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

Suggestions for Optimising Spherical Image Quality for WWP Submission?

Expand Messages
  • Wheaton, Simon
    I have only stitched cylindrical panos in the past, and am trying to stitch my first spherical pano for this current WWP entry. I guess that in moving from
    Message 1 of 5 , Apr 1 9:42 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I have only stitched cylindrical panos in the past, and am trying to
      stitch my first spherical pano for this current WWP entry.



      I guess that in moving from cylindrical to spherical, I will have to
      accept lesser quality panos, as there is more information in the
      spherical image to fit into each of the WWP maximum file sizes for
      preview and full screen, when compared to fitting a cylindrical image
      into the same WWP maximum file sizes, is this correct?



      I am also using PTGui for the first time, after switching from PTMac for
      this WWP submission.



      I am outputting a 16-bit low-contrast equirectangular TIFF file from
      PTGui for contrast/colour adjustment in Photoshop CS2, and then using
      that adjusted 16-bit TIFF file in Pano2QTVR.



      In PTGui, I am using the settings 'Optimize using: PTGui', 'Stitch
      using: PTGui', 'Blend Using: Enblend', 'Use fast transform: Off', and
      'Interpolator: Lanczos' (as that is the default). Will these settings
      give me the best output?



      What sort of equirectangular dimensions do you use to produce the best
      quality final QTVR pano, for both the full screen and the preview WWP
      panos?



      Do you output at these sizes from PTGui, or do you output from PTGui at
      maximum optimum size, and then resize for WWP in Photoshop or similar?



      Is it best to sharpen the image in Photoshop when it is an
      equirectangular image, or do you convert it to cubic first and sharpen
      the faces then? I was thinking that maybe sharpening the equirectangular
      image might do something weird to the sharpening when converted to
      cubic, due to the distortion at the top and bottom of the
      equirectangular image.



      Why do people extract the nadir from the image to retouch it, and then
      reinsert it, why not just put the nadir image into the stitching
      program?



      I am using Pano2QTVR to convert the equirectangular image to a QTVR
      file.



      Do you use Pano2QTVR, or another program, and if another program, does
      it produce a better final pano than Pano2QTVR?



      What sort of settings do you use in Pano2QTVR for best pano quality?



      Do you set the Cube Face Size to the suggested Optimal size?



      Is there an advantage to using subdivisions, and if so, which is
      subdivision is best?



      Do you use different settings for each face, or all the same?



      What sort of Tile Quality setting do you aim for?



      In the Stitcher section, what Gamma setting and Interpolator setting
      should I use?





      Thanks,
      Simon

      Canberra

      AUSTRALIA

      -----------------------------------------------------------------------
      This email, and any attachments, may be confidential and also privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete all copies of this transmission along with any attachments immediately. You should not copy or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person.
      -----------------------------------------------------------------------


      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Erik Krause
      ... Yes, so far. However, for standard monitors the quality is sufficient if you don t allow to zoom in too far. ... Yes. Although you could turn fast
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 2 1:46 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > I guess that in moving from cylindrical to spherical, I will have to
        > accept lesser quality panos, as there is more information in the
        > spherical image to fit into each of the WWP maximum file sizes for
        > preview and full screen, when compared to fitting a cylindrical image
        > into the same WWP maximum file sizes, is this correct?
        >

        Yes, so far. However, for standard monitors the quality is sufficient if you
        don't allow to zoom in too far.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > In PTGui, I am using the settings 'Optimize using: PTGui', 'Stitch
        > using: PTGui', 'Blend Using: Enblend', 'Use fast transform: Off', and
        > 'Interpolator: Lanczos' (as that is the default). Will these settings
        > give me the best output?
        >

        Yes. Although you could turn fast transform on as well. It won't harm image
        quality.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > What sort of equirectangular dimensions do you use to produce the best
        > quality final QTVR pano, for both the full screen and the preview WWP
        > panos?
        >

        I usually use 6000x3000 for large, 3000x1500 for small size. If I don't get
        down to the required file sizes I choose smaller cube faces (not decrease
        quality).


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Do you output at these sizes from PTGui, or do you output from PTGui at
        > maximum optimum size, and then resize for WWP in Photoshop or similar?
        >

        Better to output from PTGui, since this saves one interpolation step and
        speeds up computation


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Is it best to sharpen the image in Photoshop when it is an
        > equirectangular image, or do you convert it to cubic first and sharpen
        > the faces then? I was thinking that maybe sharpening the equirectangular
        > image might do something weird to the sharpening when converted to
        > cubic, due to the distortion at the top and bottom of the
        > equirectangular image.
        >

        Usually I don't bother. But best would be to sharpen the source images,
        since the blur is evenly distributed there. And eventually sharpen the
        result images at their final size with a very small radius (below 1 pixel)
        to compensate for interpolation blur. But be cautios: The lanczos
        interpolators in PTGui already sharpen a bit.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Why do people extract the nadir from the image to retouch it, and then
        > reinsert it, why not just put the nadir image into the stitching
        > program?
        >

        No idea - may be because they didn't read my tutorial ;-)
        http://wiki.panotools.org/Stitching_Nadir_Shots


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Do you use Pano2QTVR, or another program, and if another program, does
        > it produce a better final pano than Pano2QTVR?
        >

        Hardly possible. If you are not satisfied with Jpeg compression simply
        export cubefaces, compress externally and create the QTVR from those Jpegs.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > What sort of settings do you use in Pano2QTVR for best pano quality?
        >

        For large: High quality panning and Max statical, for small: Normal for
        panning and Max statical.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Do you set the Cube Face Size to the suggested Optimal size?
        >

        Yes, usually. I decrease it only if the files get too large.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Is there an advantage to using subdivisions, and if so, which is
        > subdivision is best?
        >

        I use 3x3 for large. File size sometimes is a bit lower and the user gets a
        visible image sooner.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > Do you use different settings for each face, or all the same?
        >

        Usually the same. If I have problems with file size and banding f.e. I play
        with the individual settings.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > What sort of Tile Quality setting do you aim for?
        >

        Not lower than 40%, as high as the file size permits.


        Wheaton, Simon wrote:
        >
        > In the Stitcher section, what Gamma setting and Interpolator setting
        > should I use?
        >

        Gamma 2.2 and Lanczos3, which does a slight sharpening.

        best regards
        Erik
        --
        View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Suggestions-for-Optimising-Spherical-Image-Quality-for-WWP-Submission--tf3503670.html#a9786906
        Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
      • Hans Nyberg
        ... Be carefull with that. Resizing directly from PTGui will cause pixalation in some subjects if you do it to smaller sizes than 60% of you max resolution.
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 2 2:23 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Erik Krause <erik.krause@...> wrote:
          >> Wheaton, Simon wrote:
          > >
          > > I guess that in moving from cylindrical to spherical, I will have to
          > > accept lesser quality panos, as there is more information in the
          > > spherical image to fit into each of the WWP maximum file sizes for
          > > preview and full screen, when compared to fitting a cylindrical image
          > > into the same WWP maximum file sizes, is this correct?
          > Wheaton, Simon wrote:
          > >
          > > Do you output at these sizes from PTGui, or do you output from PTGui at
          > > maximum optimum size, and then resize for WWP in Photoshop or similar?
          > >
          >
          > Better to output from PTGui, since this saves one interpolation step and
          > speeds up computation

          Be carefull with that.
          Resizing directly from PTGui will cause pixalation in some subjects if you do it to smaller
          sizes than 60% of you max resolution.
          This seems to have been a bug in PTGui since long ago and it is the same on Mac and
          Windows.

          This means if your originals give you a max size of 10.000 you can output a 6000 from
          PTgui but than you have to resize this in Photoshop to 3000 for the smaller.

          I always output full resolution from PTGui and optimize that original for colors and
          sharpening and ev. stitching errors.
          For fullscreen I resize it to 6000x3000 and use a cubeface of usually 1500x1500

          > Wheaton, Simon wrote:
          > >
          > > What sort of settings do you use in Pano2QTVR for best pano quality?
          > >
          >
          > For large: High quality panning and Max statical, for small: Normal for
          > panning and Max statical.
          >

          Erik, are you sure you did not make a typo.

          You can use High Quality panning for small movies but for large fullscreen you should use
          normal as panning can get very stuttering with high quality.
          Especially on an older machine.

          Hans
        • Erik Krause
          ... With PTGui internal remap or with Panotools remap? And which interpolator? ... My usual panos give a max size of about 12000 and I usually output 8000.
          Message 4 of 5 , Apr 2 6:44 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Monday, April 02, 2007 at 9:23, Hans Nyberg wrote:

            > > Better to output from PTGui, since this saves one interpolation step and
            > > speeds up computation
            >
            > Be carefull with that. Resizing directly from PTGui will cause
            > pixalation in some subjects if you do it to smaller sizes than 60% of
            > you max resolution. This seems to have been a bug in PTGui since long
            > ago and it is the same on Mac and Windows.

            With PTGui internal remap or with Panotools remap? And which
            interpolator?

            > This means if your originals give you a max size of 10.000 you can
            > output a 6000 from PTgui but than you have to resize this in Photoshop
            > to 3000 for the smaller.

            My usual panos give a max size of about 12000 and I usually output
            8000. With PTGui internal Lanczos I didn't see any problems. Well,
            that's above the limit, I see... Thanks for the info!

            > > For large: High quality panning and Max statical, for small: Normal for
            > > panning and Max statical.
            > >
            >
            > Erik, are you sure you did not make a typo.
            >
            > You can use High Quality panning for small movies but for large fullscreen you should use
            > normal as panning can get very stuttering with high quality.
            > Especially on an older machine.

            Yes, intentionally. High quality - both small and large version -
            doesn't even pan on my fathers old mac, but since I hate the
            shimmering from bad (or no?) anti-aliasing and I suppose that most
            users of old machines will stick with the small version anyway I want
            the best viewing experience for full screen and recent computers.

            best regards
            --
            Copyright (c) 2007 Erik Krause
            Verbatim copying and distribution strictly forbidden
            except those allowed in wiki.panotools.org/User_Guidelines
          • Hans Nyberg
            ... Actually it was John who pointed this out to me. I did not believe him first but after some experiments I could see it was true. As far as I remember it
            Message 5 of 5 , Apr 2 6:56 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Erik Krause" <erik.krause@...> wrote:

              > > Be carefull with that. Resizing directly from PTGui will cause
              > > pixalation in some subjects if you do it to smaller sizes than 60% of
              > > you max resolution. This seems to have been a bug in PTGui since long
              > > ago and it is the same on Mac and Windows.
              >
              > With PTGui internal remap or with Panotools remap? And which
              > interpolator?

              Actually it was John who pointed this out to me.
              I did not believe him first but after some experiments I could see it was true.

              As far as I remember it has nothing to do with the interpolator choosed.
              This must be in the initial resizing step PTgui makes before remapping.

              Hans
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.