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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Quest for effective high-res 360x180 VR pano distribution

Expand Messages
  • Trausti Hraunfjord
    Just chiming in here with some boring facts. Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the future will depend much more on it that it
    Message 1 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Just chiming in here with some boring facts.

      Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the future
      will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile devices are
      dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11, hardware acceleration
      will only kick in if standards are followed.

      It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
      (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
      graphics have to have the following dimensions:
      1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096

      A cubeface of 510x510 will not be admitted for graphics acceleration. Nor
      will a cubeface of 2548 or an equi with dimensions of 8400x4200. The
      hardware acceleration can not and will not handle those optimally. Those
      who are still rendering their panos in sizes that are not covered by the
      power of two standards, will wake up with a headache later on, and have to
      re-render their panos in the future if they want those to be displayed in
      optimal quality with future technology.

      This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and not some
      "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All iDevices are already
      bound by these standards.

      So..... for preparing for the inevitable future (and the past 4 years),
      people need to start working in the power of two terms, and that will pay
      off.

      Trausti


      On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:50 AM, Jim Watters
      <jwatters@...>wrote:It worked fine on my PC but also had
      problem viewing on Android.

      >
      > I have been using Pano2VR to publish my panos recently and they work on my
      > Android phone.
      > 8400 X 4200 pano.
      > Faces of 510, 1528, and 2548 with tiled to 510 with 1 pixel overlap
      > creating
      > tiles of 512x512.
      > The 510 are embed in the swf file, the 1528 and 2548 are decoded at
      > startup.
      > http://photocreations.ca/camp/?Camp2011_16#Camp2011_16
      >
      > With yours, with the phone in portrait mode, and not going full screen, so
      > it is
      > only a small thumbnail size, I believe it was downloading all the faces and
      >
      > tiles. At 30% download flash would run out of memory and close. Even 1530
      > marked
      > as Embed or Load_at_startup might be too much.
      >
      > For touchscreen devices using flash it is necessary to add zoom in/out
      > buttons.
      > I have also added a button to switch to drag mode on touchscreen devices.
      >
      > --
      > Jim Watters
      > http://photocreations.ca
      >


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Roger D Williams
      Trausti, thanks for the heads up. I sometimes see people talking about not only cube-face dimensions but also a plus 1 or plus 2 margin for the seams. How
      Message 2 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Trausti, thanks for the heads up.

        I sometimes see people talking about not only cube-face dimensions but also a "plus 1" or "plus 2" margin for the seams. How does this affect the power of two limit? Is the extra pixel (or two pixels) inside this limit or outside it? Or is the critical dimension that of the original equirectangular image only?

        Roger W.

        Sent from my iPad

        On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

        > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
        >
        > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the future
        > will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile devices are
        > dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11, hardware acceleration
        > will only kick in if standards are followed.
        >
        > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
        > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
        > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
        > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
      • Trausti Hraunfjord
        The limit is very strict, so an extra pixel for overlapping will render the image useless for hardware acceleration. I can t speak for different players apart
        Message 3 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          The limit is very strict, so an extra pixel for overlapping will render the
          image useless for hardware acceleration.

          I can't speak for different players apart from Flash, but in the case of
          Flash 11, there will be absolutely no need for an extra pixel added to
          cubefaces in order to try and avoid a seam opening up. F11 will
          automatically keep things correctly aligned.
          The need for an extra pixel for overlaps is based on bad math that needs to
          be "saved", and it has not been a real problem until now, but that seems to
          be about to change.

          Trausti



          On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Roger D Williams <roger@...>wrote:

          >
          >
          > Trausti, thanks for the heads up.
          >
          > I sometimes see people talking about not only cube-face dimensions but also
          > a "plus 1" or "plus 2" margin for the seams. How does this affect the power
          > of two limit? Is the extra pixel (or two pixels) inside this limit or
          > outside it? Or is the critical dimension that of the original
          > equirectangular image only?
          >
          > Roger W.
          >
          > Sent from my iPad
          >
          >
          > On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
          > trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
          >
          > > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
          > >
          > > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
          > future
          > > will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile devices are
          > > dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11, hardware acceleration
          > > will only kick in if standards are followed.
          > >
          > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
          > > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
          > > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
          > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
          >


          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • erik_leeman
          Thank you Trausti. May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels? That was not by accident. Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an
          Message 4 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Thank you Trausti.
            May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels? That was not by accident.

            Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
            Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
            So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
            The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded separately.

            My initial test had many more levels, 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570, but I found that in both a window of 1000x540 and full screen on my 1920x1200 monitor only three levels were actually used with a bias setting of 0.35, so I threw out all the unused ones.

            I tried to make it clear from the start that I am NOT interested in displaying VR panoramas on mobile devices. ANYONE (well, almost anyone) can make panos for those postage-stamp sized screens, you can even do it using the device itself! There is absolutely no way we can ever compete on that level with companies like Google, forget it!

            What I AM interested in is distributing and displaying interactive 360x180 images that are NOT easy to make, special-purpose VR panos with a level of detail and image quality that require a BIG screen. That is what this thread was intended to be about.

            Cheers!

            Erik Leeman

            <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
            >
            > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
            >
            > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
            > future will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile
            > devices are dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11,
            > hardware acceleration will only kick in if standards are followed.
            >
            > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two"
            > concept (this is not a request, but a requirement). The power of
            > two means that graphics have to have the following dimensions:
            > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
            >
            > A cubeface of 510x510 will not be admitted for graphics
            > acceleration. Nor will a cubeface of 2548 or an equi with
            > dimensions of 8400x4200. The hardware acceleration can not and will
            > not handle those optimally. Those who are still rendering their
            > panos in sizes that are not covered by the power of two standards,
            > will wake up with a headache later on, and have to
            > re-render their panos in the future if they want those to be
            > displayed in optimal quality with future technology.
            >
            > This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and
            > not some "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All
            > iDevices are already bound by these standards.
            >
            > So..... for preparing for the inevitable future (and the past 4
            > years), people need to start working in the power of two terms, and
            > that will pay off.
            >
            > Trausti
          • Trausti Hraunfjord
            Sorry if I may have taken this a bit off track, that was not the intent. I am quite interested in your projects... even when I may come across as grumpy...
            Message 5 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Sorry if I may have taken this a bit off track, that was not the intent. I
              am quite interested in your projects... even when I may come across as
              grumpy... that's just how I am... the loader issue I addressed earlier is
              however a real issue for slower connections such as the one I am forced to
              use (there is nothing faster and more stable available in the country than
              what I have). I do look forward to better speeds world wide, a future where
              we don't have to reduce image quality/size in order to meet low speed
              comnections.

              Back on track, and I hope the info I put up will be of some use for others.

              Trausti

              On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:24 PM, erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...> wrote:

              >
              >
              > Thank you Trausti.
              > May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels?
              > That was not by accident.
              >
              > Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
              > Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
              > So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
              > The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded
              > separately.
              >
              > My initial test had many more levels, 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570,
              > but I found that in both a window of 1000x540 and full screen on my
              > 1920x1200 monitor only three levels were actually used with a bias setting
              > of 0.35, so I threw out all the unused ones.
              >
              > I tried to make it clear from the start that I am NOT interested in
              > displaying VR panoramas on mobile devices. ANYONE (well, almost anyone) can
              > make panos for those postage-stamp sized screens, you can even do it using
              > the device itself! There is absolutely no way we can ever compete on that
              > level with companies like Google, forget it!
              >
              > What I AM interested in is distributing and displaying interactive 360x180
              > images that are NOT easy to make, special-purpose VR panos with a level of
              > detail and image quality that require a BIG screen. That is what this thread
              > was intended to be about.
              >
              >
              > Cheers!
              >
              > Erik Leeman
              >
              > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
              >
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
              > >
              > > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
              > >
              > > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
              > > future will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile
              > > devices are dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11,
              > > hardware acceleration will only kick in if standards are followed.
              > >
              > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two"
              > > concept (this is not a request, but a requirement). The power of
              > > two means that graphics have to have the following dimensions:
              > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
              > >
              > > A cubeface of 510x510 will not be admitted for graphics
              > > acceleration. Nor will a cubeface of 2548 or an equi with
              > > dimensions of 8400x4200. The hardware acceleration can not and will
              > > not handle those optimally. Those who are still rendering their
              > > panos in sizes that are not covered by the power of two standards,
              > > will wake up with a headache later on, and have to
              > > re-render their panos in the future if they want those to be
              > > displayed in optimal quality with future technology.
              > >
              > > This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and
              > > not some "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All
              > > iDevices are already bound by these standards.
              > >
              > > So..... for preparing for the inevitable future (and the past 4
              > > years), people need to start working in the power of two terms, and
              > > that will pay off.
              > >
              > > Trausti
              >
              >
              >


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • Ken Warner
              Erik, I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two. I won t go into the technical details here because I probably wouldn t get it right
              Message 6 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                Erik,

                I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two.
                I won't go into the technical details here because I probably wouldn't
                get it right with the current graphics cards being so advanced.

                But I have a question and need clarification.

                A one pixel overlap on a 510x510 tile will give you 512x512
                tiles. However, a multiple of 510 will give more than 1 pixel overlap

                512; 1024; 1536; 2048 etc. are the multiples of two. So you want
                1534 to give you a one pixel overlap not 1530 --- and same for other
                multiples. The multiples are of (for example)512 - 2 = 510 to get the tile
                size right or 2048 - 2 = 2046 etc.

                Am I wrong?

                erik_leeman wrote:
                > Thank you Trausti.
                > May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels? That was not by accident.
                >
                > Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
                > Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
                > So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
                > The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded separately.
                >
              • Sacha Griffin
                What happened with the thread 6 weeks ago apparently debunking this whole idea? I admit I didn t pay much attention but still.... Sacha Griffin Southern
                Message 7 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  What happened with the thread 6 weeks ago apparently debunking this whole
                  idea? I admit I didn't pay much attention but still....

                  Sacha Griffin
                  Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                  http://www.seeit360.net
                  http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
                  http://www.facebook.com/panoramas/
                  IM: sachagriffin007@...
                  Office: 404-551-4275
                  GV: 404-665-9990


                  On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:



                  Erik,

                  I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two.
                  I won't go into the technical details here because I probably wouldn't
                  get it right with the current graphics cards being so advanced.

                  But I have a question and need clarification.

                  A one pixel overlap on a 510x510 tile will give you 512x512
                  tiles. However, a multiple of 510 will give more than 1 pixel overlap

                  512; 1024; 1536; 2048 etc. are the multiples of two. So you want
                  1534 to give you a one pixel overlap not 1530 --- and same for other
                  multiples. The multiples are of (for example)512 - 2 = 510 to get the tile
                  size right or 2048 - 2 = 2046 etc.

                  Am I wrong?

                  erik_leeman wrote:
                  > Thank you Trausti.
                  > May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels?
                  That was not by accident.
                  >
                  > Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
                  > Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
                  > So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
                  > The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded
                  separately.
                  >



                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • Ken Warner
                  I think the first thread was about the affect of powers of two on image quality which is (in my opinion) a non issue. But this is about efficiency and hardware
                  Message 8 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I think the first thread was about the affect of powers of two on image quality
                    which is (in my opinion) a non issue.

                    But this is about efficiency and hardware acceleration and OpenGL textures
                    and powers of two which (I think) do bear on efficiency because of the way
                    blocks of memory (image buffers) are moved around. I could be wrong.

                    Sacha Griffin wrote:
                    > What happened with the thread 6 weeks ago apparently debunking this whole
                    > idea? I admit I didn't pay much attention but still....
                    >
                    > Sacha Griffin
                    > Southern Digital Solutions LLC - Atlanta, Georgia
                    > http://www.seeit360.net
                    > http://twitter.com/SeeIt360
                    > http://www.facebook.com/panoramas/
                    > IM: sachagriffin007@...
                    > Office: 404-551-4275
                    > GV: 404-665-9990
                    >
                    >
                    > On Jun 2, 2011, at 8:58 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > Erik,
                    >
                    > I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two.
                    > I won't go into the technical details here because I probably wouldn't
                    > get it right with the current graphics cards being so advanced.
                    >
                    > But I have a question and need clarification.
                    >
                    > A one pixel overlap on a 510x510 tile will give you 512x512
                    > tiles. However, a multiple of 510 will give more than 1 pixel overlap
                    >
                    > 512; 1024; 1536; 2048 etc. are the multiples of two. So you want
                    > 1534 to give you a one pixel overlap not 1530 --- and same for other
                    > multiples. The multiples are of (for example)512 - 2 = 510 to get the tile
                    > size right or 2048 - 2 = 2046 etc.
                    >
                    > Am I wrong?
                    >
                    > erik_leeman wrote:
                    >> Thank you Trausti.
                    >> May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels?
                    > That was not by accident.
                    >> Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
                    >> Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
                    >> So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
                    >> The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded
                    > separately.
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > ------------------------------------
                    >
                  • Hans
                    ... Erik, Android is by no means just miniscreens, there are dozens of tablets in different sizes on the way and they all use pretty small processors. In
                    Message 9 of 27 , Jun 2, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Thank you Trausti.
                      > May I remind you that the tiles I used for this test were 512x512 pixels? That was not by accident.
                      >
                      > Pano2VR can make 510x510 tiles with an overlap of 1 pixels all around.
                      > Width: 1+510+1=512 Height: ditto, 512x512.
                      > So I chose multiples of 510 (1530-2550-3570) for my cube face levels.
                      > The 1530 level is embedded in the .swf, the others are (pre)loaded separately.
                      >
                      > My initial test had many more levels, 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570, but I found that in both a window of 1000x540 and full screen on my 1920x1200 monitor only three levels were actually used with a bias setting of 0.35, so I threw out all the unused ones.
                      >
                      > I tried to make it clear from the start that I am NOT interested in displaying VR panoramas on mobile devices. ANYONE (well, almost anyone) can make panos for those postage-stamp sized screens, you can even do it using the device itself! There is absolutely no way we can ever compete on that level with companies like Google, forget it!
                      >


                      Erik,
                      Android is by no means just miniscreens, there are dozens of tablets in different sizes on the way and they all use pretty small processors. In addition we also have TVs with internet and Android coming.

                      So you have to look forward unless you want to change it all at some time. As far as I remember you was also one of the first here with an iPad which you highly prised.

                      Hans



                      > What I AM interested in is distributing and displaying interactive 360x180 images that are NOT easy to make, special-purpose VR panos with a level of detail and image quality that require a BIG screen. That is what this thread was intended to be about.
                      >
                      > Cheers!
                      >
                      > Erik Leeman
                      >
                      > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                      >
                      > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:
                      > >
                      > > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
                      > >
                      > > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
                      > > future will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile
                      > > devices are dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11,
                      > > hardware acceleration will only kick in if standards are followed.
                      > >
                      > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two"
                      > > concept (this is not a request, but a requirement). The power of
                      > > two means that graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                      > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                      > >
                      > > A cubeface of 510x510 will not be admitted for graphics
                      > > acceleration. Nor will a cubeface of 2548 or an equi with
                      > > dimensions of 8400x4200. The hardware acceleration can not and will
                      > > not handle those optimally. Those who are still rendering their
                      > > panos in sizes that are not covered by the power of two standards,
                      > > will wake up with a headache later on, and have to
                      > > re-render their panos in the future if they want those to be
                      > > displayed in optimal quality with future technology.
                      > >
                      > > This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and
                      > > not some "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All
                      > > iDevices are already bound by these standards.
                      > >
                      > > So..... for preparing for the inevitable future (and the past 4
                      > > years), people need to start working in the power of two terms, and
                      > > that will pay off.
                      > >
                      > > Trausti
                      >
                    • Hans
                      ... I have to say that this Pano2VR extra pixels idea seems to be his own. He used it also for Quicktime and I never understood why. There is no reason for
                      Message 10 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > The limit is very strict, so an extra pixel for overlapping will render the
                        > image useless for hardware acceleration.
                        >
                        > I can't speak for different players apart from Flash, but in the case of
                        > Flash 11, there will be absolutely no need for an extra pixel added to
                        > cubefaces in order to try and avoid a seam opening up. F11 will
                        > automatically keep things correctly aligned.
                        > The need for an extra pixel for overlaps is based on bad math that needs to
                        > be "saved", and it has not been a real problem until now, but that seems to
                        > be about to change.



                        I have to say that this Pano2VR extra pixels idea seems to be his own. He used it also for Quicktime and I never understood why. There is no reason for it.

                        Someone else explained it more technically some time ago.

                        Hans




                        >
                        > Trausti
                        >
                        >
                        >
                        > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Roger D Williams <roger@...>wrote:
                        >
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > Trausti, thanks for the heads up.
                        > >
                        > > I sometimes see people talking about not only cube-face dimensions but also
                        > > a "plus 1" or "plus 2" margin for the seams. How does this affect the power
                        > > of two limit? Is the extra pixel (or two pixels) inside this limit or
                        > > outside it? Or is the critical dimension that of the original
                        > > equirectangular image only?
                        > >
                        > > Roger W.
                        > >
                        > > Sent from my iPad
                        > >
                        > >
                        > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
                        > > trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
                        > > >
                        > > > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
                        > > future
                        > > > will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile devices are
                        > > > dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11, hardware acceleration
                        > > > will only kick in if standards are followed.
                        > > >
                        > > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
                        > > > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
                        > > > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                        > > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                        > >
                        >
                        >
                        > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        >
                      • tom_a_sparks
                        ... the reason, is the texture maps are created in wraparound memory When Bilinear filtering is used some poorly coded versions are not clamped to the texture
                        Message 11 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@> wrote:
                          > >
                          > > The limit is very strict, so an extra pixel for overlapping will render the
                          > > image useless for hardware acceleration.
                          > >
                          > > I can't speak for different players apart from Flash, but in the case of
                          > > Flash 11, there will be absolutely no need for an extra pixel added to
                          > > cubefaces in order to try and avoid a seam opening up. F11 will
                          > > automatically keep things correctly aligned.
                          > > The need for an extra pixel for overlaps is based on bad math that needs to
                          > > be "saved", and it has not been a real problem until now, but that seems to
                          > > be about to change.
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > I have to say that this Pano2VR extra pixels idea seems to be his own. He used it also for Quicktime and I never understood why. There is no reason for it.
                          >
                          > Someone else explained it more technically some time ago.
                          >

                          the reason, is the texture maps are created in wraparound memory
                          When Bilinear filtering is used some poorly coded versions are not clamped to the texture map size, and access other sides of the texture map

                          some information about bilinear filtering http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bilinear_filtering



                          > Hans
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > >
                          > > Trausti
                          > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 6:05 PM, Roger D Williams <roger@>wrote:
                          > >
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > Trausti, thanks for the heads up.
                          > > >
                          > > > I sometimes see people talking about not only cube-face dimensions but also
                          > > > a "plus 1" or "plus 2" margin for the seams. How does this affect the power
                          > > > of two limit? Is the extra pixel (or two pixels) inside this limit or
                          > > > outside it? Or is the critical dimension that of the original
                          > > > equirectangular image only?
                          > > >
                          > > > Roger W.
                          > > >
                          > > > Sent from my iPad
                          > > >
                          > > >
                          > > > On Jun 3, 2011, at 7:09 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
                          > > > trausti.hraunfjord@> wrote:
                          > > >
                          > > > > Just chiming in here with some boring facts.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > Hardware acceleration has been with us for 4 years already, and the
                          > > > future
                          > > > > will depend much more on it that it already does. The mobile devices are
                          > > > > dictated by OpenGL 2 ES already, and with Flash 11, hardware acceleration
                          > > > > will only kick in if standards are followed.
                          > > > >
                          > > > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
                          > > > > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
                          > > > > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                          > > > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                          > > >
                          > >
                          > >
                          > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                          > >
                          >
                        • erik_leeman
                          Hans, For me TVs with internet capability do NOT fall into the portable device category, and they are MOST welcome in the context of this thread! I have no
                          Message 12 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Hans,
                            For me TVs with internet capability do NOT fall into the 'portable device' category, and they are MOST welcome in the context of this thread! I have no doubt whatsoever that BIG screen devices running on (a special version of) Android will be able to handle content that is scaled accordingly, and I am sure they will be perfectly capable to show high resolution interactive panoramas.

                            Displaying interactive LOW RES panos on handheld devices is hardly a challenge, and ANYONE can produce reasonably acceptable content for them. I simply cannot generate the sheer volume that is necessary to survive in that segment, so I lost whatever interest I had in it.

                            My enthusiasm for the iPad was for a specific reason: finally I had instant access to my interactive panoramas during a (casual) conversation. For me that still is its ultimate purpose.
                            But as you might ALSO remember I was also one of the first to notice, and then sharply criticize its inability to use that wonderful screen to its full potential.

                            Handheld (or stationary) devices with screens of 1024x768 pixels and smaller are NOT what I aim for. I have no hesitation to make my work available for them, but priority it has not.

                            Erik Leeman

                            <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

                            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" wrote:

                            > Erik,
                            > Android is by no means just miniscreens, there are dozens of tablets
                            > in different sizes on the way and they all use pretty small
                            > processors. In addition we also have TVs with internet and Android
                            > coming.
                            >
                            > So you have to look forward unless you want to change it all at some
                            > time. As far as I remember you was also one of the first here with
                            > an iPad which you highly prised.
                            >
                            > Hans
                          • erik_leeman
                            Hi Ken, I think you are confusing tiles and cube faces here. In this Pano2VR context tiles are the building blocks of a multi resolution panorama. They are
                            Message 13 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Hi Ken,

                              I think you are confusing tiles and cube faces here.
                              In this Pano2VR context tiles are the 'building blocks' of a multi resolution panorama. They are the .jpeg files that have to be shoveled in and out of the graphics engine in large numbers. Inside that graphics engine there is, as I understand it, one big soup of data, in which those cube faces do not really exist as such, they are abstract entities. Therefore I think their dimensions are not relevant, as long as they completely fit into the available amount of memory. But I could be wrong of course.
                              The dimensions of those individual .jpegs on the other hand does matter. Not only for logistic purposes, but also for the efficiency of the JPEG compression algorithm. I do not have a link to solid information about this at hand, but what I remember is that you have to limit bitmap dimensions to multiples of 16x16 pixels because JPEG compression works best that way. 512x512 complies nicely to that requirement.

                              Selecting cubefaces from a range of 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570 in the Multiresolution tab of Pano2VR, a tile size of 510, AND an overlap of 1 pixel for each tile seems to me to be the way to 'get it right'. But again, I could be wrong.

                              Cheers!

                              Erik Leeman

                              <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

                              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner wrote:
                              >
                              > Erik,
                              >
                              > I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two.
                              > I won't go into the technical details here because I probably
                              > wouldn't get it right with the current graphics cards being so
                              > advanced.
                              >
                              > But I have a question and need clarification.
                              >
                              > A one pixel overlap on a 510x510 tile will give you 512x512
                              > tiles. However, a multiple of 510 will give more than 1 pixel
                              > overlap
                              >
                              > 512; 1024; 1536; 2048 etc. are the multiples of two. So you want
                              > 1534 to give you a one pixel overlap not 1530 --- and same for
                              > other multiples. The multiples are of (for example)512 - 2 = 510 to
                              > get the tile size right or 2048 - 2 = 2046 etc.
                              >
                              > Am I wrong?
                            • Hans
                              ... Well, If you exchange the iPad to one of the newer Android tablets and use KRPano you can. They should work just as well as my 3.7 Desire Z which has no
                              Message 14 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > Hans,
                                > For me TVs with internet capability do NOT fall into the 'portable device' category, and they are MOST welcome in the context of this thread! I have no doubt whatsoever that BIG screen devices running on (a special version of) Android will be able to handle content that is scaled accordingly, and I am sure they will be perfectly capable to show high resolution interactive panoramas.
                                >
                                > Displaying interactive LOW RES panos on handheld devices is hardly a challenge, and ANYONE can produce reasonably acceptable content for them. I simply cannot generate the sheer volume that is necessary to survive in that segment, so I lost whatever interest I had in it.
                                >
                                > My enthusiasm for the iPad was for a specific reason: finally I had instant access to my interactive panoramas during a (casual) conversation. For me that still is its ultimate purpose.
                                > But as you might ALSO remember I was also one of the first to notice, and then sharply criticize its inability to use that wonderful screen to its full potential.

                                Well,
                                If you exchange the iPad to one of the newer Android tablets and use KRPano you can.
                                They should work just as well as my 3.7" Desire Z which has no problems with even 5 gigapixel panos as long as you supply the zoom navigation buttons for it.

                                I like my iPad very much also but it has limits which Apple or HTML5 never will change.

                                Hans

                                >
                                > Handheld (or stationary) devices with screens of 1024x768 pixels and smaller are NOT what I aim for. I have no hesitation to make my work available for them, but priority it has not.
                                >
                                > Erik Leeman
                                >
                                > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                                >
                                > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" wrote:
                                >
                                > > Erik,
                                > > Android is by no means just miniscreens, there are dozens of tablets
                                > > in different sizes on the way and they all use pretty small
                                > > processors. In addition we also have TVs with internet and Android
                                > > coming.
                                > >
                                > > So you have to look forward unless you want to change it all at some
                                > > time. As far as I remember you was also one of the first here with
                                > > an iPad which you highly prised.
                                > >
                                > > Hans
                                >
                              • Ken Warner
                                Hi Erik, Yes, I understand the jpeg compression block thing. I thought it was 8x8 but no matter. 512 is a handy size for lots of memory management issues as
                                Message 15 of 27 , Jun 3, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  Hi Erik,

                                  Yes, I understand the jpeg compression block thing. I thought it
                                  was 8x8 but no matter. 512 is a handy size for lots of memory management
                                  issues as is 1024.

                                  I also don't have a clue as to what is going on deep inside the rendering
                                  engine. It would be nice to know more about that and if you really have
                                  to have overlap for every 512 (or 510) block of memory or just for
                                  the whole cube face.

                                  I remember once an experiment I did with OpenGL and WebGL putting together
                                  6 cube faces. I got visible seams on the edges but nowhere else. Someone
                                  suggested a particular parameter for one of the OpenGL functions that
                                  blended the seams. I forget the details now.

                                  erik_leeman wrote:
                                  > Hi Ken,
                                  >
                                  > I think you are confusing tiles and cube faces here.
                                  > In this Pano2VR context tiles are the 'building blocks' of a multi resolution panorama. They are the .jpeg files that have to be shoveled in and out of the graphics engine in large numbers. Inside that graphics engine there is, as I understand it, one big soup of data, in which those cube faces do not really exist as such, they are abstract entities. Therefore I think their dimensions are not relevant, as long as they completely fit into the available amount of memory. But I could be wrong of course.
                                  > The dimensions of those individual .jpegs on the other hand does matter. Not only for logistic purposes, but also for the efficiency of the JPEG compression algorithm. I do not have a link to solid information about this at hand, but what I remember is that you have to limit bitmap dimensions to multiples of 16x16 pixels because JPEG compression works best that way. 512x512 complies nicely to that requirement.
                                  >
                                  > Selecting cubefaces from a range of 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570 in the Multiresolution tab of Pano2VR, a tile size of 510, AND an overlap of 1 pixel for each tile seems to me to be the way to 'get it right'. But again, I could be wrong.
                                  >
                                  > Cheers!
                                  >
                                  > Erik Leeman
                                  >
                                  > <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/> <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
                                  >
                                  > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner wrote:
                                  >> Erik,
                                  >>
                                  >> I understand the need for sizes of textures to be a power of two.
                                  >> I won't go into the technical details here because I probably
                                  >> wouldn't get it right with the current graphics cards being so
                                  >> advanced.
                                  >>
                                  >> But I have a question and need clarification.
                                  >>
                                  >> A one pixel overlap on a 510x510 tile will give you 512x512
                                  >> tiles. However, a multiple of 510 will give more than 1 pixel
                                  >> overlap
                                  >>
                                  >> 512; 1024; 1536; 2048 etc. are the multiples of two. So you want
                                  >> 1534 to give you a one pixel overlap not 1530 --- and same for
                                  >> other multiples. The multiples are of (for example)512 - 2 = 510 to
                                  >> get the tile size right or 2048 - 2 = 2046 etc.
                                  >>
                                  >> Am I wrong?
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Erik Krause
                                  ... [...] ... Do you have a source for this claim? According to Nvidia documentation (PDF): http://tinyurl.com/5s47pnz Previously core OpenGL required texture
                                  Message 16 of 27 , Jun 7, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Am 03.06.2011 00:09, schrieb Trausti Hraunfjord:
                                    > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
                                    > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
                                    > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                                    > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                                    >
                                    [...]
                                    >
                                    > This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and not some
                                    > "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All iDevices are already
                                    > bound by these standards.

                                    Do you have a source for this claim? According to Nvidia documentation
                                    (PDF): http://tinyurl.com/5s47pnz "Previously core OpenGL required
                                    texture images (not including border texels) to be a power-of-two size
                                    in width, height, and depth. OpenGL 2.0 allows arbitrary sizes for
                                    width, height, and depth"

                                    Regarding Flash hardware acceleration Adobe writes in
                                    http://tinyurl.com/3qssbwz "Your bitmap dimensions do not have to be a
                                    power of two, but the more iterations over which they can be evenly
                                    divided, the better."

                                    However, if I understand
                                    http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/WebGL_and_OpenGL_Differences
                                    correctly, non-power-of-two textures can't be mip-mapped in OpenGL and
                                    WebGL, which indeed would be a drawback. But the page also describes a
                                    mechanism how to work around this limitation...

                                    --
                                    Erik Krause
                                    http://www.erik-krause.de
                                  • Trausti Hraunfjord
                                    I am the source of the claim. You can read other sources with different claims, such as the ones you have provided. Here is one that deals with the issue
                                    Message 17 of 27 , Jun 7, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      I am the source of the claim.

                                      You can read other sources with different claims, such as the ones you have
                                      provided. Here is one that deals with the issue based on mipmapping, which
                                      is the way our F11 based panorama engine handles things.
                                      http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/7927/why-would-you-use-textures-that-are-not-a-power-of-2
                                      Of course there exist workarounds, and some workarounds may be quite ok, but
                                      still, the best way to do things, is the right way.

                                      Probably I was too general in my claim, but since I am not an expert, nor a
                                      rocket scientist or a math genius, I only claimed what I thought to be
                                      absolutely true. More knowledge doesn't hurt, and I have read a little more
                                      about the subject. My previous knowledge comes from my programmer:

                                      I asked: So it will not be possible to use cubefaces that are 2500x2500
                                      pixels?
                                      He answered: No. Mipmapping for the GPU requires the power of two sizes.

                                      There was more, but from that I based my claim.

                                      Trausti



                                      On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 2:26 AM, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:

                                      > Am 03.06.2011 00:09, schrieb Trausti Hraunfjord:
                                      > > It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
                                      > > (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
                                      > > graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                                      > > 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                                      > >
                                      > [...]
                                      > >
                                      > > This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and not
                                      > some
                                      > > "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All iDevices are already
                                      > > bound by these standards.
                                      >
                                      > Do you have a source for this claim? According to Nvidia documentation
                                      > (PDF): http://tinyurl.com/5s47pnz "Previously core OpenGL required
                                      > texture images (not including border texels) to be a power-of-two size
                                      > in width, height, and depth. OpenGL 2.0 allows arbitrary sizes for
                                      > width, height, and depth"
                                      >
                                      > Regarding Flash hardware acceleration Adobe writes in
                                      > http://tinyurl.com/3qssbwz "Your bitmap dimensions do not have to be a
                                      > power of two, but the more iterations over which they can be evenly
                                      > divided, the better."
                                      >
                                      > However, if I understand
                                      > http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/WebGL_and_OpenGL_Differences
                                      > correctly, non-power-of-two textures can't be mip-mapped in OpenGL and
                                      > WebGL, which indeed would be a drawback. But the page also describes a
                                      > mechanism how to work around this limitation...
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      > Erik Krause
                                      > http://www.erik-krause.de
                                      >
                                      >
                                      > ------------------------------------
                                      >
                                      > --
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >
                                      >


                                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    • Wim Koornneef
                                      ... I agree but I think it is good to give an explanation why. With the default base tile size and the default steps of the tiles you most times get a lot of
                                      Message 18 of 27 , Jun 7, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        erik_leeman wrote:
                                        > .....
                                        > Selecting cubefaces from a range of 510-1020-1530-2040-2550-3060-3570 in
                                        > the Multiresolution tab of Pano2VR, a tile size of 510, AND an overlap of
                                        > 1 pixel for each tile seems to me to be the way to 'get it right'.......
                                        >

                                        I agree but I think it is good to give an explanation why.

                                        With the default base tile size and the default steps of the tiles you most
                                        times get a lot of tiles in each of the tile sets that are not equel in
                                        height and width, by doing some math yourself you can make sure that each
                                        tile in a set has the same size for height and width.
                                        By doing this you reduce the number of tiles in each tile set and this can
                                        speed up the download and processing time.

                                        By adding extra steps of tiles the transitions will be better, with the
                                        default number of tile steps you will see that when you are zooming in and
                                        are getting closer to the point that new tiles will be displayed that the
                                        image will be a bit fuzzy and then when you zoom further in suddenly (when
                                        the tiles are changed) the image will be sharp. With an extra step you will
                                        not see the point where the tiles are changed.

                                        Of course the total pano size will be larger with extra steps but you get
                                        extra quality back for it (better transitions and less visible shimmering)
                                        and when viewing the pano with a normal computer and an average internet
                                        speed connection the extra total size is not an issue.

                                        Skipping steps as Erik did is possible when you know the size of the screens
                                        you are making the panos for.
                                        It is a bit of work but when you make a pano with many steps from from very
                                        small to the max with extra steps in between and then give the tiles that
                                        contains the same part of the scene a "visible" number with photoshop that
                                        correspondents with the step then when you zoom in and out you can see the
                                        numbers in the pano changing.
                                        Also zoom in and out with a different size of the viewer window and by doing
                                        this you know which tiles are used for a specific display size.
                                        You can also use this test to see what happens when you change the bias and
                                        other settings.

                                        Wim




                                        --
                                        View this message in context: http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/Quest-for-effective-high-res-360x180-VR-pano-distribution-tp3565426p3579050.html
                                        Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
                                      • Ken Warner
                                        1) WebGL and iDevices are OpenGL ES (embedded systems) Not clear to me if what you can say for OpenGL applies to OpenGL ES. I know some parameters to some
                                        Message 19 of 27 , Jun 7, 2011
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          1) WebGL and iDevices are OpenGL ES (embedded systems) Not clear to me
                                          if what you can say for OpenGL applies to OpenGL ES. I know some parameters
                                          to some functions are different.

                                          2) There is no rule that says the edge of a texture has to be mapped to a
                                          particular place on a surface. And there's no rule that says "cube faces"
                                          can't be bigger than the cube they surround. It's virtual space not real space.

                                          Erik Krause wrote:
                                          > Am 03.06.2011 00:09, schrieb Trausti Hraunfjord:
                                          >> It means that cubefaces/graphics have to go by the "power of two" concept
                                          >> (this is not a request, but a requirement) . The power of two means that
                                          >> graphics have to have the following dimensions:
                                          >> 1/2/4/8/16/32/64/128/256/512/1024/2048/4096
                                          >>
                                          > [...]
                                          >> This goes for ALL hardware that is based on OpenGL 2 standards, and not some
                                          >> "evil Adobe plan" as some might like to think. All iDevices are already
                                          >> bound by these standards.
                                          >
                                          > Do you have a source for this claim? According to Nvidia documentation
                                          > (PDF): http://tinyurl.com/5s47pnz "Previously core OpenGL required
                                          > texture images (not including border texels) to be a power-of-two size
                                          > in width, height, and depth. OpenGL 2.0 allows arbitrary sizes for
                                          > width, height, and depth"
                                          >
                                          > Regarding Flash hardware acceleration Adobe writes in
                                          > http://tinyurl.com/3qssbwz "Your bitmap dimensions do not have to be a
                                          > power of two, but the more iterations over which they can be evenly
                                          > divided, the better."
                                          >
                                          > However, if I understand
                                          > http://www.khronos.org/webgl/wiki/WebGL_and_OpenGL_Differences
                                          > correctly, non-power-of-two textures can't be mip-mapped in OpenGL and
                                          > WebGL, which indeed would be a drawback. But the page also describes a
                                          > mechanism how to work around this limitation...
                                          >
                                        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.