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

Re: [PanoToolsNG] Suggestions for Optimising Spherical Image Quality for WWP Submission?

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 5 , Apr 2 1:46 AM
    View Source
    • 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 2 of 5 , Apr 2 2:23 AM
      View Source
      • 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 3 of 5 , Apr 2 6:44 AM
        View Source
        • 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 4 of 5 , Apr 2 6:56 AM
          View Source
          • 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.