wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: panocube for mac ....
Roger Howard 2006-Nov-01 19:17:00
On Wed, November 1, 2006 8:34 am, Erik Krause wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 31, 2006 at 10:13, Roger Howard wrote:
>
>> If I just want to convert an equirect in one step, without an
>> interactive
>> interface to control settings, then PanoCubePlus sounds like the way to
>> go -
>> for automated workflow. But as soon as the user needs to customize
>> things on a
>> per pano basis - whether it's the initial view state, the compression
>> settings, etc - then they need a configuration interface. And I know
>> many
>> users would not consider a command line or batch file a superior
>> interface for
>> controlling the final appearance of visual content.
>
> Could be this is nit-picking but it might sound as if panocube has no
> possibility for per pano customization at all. This is not true.
>
> I expect it to work on mac like it works on windows: You control it
> by a simple text file which must be located in the same folder as
> your pano - no need for command line or batch file (on windows it
> doesn't even react to command line arguments - which I consider a
> major drawback).
Erik, I think you're nitpicking :) It sounds like we're exactly in
agreement... as I said, as soon as you need to customize on a per pano
basis, you need an interface to do this - and *most* people would not
consider a text file (which is what I meant by "batch file") or a command
line interface superior to a GUI for pano configuration. Let's not debate
semantics!
I assumed PanoCube responded to command line args, but I was wrong -
nevertheless, the crux of my point is exactly the same. PanoCube is great
for automated, zero-intervention conversion, but the moment you need to
tweak things on a per-pano basis you need to provide the user with some
interface to do this. A text editor is one such interface... so is a rich
GUI. If you prefer a GUI, then PanoCube isn't for you.
But then I'm repeating myself, as this is exactly what I said in my first
message :)
-Rh