wwp@yahoogroups.com:
Re: Help with WWP entry choice
sirflor1 2004-Mar-28 15:39:00
Jim, your message is one of the best tutorial I ever found on web.
I also use QTVRAS (unfortunatly with Classicmode).
My biggest problems are:
-> with the original pictures, QTVRAS often won't stich, comes up with a me=
ssage like
"note 360?, or the fov is false a.s.o.
-> I don't know the best lens-data for my Nikon coolpix 8700.
What kind of camera do you use?
What photosize are you originals?
Do you only use Photoshop to do resize the stiched photos?
I hpe you'll share your know-how with us.
Thank you
Rolf
--- In #removed#, "spinview" <#removed#> wrote:
> I used QTVR Authoring Studio. My original stitched files are typically hu=
ge - this one was
> 88 MB (15313 pixels wide, 1984 pixels high). I've found that the stitchin=
g is more
accurate
> in QTVRAS when I feed it more data. No scientific basis for that opinion,=
just instinct.
>
> My workflow: Stitch in QTVRAS, image editing/cleanup/cropping and color b=
alancing
with
> the hi-res original .pict in Photoshop, resize to something more appropri=
ate for "full-
> screen" QTVR consumption (7680 pixels wide, 992 high), bring back into QT=
VRAS for
> creation of the full-screen .mov file, finalize settings (including compr=
ession - typically
> Photo JPEG). The only time I compress is in this final output stage. I op=
en in QuickTime 4
> Pro (don't ask) and flatten for cross-platform consumption. To create the=
smaller WWP
> version, I'll be going back to my original .pict, resize even smaller, an=
d go back to
QTVRAS
> for output of the smaller .mov file, bring back to QT4 Pro, flatten.
>
> Debated sending this response to the list, since there are professionals =
here in our
group
> that do this for a living and know far more than I. I'm just a hobbyist i=
n comparison! But
> I've learned a lot by reading about others' workflow, so maybe this will =
help someone
else.
> I've learned from many of you veterans just by lurking over these past (s=
ix!) years on the
> QTVR listserv. My thanks to you.
>
> Victor, for your situation, my response probably doesn't help. One though=
t (bear in
mind, I
> never have used PanoCube)--are you feeding it the best color quality imag=
e? If
PanoCube
> is doing your compression and it's receiving an image that's already been=
compressed
as
> JPEG, maybe its causing enough deterioration to be apparent?
>
> Regards,
> -Jim
>
> --- In #removed#, "Victor" <#removed#> wrote:
> > Third one would be my choice as I agree with the comments others
> > have made that the second one is "off" as far as colors.
> >
> > I don't think it's that "drab" ... and it looks nice. I'm being
> > driven to distraction trying to get my shot into QTVR form. It
> > looks very good as a stitched cylindrical, but the only tool I've
> > been able to find to use (for windows, for free) has been PanoCube.
> > Mind you, I'm able to create a QTVR, but in order to have the
> > quality appear anything like the original stitched image, I'm ending
> > up with files approaching 4Mb in size. Under 2Mb the image starts
> > to look lifeless and poorly detailed.
> >
> > While I've fooled around with pans for years, I've only recently
> > started to get serious with trying to put them into QTVR form. I
> > usually do partials for print purposes. But I digress ....
> >
> > If I may ask, what did you use to create the QTVR? And what size
> > file was the original? I'm a bit dissapointed by the results I'm
> > getting as compared to many of the files I've seen here and
> > elsewhere.
> >
> > Thanks in advance ...
> >
> > Victor