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

Google Art Project relaunches

Expand Messages
  • Roger Howard
    http://www.googleartproject.com/ The reason I posted it here is because they captured and display StreetView panos for each participating museum as virtual
    Message 1 of 7 , Apr 3, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      http://www.googleartproject.com/

      The reason I posted it here is because they captured and display
      StreetView panos for each participating museum as virtual tour,
      replete with stitching errors and terrible color :(

      -R
    • Hans
      ... I always wondered how it is possible for such a large company to make a flash panorama viewer which performs like something they digged up from from the
      Message 2 of 7 , Apr 3, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...> wrote:
        >
        > http://www.googleartproject.com/
        >
        > The reason I posted it here is because they captured and display
        > StreetView panos for each participating museum as virtual tour,
        > replete with stitching errors and terrible color :(
        >

        I always wondered how it is possible for such a large company to make a flash panorama viewer which performs like something they digged up from from the early history of 360 interactive tours.

        Even reduced to "history" size of 300x400 pixels they performe worse than panos did 15 years ago on my 300 mHz G3

        Hans
      • Roger Howard
        ... At least performance can be incrementally improved after the fact - bad images are bad images.
        Message 3 of 7 , Apr 3, 2012
        • 0 Attachment
          On Tue, Apr 3, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Hans <hans@...> wrote:
            

          I always wondered how it is possible for such a large company to make a flash panorama viewer which performs like something they digged up from from the early history of 360 interactive tours.

          Even reduced to "history" size of 300x400 pixels they performe worse than panos did 15 years ago on my 300 mHz G3

          At least performance can be incrementally improved after the fact - bad images are bad images. 
        • prague
          I quote tom sharpless from the discussion on the facebook pano photographers page: Hey, instead of bitching, go to Google (or the White House) and sell them
          Message 4 of 7 , Apr 4, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            I quote tom sharpless from the discussion on the facebook pano photographers page:


            "Hey, instead of bitching, go to Google (or the White House) and sell them your superior services."

            ;-)

            You guys sound like sour grapes to me.


            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
            >
            >
            >
            > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@> wrote:
            > >
            > > http://www.googleartproject.com/
            > >
            > > The reason I posted it here is because they captured and display
            > > StreetView panos for each participating museum as virtual tour,
            > > replete with stitching errors and terrible color :(
            > >
            >
            > I always wondered how it is possible for such a large company to make a flash panorama viewer which performs like something they digged up from from the early history of 360 interactive tours.
            >
            > Even reduced to "history" size of 300x400 pixels they performe worse than panos did 15 years ago on my 300 mHz G3
            >
            > Hans
            >
          • Yazan Sboul
            I m not sure if its just plain bitching. They benefit from wide dissemination and unprecedented access. By peddling this kind of crap to the treasure houses of
            Message 5 of 7 , Apr 4, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              I'm not sure if its just plain bitching. They benefit from wide dissemination and unprecedented access. By peddling this kind of crap to the treasure houses of the world it begs the question : why? Google could do better, and they owe it to their "Clients" - even if it is free. The "bitching" is a result of the fact that we know more than others how much better it could be. 


              To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
              From: panoramas@...
              Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2012 12:14:35 +0000
              Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Google Art Project relaunches

               


              I quote tom sharpless from the discussion on the facebook pano photographers page:

              "Hey, instead of bitching, go to Google (or the White House) and sell them your superior services."

              ;-)

              You guys sound like sour grapes to me.

              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
              >
              >
              >
              > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@> wrote:
              > >
              > > http://www.googleartproject.com/
              > >
              > > The reason I posted it here is because they captured and display
              > > StreetView panos for each participating museum as virtual tour,
              > > replete with stitching errors and terrible color :(
              > >
              >
              > I always wondered how it is possible for such a large company to make a flash panorama viewer which performs like something they digged up from from the early history of 360 interactive tours.
              >
              > Even reduced to "history" size of 300x400 pixels they performe worse than panos did 15 years ago on my 300 mHz G3
              >
              > Hans
              >


            • Roger Howard
              ... Who did? I don t see any sour grapes in this thread. In the interest of full disclosure, I was directly involved in this project from my institution s end,
              Message 6 of 7 , Apr 4, 2012
              • 0 Attachment

                On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:14 AM, prague wrote:

                 



                I quote tom sharpless from the discussion on the facebook pano photographers page:

                "Hey, instead of bitching, go to Google (or the White House) and sell them your superior services."

                ;-)

                You guys sound like sour grapes to me.


                Who did? I don't see any sour grapes in this thread.

                In the interest of full disclosure, I was directly involved in this project from my institution's end, as one of the participating museums. We were involved for reasons that are obvious - anything we can do to increase exposure of our collection to the general public is directly part of our mission (both my team's and the institution's as a whole).

                That doesn't mean Google is above criticism. And your suggestion is a throw-away - not useful, helpful or insightful. The White House got the same deal, I imagine, the rest of us did - free. We didn't go into this with the panoramic tours as a major priority - for instance, we own a number of panoramic capture systems, from 5dMkII on 360P heads to PanoScans; the benefits to most institutions, I imagine, were the same as for ours - broad exposure, aggregation of our collection with the collections of other institutions, etc.

                -R
              • Roger Howard
                ... Bingo. Google *can* do better, we all know it. They did gigapixel imaging of select works of art with great attention to detail, great care for the quality
                Message 7 of 7 , Apr 4, 2012
                • 0 Attachment

                  On Apr 4, 2012, at 5:31 AM, Yazan Sboul wrote:

                  I'm not sure if its just plain bitching. They benefit from wide dissemination and unprecedented access. By peddling this kind of crap to the treasure houses of the world it begs the question : why? Google could do better, and they owe it to their "Clients" - even if it is free. The "bitching" is a result of the fact that we know more than others how much better it could be. 

                  Bingo. Google *can* do better, we all know it. They did gigapixel imaging of select works of art with great attention to detail, great care for the quality of the reproduction (which few institutions are prepared to do at such high standards - mine is a major exception in this regard as we have a first class imaging department). Likewise, the user experience is pretty good - and significantly improved since the previous version... the one weakness is the panoramic imaging - color and tonal quality, stitching, and the user interface.

                  They can do better, for sure, as we all know. And Google employees are all adults who can withstand criticism.
                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.