wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Publishing to QTVR on Windows platform ... suggestions? ... Getting closer to desired result
Victor Zaveduk 2004-Mar-27 06:45:00
Andrew,
Thanks for the response. No, I don't think changing the program will
instantly make the QTVR files '"wonderfully detailed, crisp looking panos"
and a few KBs in size?' ... but clearly some tools offer more
options/advantages than others. In the experimentation I've done with trial
versions of various programs, the output HAS varied, though none has knocked
my socks off in terms of excellence and some are VERY expensive for little
gain IMO. Not having a Mac I can't verify, but suspect that the development
tools there are a bit more flexible. Maybe I'm just hopeful or frustrated.
:)
In any case, after much gnashing of teeth and pulling of hair ... and a lot
of experimentation with "pamorama size/compression ratio" I've managed to
create a fullscreen pano that is acceptably sharp AND comes in at just under
2 megs ... 1.96Mb to be precise :) ... created with the free version
PanoTools.
Here's a link to the "work in progress" so far. I'd appreciate any
feedback.
http://www.zaveduk.com/wwpano2004/skyline.htm
I've ordered up the "plus" version PanoTools and hope to be able to tweak
this further with the additional options offered in the full version. (Just
got your confirmation, thanks for the quick response BTW)
I will say, however, that even with compression set to 100 in PanoTools, the
output is not as sharp as the input ... closer, and much bigger file of
course, but not quite there.
Thanks for the kick in the butt by the way. I was definitely getting
frustrated with the results I was getting, especially when I compared them
to the results others were getting with their files. But as with everything
worthwhile, nothing comes easy. I undertook a more rigorous and controlled
examination of the effects of file sizes, compression, sharpening of the
original, etc. and I learned a lot today. Not enough to satisfy my desires
or match up my expectations with the output I've seen from others (as
compared to their file sizes) ... but I'm getting there. One step at a
time. I think back to how frustrating it was to get a good handle on
stitching before ... I guess publishing is just another step along the road.
Victor
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew [mailto:#removed#]
Sent: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:04 AM
To: #removed#
Subject: Re: Publishing to QTVR on Windows platform ...
suggestions?
Victor,
Why do you think that by changing the movie assembler your movies instantly
became "wonderfully detailed, crisp looking panos" and a few KBs in size?
Generaly speaking a movie file is container for JPEG comressed images (cube
faces). All program use the same standard compresion. So there must be not
big diffrence if you'll change the program.
Tell you more - only PanoCube plus has Variable Tiles Compression option and
you could compress every tile with different compression rate to get maximum
possible file size saving.
I'd like to sugest you to play with pamorama size/compression ratio. There
must be some optimal relation.
And of course your sources must be "deatiled and crisp looking".
=Andrew Jakowleff