wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: small versions blurred?
Simon Maguire 2005-Jun-30 13:19:00
I agree, I get better results with PTViewer with small versions than I do
with Quicktime. I've tried to keep my small pano under 400k but still not
happy with my results. Using the same pano (used with panocube plus for the
QT version) with PTViewer the results are excellent. Suspect others have
found the same as I notice most sharp small versions are much bigger than
400k.
Simon
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor" <#removed#>
To: <#removed#>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2005 4:48 PM
Subject: Re: small versions blurred?
> Fulvio,
>
> I'll second that. I've bemoaned the fact that I can have a
> wonderfully sharp original image, and it looks great with PTViewer and
> the like, but try as I might I haven't found a way to transfer that
> sharpness into a QTVR using windows. I'm using PanoCube, but if
> there's something better (short of buying a mac) I'd love to hear
> about it.
>
> Victor
>
> --- In #removed#, Fulvio Senore <#removed#> wrote:
>> It happens that, using Windows tools, I have never been able to
> create a
>> decent small pano. They are always blurred, while the larger ones are
>> sharp. The original images are sharp, so it seems that the file has
> been
>> blurred in the conversion.
>>
>> It seems that you need a Mac to create a good QTVR file...
>>
>> Fulvio Senore
>
>
>
>
> ------
> The World-Wide Panorama
>
> For more information:
> -Visit the web site at http://GeoImages.Berkeley.edu/wwp.html
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>