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

Re: Reducing shimmering

Expand Messages
  • texas360dave
    Several years ago I read that to determine the optimum cube face size is actually a mathematical equation. For example, Image width for example 5000 pixels
    Message 1 of 30 , Apr 13, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Several years ago I read that to determine the optimum cube face size is actually a mathematical equation. For example, Image width for example 5000 pixels wide divided by Pi 3.1435. Or Image width 5000 divided by 4 (an even number like 2).

      5000
      Pi 3.1415 = 1591.59 or 1592 cube face dimension
      4 = 1250 pixel cube face dimension

      Some cube face conversion software (like Pano2VR) uses this approach.

      Dave still at 360Texas.com

      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "David" <dburton97128@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > I'm not exactly sure what is meant by 'shimmering', but I have noticed in many image applications that changing image view or size by power of 2 multiples of the original size results in a better image.
      >
      > I assume it is strongly dependent on the re-sampling algorithm used, and the fact that power of 2 resizing is easier and needs less pixel computation and hence is more accurate. Without actually looking at the algorithms I am just assuming that is the case, but it seems to often hold true in real life (digital real life that is).
      >
      > A good algorithm may give results good enough that this effect is not noticed, but an inaccurate or optimized for speed on slow computers algorithm certainly degrades the image.
      >
      > When viewing images we have the effect of the original processing as well as whatever our current viewing tool is doing as we resize or zoom in/out.
      >
      > I'm not offended if anyone tells me I'm full of beans.
      >
      > David B
      >
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.