wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: A couple of friends dropped in for a drink...
Markus Altendorff 2006-Jun-25 21:48:00
Richard Crowest wrote:
>
>
> http://corvidae. co.uk/panoramas/ wwp-garden. html
> <http://corvidae.co.uk/panoramas/wwp-garden.html>
> I think the killer is having detail overhead - the acer leaves are
> beautiful, but just aren't JPEG friendly. With a Californian blue
> sky, you've got no problems. It's a bit ironic really: cubic panorama
> + something to make it worthwhile looking upwards = much bigger file.
My impression was more that the tiled walls are what irks
the JPEG... that, and the leaves, too. There's just a lot of
detail everywhere - usually a nice flat sky will need less
room in the file to keep the size down.
> That said, the full-screen version was no problem at all - that's the
> one I'm really happy with.
While we're discussing compression etc. - what are the
experiences with tiling? To me, it seems a high-res picture
with e.g. a 5x5 tiling does feel "smoother" and "faster"
while rotating, compared to an un-tiled picture.
Also, there is a significant difference in file size - the
un-tiled was a bit larger. Source was 6000x3000, cube was
1600x1600. JPEG @ 34%.
1x1 = 1919 k
2x2 = 1857 k
3x3 = 1886 k
4x4 = 1876 k
5x5 = 1912 k
6x6 = 1995 k
With the (small pano) cube size at 768x768, i get:
1x1 = 506 k
2x2 = 496 k
3x3 = 518 k
and so on.
Looks like the 2x2 sub-tiling is 2-3 percent smaller than
the un-tiled version. Don't know why...
-Markus