wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Remapping leads to quality loss ?
Erik Krause 2005-Apr-05 08:56:00
On 4 Apr 2005 at 23:39, Uri cogan wrote:
> >It's true, although the degradation is minimal. It depends largely on
> >the interpolator used. For a comparison of interpolators see:
> ><http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html>http://www.path.unimelb.edu.au/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
> >But notice that these examples are after 36 interpolation steps...
>
> I just too an equirectangular image (3800 x 1800 pixels) and
> converted it to cube faces with Cubic Cnverter on a Mac. Then I
> converted the faces back to a equirectangular image and repeated the
> process 4 more times.
>
> Surprisingly little degradation, practically invisible (to me) for
> two generations, maybe three. I can't imagine what it will happen
> after 36 iterations, but who needs that? - there are less tedious
> ways to fuzzy up an image.
Yes, of course ;-) This whole topic is practically of no interest to
screen panoramas and as long as you do your edits on a higher
resolution version and downsample later. Furthermore you won't see
any degradation if your image doesn't contain small details or is
blurred anyway.
However, if you stitch for printing large panoramas any little
degradation should be avoided, since print resolution is much higher
than screen resolution.
best regards
--
Erik Krause
Ressources, not only for panorama creation:
http://www.erik-krause.de/
Read panotools at GMane:
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.comp.graphics.panotools