

                    I have seen this confusion among Windows users for years now often resulting in bad
                    examples from them.

                    Hans
                    www.panoramas.dk
                  • panokaemena@mac.com
                    ...to make the confusion complete... ;) in CubicConverter a value of 30-35% gives a good result and a reasonable size. Final Size depends a lot of the actual
                    Message 9 of 15 , Sep 18, 2006
                    • 0 Attachment
                      ...to make the confusion complete... ;)

                      in CubicConverter a value of 30-35% gives a good result and a
                      reasonable size. Final Size depends a lot of the actual content of
                      the pic. Green grass or similar very detailed content gives big file
                      sizes. large uniform color small filesizes, sharpening also
                      increases file size.

                      Willy
                      http://homepage.mac.com/wkaemena/FSPanos/Menu352.html


                      On Sep 19, 2006, at 9:22, Hans Nyberg wrote:

                      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Carel <cs@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > > Most programs other than Photoshop use a 1-100 scale. So
                      > Photoshop with its
                      > > 1-12 scale is the aberrant one here, not Thomas. Digging around
                      > for more
                      > > info on jpg compression I came across this informative website:
                      > > http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-compression.html
                      >
                      > Carel
                      > I was not talking about the 1-12 scale but the Web save quality
                      > scale which I assume all
                      > Photoshop users know unless you have a very old Photoshop.
                      >
                      > This scale is using the 50% as a medium which gives you a quality
                      > with almost no visible
                      > loss. And this has been used by Quicktime always.
                      > Setting the best medium compresssion to 50% is of course a very
                      > good way of leading
                      > people in the right direction.
                      > Also the 1-12 scale is similar. (the last 11-12 options has been
                      > added in recent years, it
                      > used to be 1-10)
                      > You can see that George also believed that as he said
                      >
                      > >I concluded that large size (8000 x 4000), medium quality (50 or 60)
                      >
                      > The problem is that this is not the case in Pano2QTVR but 50% is a
                      > compression which
                      > gives you large banding in the sky.
                      >
                      > I have seen this confusion among Windows users for years now often
                      > resulting in bad
                      > examples from them.
                      >
                      > Hans
                      > www.panoramas.dk
                      >
                      >
                      >

                      Willy Kaemena
                      wkaemena@...





                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    • Hans Nyberg
                      ... Yes if all your image is grass or similar detailed areas a compression of 30% is useable. But you have almost never a subject of that kind. Here is an
                      Message 10 of 15 , Sep 19, 2006
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, panokaemena@... wrote:
                        >
                        > ...to make the confusion complete... ;)
                        >
                        > in CubicConverter a value of 30-35% gives a good result and a
                        > reasonable size. Final Size depends a lot of the actual content of
                        > the pic. Green grass or similar very detailed content gives big file
                        > sizes. large uniform color small filesizes, sharpening also
                        > increases file size.

                        Yes if all your image is grass or similar detailed areas a compression of 30% is useable. But
                        you have almost never a subject of that kind.

                        Here is an example at CubicConverter 30% compression Only 1.2mb at 1700x1700
                        http://www.panoramas.dk/dk/moens-klint/compression.html

                        All the detailed areas look fine but the movie is unuseable as the sky has large banding.
                        Sometimes you would like an option saying compress blue at 50% everything else at 35%.

                        Hans
                        www.panoramas.dk
                      • Flemming V. Larsen
                        ... From: Hans Nyberg ... Hi Hans, Back in the old days with slow modem-connection to the internet when filesize really was an issue even for normal sized
                        Message 11 of 15 , Sep 19, 2006
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Hans Nyberg"

                          -------zip--------------

                          >> Here is an example at CubicConverter 30% compression Only 1.2mb at
                          >> 1700x1700
                          > http://www.panoramas.dk/dk/moens-klint/compression.html
                          >
                          > All the detailed areas look fine but the movie is unuseable as the sky has
                          > large banding.
                          > Sometimes you would like an option saying compress blue at 50% everything
                          > else at 35%.
                          -------zip--------------

                          Hi Hans,
                          Back in the "old days" with slow modem-connection to the internet when
                          filesize really was an issue even for normal sized images I often used
                          "ImageOptimizer" from http://www.xat.com/ for my fungi images. It was
                          possible to mask different part of the images with a freehand tool givimg
                          them individual compressions, so I could have jpg-quality on the subject
                          (the fungus) at 75-100% and the surroundings at 30-50% .

                          I haven't used the tool the last couple of years - But I've just visited
                          their website and they are still on the market. I might give it a try again
                          for some fullscreen panos. But I'm not sure if it possible to keep the
                          original mixed compression form ImageOptimizer while transforming it to
                          qtvr?.

                          I think their software is PC-only, so I gues you (Hans) won't be able to
                          give it a try - but it shows that it can be done (and there might be some
                          cimilar Mac-software) and I would be nice to have the same options in
                          Pano2Qtvr.

                          Best regrads

                          Flemming
                        • robert_harshman
                          ... tool givimg them individual compressions, so I could have jpg-quality on the subject (the fungus) at 75-100% and the surroundings at 30-50% . ...
                          Message 12 of 15 , Sep 19, 2006
                          • 0 Attachment
                            "Flemming V. Larsen" <fvl@...> wrote:

                            > It was possible to mask different part of the images with a freehand
                            tool givimg them individual compressions, so I could have jpg-quality
                            on the subject (the fungus) at 75-100% and the surroundings at 30-50% .
                            >

                            ImageReady has this ability, so most "PhotoShop" Photographers already
                            have this ability if they explore ImageReady.

                            But I'm not sure if it possible to keep the original mixed compression
                            form ImageOptimizer while transforming it to qtvr?.
                            >
                            Not sure about that, good question, but Pano2QVTR does allow for
                            different compression for each cube face, so it is possible to
                            compress different areas of you VR at different levels already.

                            Regards,

                            Robert Harshman
                          • Thomas Rauscher
                            Hello, on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 14:36:23 you wrote: FVL I haven t used the tool the last couple of years - But I ve just visited FVL their website and
                            Message 13 of 15 , Sep 19, 2006
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hello,

                              on Tuesday, September 19, 2006, 14:36:23 you wrote:

                              FVL> I haven't used the tool the last couple of years - But I've just visited
                              FVL> their website and they are still on the market. I might give it a try again
                              FVL> for some fullscreen panos. But I'm not sure if it possible to keep the
                              FVL> original mixed compression form ImageOptimizer while transforming it to
                              FVL> qtvr?.

                              With Pano2QTVR this is possible since V0.1 and was one of the reasons
                              I started this project. When you create the QTVR from JPEG tiles and
                              don't use subtitling (because this would lead to recompression) the
                              RAW JPEG data is taken 1:1 into the QTVR.

                              btw: Panocube should have the same feature
                              http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/31907

                              MfG,
                              Thomas.
                            • georgesur2003
                              ... A strong recommandation by CCITT/UIT-T (or any JPEG or ISO commitee) to use a single and common SETTING VALUES standard for the new T.851 JPEG extension
                              Message 14 of 15 , Sep 19, 2006
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, panokaemena@... wrote:
                                A strong recommandation by CCITT/UIT-T (or any JPEG or ISO commitee) to
                                use a single and common SETTING VALUES standard for the new "T.851"
                                JPEG extension (which includes 16 bits per color and more) would be
                                something very nice for users!

                                Certainly not something easy to establish, but past experience shows
                                that users are very bad at deciding of the right quality setting!

                                Because I believe there is a "Zoomify-like" 360x180° viewer somewhere
                                in our future, I believe filesize is still an issue.

                                > ...to make the confusion complete... ;)
                                >
                                > in CubicConverter a value of 30-35% gives a good result and a
                                > reasonable size. Final Size depends a lot of the actual content of
                                > the pic. [...]
                                >
                                > Willy
                              • Andrew Jakowleff
                                ... Yeah. Just want to add that it places JPEG tiles into a QuickTime VR movie byte to byte without any recompression steps. You can use externaly prepared
                                Message 15 of 15 , Sep 20, 2006
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  On Tue, Sep 19, 2006 at 03:22:31PM +0200, Thomas Rauscher wrote:

                                  > FVL> I haven't used the tool the last couple of years - But I've just visited
                                  > FVL> their website and they are still on the market. I might give it a try again
                                  > FVL> for some fullscreen panos. But I'm not sure if it possible to keep the
                                  > FVL> original mixed compression form ImageOptimizer while transforming it to
                                  > FVL> qtvr?.
                                  >
                                  > With Pano2QTVR this is possible since V0.1 and was one of the reasons
                                  > I started this project. When you create the QTVR from JPEG tiles and
                                  > don't use subtitling (because this would lead to recompression) the
                                  > RAW JPEG data is taken 1:1 into the QTVR.
                                  >
                                  > btw: Panocube should have the same feature
                                  > http://www.panotools.org/mailarchive/msg/31907
                                  >

                                  Yeah. Just want to add that it places JPEG tiles into a QuickTime VR
                                  movie byte to byte without any recompression steps.
                                  You can use externaly prepared JPEG tiles with any scale, with partial
                                  compression(s), with any metadata - all will be preserved in the movie.

                                  =Andrew Jakowleff
                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.