Ok, so how does BitTorrent define it?  I'm curious.



What I should have said is that the more files that are downloaded the greater

the overhead of the download.  For each file, you have to establish a connection

to

the server and that can be many hops across many machines.  That takes time

so I think (but can't prove) that the fewer files downloaded, the faster the

download.



And comparing two different programs downloading is not so easy.



But you can't download two files at the same time.  It's a slicing operation. 

Packets

of each file can come down the pipe mixed together but they go into the computer

one packet at a time.  What your computer does after that is what determines the

over all impression of speed.



I noticed that cube based viewers have an advantage over equirectangular based

viewers

because the first face of the cube can be seen while the other faces are

downloaded

and prepared for viewing.  This gives the impression of faster loading but the

real

speed of loading a whole pano is dependent on what the viewer program does to

prepare

the image for viewing.  The time for the actual bits through the pipe is pretty

much

constant.



bohonus wrote:

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>> There's no such thing as "...parallel downloading..." over a single pipe to

your house

>> or office.  Everything comes in one bit at a time -- sequentially -- one

after the other.

>

> Well if you define it they way you have sure, but that is not how "parallel

downloading" is generally defined. The existence of something like BitTorrent

alone should indicate that.

>

>> Now if you have a very slow machine and a fast connection, you may see some

incremental

>> improvement because the machine is able to process the stuff downloaded a

little faster

>> *AFTER* it gets into memory.  A typical home computer can process and

download in parallel

>> to a small degree.

>

>



I had one.  A real old one.  The time from click to view was really pretty long

and

when I got a newer, faster computer -- using the same ISP and connection speed

-- the

time from click to view is a lot faster.

   With todays computers, when would a network client actually be slower than its

network port?

>

>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>

> Ok, so how does BitTorrent define it?  I'm curious.

>

> What I should have said is that the more files that are downloaded the greater

> the overhead of the download.  For each file, you have to establish a

connection to

> the server and that can be many hops across many machines.  That takes time

> so I think (but can't prove) that the fewer files downloaded, the faster the

download.

>

> And comparing two different programs downloading is not so easy.

>

> But you can't download two files at the same time.  It's a slicing operation. 

Packets

> of each file can come down the pipe mixed together but they go into the

computer

> one packet at a time.  What your computer does after that is what determines

the

> over all impression of speed.





Ken, everything digital is "sliced" if you want to be that literal and granular

about it. It is the _concept_ of parallel _anything_ that is present in

software, hardware and network technologies that are developed that utilize such

a feature that is of more relevance.





>

> I noticed that cube based viewers have an advantage over equirectangular based

viewers

> because the first face of the cube can be seen while the other faces are

downloaded

> and prepared for viewing.  This gives the impression of faster loading but the

real

> speed of loading a whole pano is dependent on what the viewer program does to

prepare





One would assume that there are additional computations required to bring an

equirectangular image into the typical pano viewer beyond what is required when

dealing with cube faces. This would also be a factor in the speed of its

loading/display.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>

> There's no such thing as "...parallel downloading..." over a single pipe to

your house

> or office.  Everything comes in one bit at a time -- sequentially -- one after

the other.

>

> Now if you have a very slow machine and a fast connection, you may see some

incremental

> improvement because the machine is able to process the stuff downloaded a

little faster

> *AFTER* it gets into memory.  A typical home computer can process and download

in parallel

> to a small degree.

>

> Hans wrote:

> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "krpanocoder" <mail@> wrote:

>

> >

> >> and the pano2vr downloading is slower because it is only 1 single file,

which means no parallel downloads,

> >

> > Sorry but that should make it faster,  actually it is exactly as fast as FPP

on my test site

> > http://www.panoramas.dk/panorama/viewers/

> > Still at the comparision site it takes 50% longer.

> >

> >

>





Hi,



of course there is something like parallel downloading,

you see it every time you use a web browser ;-)



a server doesn't give you its full bandwidth on one single download/connection,

so more connections/downloads will be utilize the possible bandwidth better,



for details google for "http max connections",



or enter try it out - enter "about:config" in Firefox and change there

"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" setting,



the default value there is "6" (in Firefox 3)

for 6 connections/downloads from one server at a time,



try a number of "1" and visit some sites with many small elements to download

;-)



best regards,

Klaus

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:

>

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "krpanocoder" <mail@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi,

> >

> > > In part yes but the fact is that KRPano is a very slow loader.

> > >

> > > On the panaorama compare page here

> > > http://www.panoramaphotographer.com/comparisons/index.html

> > >

> > > The sources are identical just 6 cubefaces of same size no tiling.

> > > FPP takes 6-10 seconds to load on my 15 mbit connection.

> > > KRPano takes 18-24 sec and pano2VR takes 16-20

> > > I tested this now for a week at different time of day with same result.

> > >

> > > I suspect that the Pano2VR may have something to do with the server but

KRPano is very slow to load especially if you use a lot of tiles.

> > >

> >

> > sorry, that's not a fact!

> > it's just a matter of settings (as always ;-))

> >

> > krpano downloads only 2 files at once by default,

> > see here:

> >   http://krpano.com/docu/xml/#network

> >

> > when set to 6 files at once (like the FPP) you should get the same

downloading time,

> >

> > e.g. here is a direct link with the changed settings:

> >

> >

http://www.panoramaphotographer.com/comparisons/web/krpano.swf?xml=fire-alarm.xm\

l&network.downloadqueues=6&network.decodequeues=6

>

> Sorry but it is still slower. 14 sec for KRPano and 9 sec for FPP. Same in 3

loads.

>





you're right, it's slower at the moment... ?

when I posted it, it was faster (8-9 seconds for krpano and fpp, without cache

of course)









> > and the pano2vr downloading is slower because it is only 1 single file,

which means no parallel downloads,

>

> Sorry but that should make it faster,  actually it is exactly as fast as FPP

on my test site

> http://www.panoramas.dk/panorama/viewers/

> Still at the comparision site it takes 50% longer.

>





in your comparision you use a .mov file, that's also one single file,

(which is comparable to pano2vr, which is also one file)



but parallel downloads of separated files can/should be faster! (even on faster

connections)







>

> > > And remember that using tiles may lead to loading it 2 times.

> >

> > that's also not true, it doesn't load something 2 times?!

> > why should it? ;-)

>

> Of course it does if you need to load a smaller initial page and also loads

the fullscreen.

> Depending on the differences between the initial size and the fullscreen

resolution you may ned to load almost double the size needed for fullscreen.

> You can not use any of the small tiles for the small view for the fullscreen.

> And as far as I can see you always load the non tiled version with the default

tile size.

> For example if you use 712x712 tiling you load 6 cubefaces in that size even

if you do not need them for loading a 2x2 or 3x3 tiles fullscreen view.

>



if it loads almost the 'double size' for fullscreen, it depends on the used

resolutions,

with the default settings it will load rather a too high resolution than an too

low, that's true, so if the next higher available resolution is much higher than

the current screen resolution - yes, then this can happen,



it's all a matter of the setting again ;-)

the resolutions and resolutions steps, tilesize and much more, everything can be

freely defined, but what's the best is a other question (and this question can

be generally answered, it always depends on the needs)





I have prepared now here some examples:



1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html



2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html



3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

(the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html



4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single file):

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html





I've also integrated some xml code to measure the downloading time,

(here's the code:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/settings.xml)



the multires example (3) should be fastest in this comparision, but

here not all tiles were downloaded at the beginning, so it's no really

comparable,



beside of this, the seconds example (the tiled one) should be the

fastest, and the fourth one (single file one) the slowest,





> 360cities panos usually take 30-50 sec to load a simple fullscreen view and

they use up to 9 mb for that.

>

> None of the panos at panoramas.dk use more than 3.5mb most of them 1,5-2 mb

and they load in 10 sec. And the resolution is enough even for the largest

screens.

>

> > It seems you have an animosity against krpano ;-)

> > (I don't know why, but it's okay of course)

> > but please don't propagate facts that aren't necessarily ones,

> >

>

> Not at all I have nothing against KRpano but I hate seeing  bad uses of a nice

software. Wasting bandwidth is also wasting CO2.

>



the thing with the animosity against krpano was more a joke/wink,

because it sometimes just seems/feels so ;-)





> And if something can be improved it is necessary to point it out.

>



that's right! ;-)





> Hans

>



best regards,

Klaus

> I have prepared now here some examples:

>

> 1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html

>

> 2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

>

> 3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

> (the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html

>

> 4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single file):

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html

>

>

> I've also integrated some xml code to measure the downloading time,

> (here's the code:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/settings.xml)

>

> the multires example (3) should be fastest in this comparision, but

> here not all tiles were downloaded at the beginning, so it's no really

comparable,



Well thats not what I get.

This is just the initial view no panning just until you meter shows the download

time.

Window at 1600x1000 which is standard fullscreen resolution today.



1 = 12 sec



2 =  31 sec



3= 28 sec



4 = 42 sec



As you can see standard full cubefaces (like standard FPP)  wins by a very large

margin.



Regarding my page using QTVR for FPP . Well you have 3 choices 1 with 6

cubefaces  and they load at the same time.



Check also Ben Zieglers Airbus KRPano page whichI link to on my page. It uses

simple 6 cubefaces and loads very fast.

http://www.bziegler.com/posts/2008/09/qtvr_quantas/tour/index.html



Hans

"krpanocoder" <mail@...> wrote:



>

> I have prepared now here some examples:

>

> 1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html

>

> 2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

>

> 3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

> (the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html

>

> 4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single file):

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html

>



Hi Klaus,



your panos happens to load particularly fast :



1 = 4.55sec



2 = 5.00sec



3 = 1.88sec



4 = 5.37sec





Tested with FF 3.5.3, Win XP, 1024 x 768 resolution and a 30 Mbit connection.



I've checked Benjamin Ziegler pano Hans pointed out :

http://www.bziegler.com/posts/2008/09/qtvr_quantas/tour/index.html



==> about 6sec





Cheers,



G.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "guillaume_fulchiron"

<guillaume.fulchiron@...> wrote:

>

>  "krpanocoder" <mail@> wrote:

>

> >

> > I have prepared now here some examples:

> >

> > 1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html

> >

> > 2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

> >

> > 3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

> > (the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html

> >

> > 4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single file):

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html

> >

>

> Hi Klaus,

>

> your panos happens to load particularly fast :

>

> 1 = 4.55sec

>

> 2 = 5.00sec

>

> 3 = 1.88sec

>

> 4 = 5.37sec

>

>

> Tested with FF 3.5.3, Win XP, 1024 x 768 resolution and a 30 Mbit connection.



Yes this shows that KRPano only make sense for a small size display.



The server is faster now and I made a couple of tests with different window

sizes.

Connection 15 mbit. Mac 10.4.11



Firefox 1024x768 with menus. Image height 500

1,  3.2

2. 4.7

3. 2.0

4. 4.9

Firefox full 1024x768 (no menus)

1. 3,5

2.  6.0

3. 4.38

4. 6.5

Firefox 1920x1200 fullscreen

1.  4.9

2.  9,7

3.  7.1

4.  11.4

Safari 1920x1200 fullscreen

1    4.05

2    10.33

3    7.685

4   13.39



As you can see only for the very small size with a height of  around 500 pixels

you get a faster load with the tiling. And of course as soon as you just zoom in

a little the loader will start loading again while you do not need additional

loading for the full cubeface loading.



Hans

----- Original Message -----

From: "Hans" et. all,



Looks like  we all get different results - so maybe hardware, browser cache,

connection  time, speed and fysiologie etc. has great influence too; which

makes part of this discussion rather irrelevant........



result on new i920 (8 core) PC Vista 64 bit 8 GB RAM 1920x1080 display



1: 2.3 / 2nd reload 0.9 /

2: 1.6 / 2nd reload 1.1

3: 0.96 / 2nd reload 0.95

4: 1.8 / 2nd reload 1.1



result on old AMD +1800  (single core) PC XPpro 3 GB RAM 1440x900 display



1: 4.6

2: 7.6

3: 4.2

4: 6.4



Both using the same 20Mbit cable-connection and IE8



best  regards

Flemming

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:

>

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "guillaume_fulchiron"

<guillaume.fulchiron@> wrote:

> >

> >  "krpanocoder" <mail@> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > > I have prepared now here some examples:

> > >

> > > 1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

> > > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html

> > >

> > > 2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

> > > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

> > >

> > > 3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

> > > (the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

> > > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html

> > >

> > > 4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single

file):

> > > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html

> > >

> >

> > Hi Klaus,

> >

> > your panos happens to load particularly fast :

> >

> > 1 = 4.55sec

> >

> > 2 = 5.00sec

> >

> > 3 = 1.88sec

> >

> > 4 = 5.37sec

> >

> >

> > Tested with FF 3.5.3, Win XP, 1024 x 768 resolution and a 30 Mbit

connection.

>

> Yes this shows that KRPano only make sense for a small size display.

>

> The server is faster now and I made a couple of tests with different window

sizes.

> Connection 15 mbit. Mac 10.4.11

>

> Firefox 1024x768 with menus. Image height 500

> 1,  3.2

> 2. 4.7

> 3. 2.0

> 4. 4.9

> Firefox full 1024x768 (no menus)

> 1. 3,5

> 2.  6.0

> 3. 4.38

> 4. 6.5

> Firefox 1920x1200 fullscreen

> 1.  4.9

> 2.  9,7

> 3.  7.1

> 4.  11.4

> Safari 1920x1200 fullscreen

> 1    4.05

> 2    10.33

> 3    7.685

> 4   13.39

>

> As you can see only for the very small size with a height of  around 500

pixels you get a faster load with the tiling. And of course as soon as you just

zoom in a little the loader will start loading again while you do not need

additional loading for the full cubeface loading.

>

> Hans

>



Hi,



interesting! the longer loading times at the larger screen sizes for the tiled

panos indicate that the rendering/drawing of the pano slows down the loading

(after each new loaded tile the pano will be redrawn to show the new tile)



how smooth is the panning with this computer at these high resolutions? not very

much, or?



on a faster computer with smooth panning, there should be no big difference in

the loading times between small and large screensize,





but I have tried to improve this behavior now a bit,

could you please test it again:



old:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html



new:

http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level-opt.html





the loading should be now (a bit) faster on slower computers,





I have also added a button (performancetest) for testing the rendering

performance, it shows the average frames per second, and also a better

comparable value - how many millions pixels (mpix) were calculated per second,





best regards,

Klaus

For what it's worth with my slow 2mbps connection all the way down in Peru,

I got:



Old: 12,642 seconds

New 16,07 seconds



When I ran both at the same time, I got a difference of 0,003 seconds

(19,203  vs 19,200)



Trausti







On Tue, Sep 29, 2009 at 3:30 PM, krpanocoder <mail@...> wrote:



>

>

> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>, "Hans"

> <hans@...> wrote:

> >

> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com <PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>,

> "guillaume_fulchiron" <guillaume.fulchiron@> wrote:

> > >

> > > "krpanocoder" <mail@> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > > I have prepared now here some examples:

> > > >

> > > > 1. 6 cube files, 1920x1920, not tiled, 2.03 MB:

> > > > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/notiles.html

> > > >

> > > > 2. the same but tiled, tilesize=960, 2.02 MB:

> > > >

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

> > > >

> > > > 3. multires with 2 levels, 960x960 and 1920x1920 2.82 MB:

> > > > (the 1920x1920 tiles will be only downloaded on viewing):

> > > >

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-2-level.html

> > > >

> > > > 4. like example 2, but everything embedded into the swf (=one single

> file):

> > > >

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/all-in-one-swf.html

> > > >

> > >

> > > Hi Klaus,

> > >

> > > your panos happens to load particularly fast :

> > >

> > > 1 = 4.55sec

> > >

> > > 2 = 5.00sec

> > >

> > > 3 = 1.88sec

> > >

> > > 4 = 5.37sec

> > >

> > >

> > > Tested with FF 3.5.3, Win XP, 1024 x 768 resolution and a 30 Mbit

> connection.

> >

> > Yes this shows that KRPano only make sense for a small size display.

> >

> > The server is faster now and I made a couple of tests with different

> window sizes.

> > Connection 15 mbit. Mac 10.4.11

> >

> > Firefox 1024x768 with menus. Image height 500

> > 1, 3.2

> > 2. 4.7

> > 3. 2.0

> > 4. 4.9

> > Firefox full 1024x768 (no menus)

> > 1. 3,5

> > 2. 6.0

> > 3. 4.38

> > 4. 6.5

> > Firefox 1920x1200 fullscreen

> > 1. 4.9

> > 2. 9,7

> > 3. 7.1

> > 4. 11.4

> > Safari 1920x1200 fullscreen

> > 1 4.05

> > 2 10.33

> > 3 7.685

> > 4 13.39

> >

> > As you can see only for the very small size with a height of around 500

> pixels you get a faster load with the tiling. And of course as soon as you

> just zoom in a little the loader will start loading again while you do not

> need additional loading for the full cubeface loading.

> >

> > Hans

> >

>

> Hi,

>

> interesting! the longer loading times at the larger screen sizes for the

> tiled panos indicate that the rendering/drawing of the pano slows down the

> loading (after each new loaded tile the pano will be redrawn to show the new

> tile)

>

> how smooth is the panning with this computer at these high resolutions? not

> very much, or?

>

> on a faster computer with smooth panning, there should be no big difference

> in the loading times between small and large screensize,

>

> but I have tried to improve this behavior now a bit,

> could you please test it again:

>

> old:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

>

> new:

>

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level-opt.html

>

> the loading should be now (a bit) faster on slower computers,

>

> I have also added a button (performancetest) for testing the rendering

> performance, it shows the average frames per second, and also a better

> comparable value - how many millions pixels (mpix) were calculated per

> second,

>

> best regards,

> Klaus

>

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks for testing!



but I've tried to improve the loading time on a computer with slow rendering but

fast/normal connection a bit, on a slow connection there should be no

difference...



but testing such would require repeating the test a several times (10 times or

so) and take an average, there are too much other factors that vary the loading

time, especially on slower connection, there the time can vary much,

the browser cache should be also be disabled or be cleared after each load,



best regards,

Klaus





>

> For what it's worth with my slow 2mbps connection all the way down in Peru,

> I got:

>

> Old: 12,642 seconds

> New 16,07 seconds

>

> When I ran both at the same time, I got a difference of 0,003 seconds

> (19,203  vs 19,200)

>

> Trausti

>

>

>

> >

> > old:

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

> >

> > new:

> >

> > http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level-opt.html

> >

"krpanocoder" <mail@...> wrote:

>

>

> but I have tried to improve this behavior now a bit,

> could you please test it again:

>

> old:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

>

> new:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level-opt.html

>

>

> the loading should be now (a bit) faster on slower computers,





Tested 10 times on 6 years old computer (Windows xp), FF 3.5.3, 1024X768 window,

browser cache cleared and fast connection :



1 = 4.47sec (average)



2 = 3.32sec (average)



Hope it helps,



G.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "krpanocoder" <mail@...> wrote:



>

> interesting! the longer loading times at the larger screen sizes for the tiled

panos indicate that the rendering/drawing of the pano slows down the loading

(after each new loaded tile the pano will be redrawn to show the new tile)

>

> how smooth is the panning with this computer at these high resolutions? not

very much, or?

>

> on a faster computer with smooth panning, there should be no big difference in

the loading times between small and large screensize,

>

>

> but I have tried to improve this behavior now a bit,

> could you please test it again:

>

> old:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level.html

> new:

> http://krpano.com/panos/rom/petersplatz/auf-dem-platz/tiles-1-level-opt.html



> the loading should be now (a bit) faster on slower computers,

  > I have also added a button (performancetest) for testing the rendering

performance, it shows the average frames per second, and also a better

comparable value - how many millions pixels (mpix) were calculated per second,



Here are my tests:

Connection, apparently I got upgraded by TDC from 15 to 20megabit.

My connection to Vienna and most other  areas in Europe now says 1.600 kb/sec.

I used to have max 1.200.



Test 1 Mac 2.0 dualcore G5 PPC Mac. OS 10.4.11. 8GB Ram



1920x1200

Browser Firefox 3.5

old = 6.6

new= 5.76

reloading the page without clearing cache was 0.8 faster with both.

FPS 6.3 in browser 8.5 in Flash fullscreen The faster FPS in fullscreen  is a

special thing on some PPC macs and now also reported with the new snow leopard +

Safari Mac



Safari had the same speed but a test in Opera  gives me a slightly faster load.

old = 5.8-6

new= 3.9-4.2

Relaod was also faster 3.8 and 2.9 sec

Opera has a preference for network which says 8 connections as default. Changing

it to 2 did not give me any difference.



Opera has  also faster framerate in browser  FPS is 8.5 both in browser and

fullscreen.



I also tested on my MacBook Pro 17 Intel core duo 2.16 ghz

1680x1050

Firefox and Safari

old = 3.5 - 4

new= 2.8-3.2



FPS was 14.8 in Firefox and 12.8 i Safari



I am curious about your Network parameters. I found 1 single post about it in

your forum and you claim that Firefox 3.5 has 6 as default and IE  only 2.

Has the settings of 8 in Opera the same effect and would not the default 2

connections in KRPano affect this.

I assume this network settings also has effect if you have small tiles.



The upgrade in my speed seems to have given me much better loading at 360cities.

The connection to US is usually less than half of what I have in Europe and I

now get 600-700 kb/sec from california where they have the server. I used to get

300-400 from california and 500-600 from the east coast.



It is very evident that with a fast connection the browser and processor has

much more effect on loading  then your download speed. I also discovered that

Opera does not at all like my FPP with QTVR decoder. The loading speed is less

than half of using cubefaces.

Both on my Intel and PPC Mac

In FF and Safari there is no difference at all.



Hans

Hi Flemming, Trausti, Guillaume, Hans - thanks for testing!



>

> I am curious about your Network parameters. I found 1 single post about it in

your forum and you claim that Firefox 3.5 has 6 as default and IE  only 2.

> Has the settings of 8 in Opera the same effect and would not the default 2

connections in KRPano affect this.

> I assume this network settings also has effect if you have small tiles.

>



the network "downloadqueues" setting in krpano set up how many connections

krpano will try to use for downloading the pano images at the same time,



but how many files will download at the same time at least will be

controlled(limited) by the browser,



yes, it has an important effect on the download time, especially on fast

connections and small tilesizes,

making a http request and establishing a connection also takes some time, on

small filesizes sometimes more time than the download itself, so it can be

faster to download one bigger file instead of 2 smaller ones,

that's the reason why I recommend tilesizes larger than 512x512 pixels,



when I started with krpano, Firefox 2 and the IE6 were the actual browsers, and

both used a maximum of 2 connections/server,

see:



FF: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Network.http.max-connections-per-server

IE:

http://weblogs.asp.net/mschwarz/archive/2008/07/21/internet-explorer-8-and-maxim\

um-concurrent-connections.aspx



so I used also 2 connections as default, now with Firefox 3.5 and IE8 this limit

has raised up to 6 connections,



btw - the documentation is not up to date, the default value for downloadqueues

in krpano version 1.0.8 is now "3", using "6" as default would be possible too,

but I want to left more room also for other downloads

(plugins,images,hotspots,html elements,...),



what's finally the best settings must be found out individually for each

requirement of course ;-)



best regards,

Klaus

Quoting krpanocoder <mail@...>:





> what's finally the best settings must be found out individually for each

> requirement of course



so just to drag out the last drop



what is the best possible way to present a panorama considering good quality and

obviously trying to keep the interest of the viewer while nothing is

happening(downloading) ?



regards



mick







----------------------------------------------

This mail sent through http://www.ukonline.net

The latest release is seemingly stable.  Lots of improvements (small but

significant), and if you haven't used it for some months, you will be in for

nice surprises.  Save projects for later editing, template creation,

re-cycle older projects etc.  Make a multi node tour of 30+ panos in 4

minutes.... make standalone projectors for burning on CD's/DVD's with a

single click, for both PC's and Macs...  It's evolved a lot from the initial

release, but there is still more to be done.  Grab an update and test drive

it.



(Yes Trausti, I need to look into Flashficator again. How's the UI going?

> ;-)

>

> k

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi hans,



While some fullscreens on 360cities might take longer to load *completely*,

*all* of our panos show you something to look at immediately, no

loading bar, no sitting around for 10-30 seconds, which is certainly

not the case with panos on your own site. Our panos show up after a

second or two, and the best resolution for your screen shows up after

a few more seconds. You can zoom in to load/view even more detail, if

that pano is such a size.  like this one for example

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel



So there are pros and cons to everything. I wish you would admit as

much yourself.



have a good day,

Jeffrey



Jeffrey Martin

www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality

tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin







> Re: linked time-series of panoramas

>

> Posted by: "Hans" hans@...   panoramicsdk



> 360cities panos usually take 30-50 sec to load a simple fullscreen view and

they use up to 9 mb for that.

>

> None of the panos at panoramas.dk use more than 3.5mb most of them 1,5-2 mb

and they load in 10 sec. And the resolution is enough even for the largest

screens.

>

Hi Jeffrey.... clearly I am out in deep waters when it comes to internet

connection speeds (having only 2mbps), but the example you provided took 32

seconds to load from the time I clicked the link, until the pano was loaded

(just the initial layer).



For the sake of comparison, it took 26 seconds to load this pano from Hans'

site: http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas-JFK-assassination.html



That could of course be due to different file sizes, and most likely is...

which is why the comparison project is such a nice thing to have around.





Trausti







On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net <

360cities@...> wrote:



>

>

> Hi hans,

>

> While some fullscreens on 360cities might take longer to load *completely*,

> *all* of our panos show you something to look at immediately, no

> loading bar, no sitting around for 10-30 seconds, which is certainly

> not the case with panos on your own site. Our panos show up after a

> second or two, and the best resolution for your screen shows up after

> a few more seconds. You can zoom in to load/view even more detail, if

> that pano is such a size. like this one for example

>

>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

>

> So there are pros and cons to everything. I wish you would admit as

> much yourself.

>

> have a good day,

> Jeffrey

>

> Jeffrey Martin

> www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality

> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin

>

> > Re: linked time-series of panoramas

> >

> > Posted by: "Hans" hans@... <hans%40nyberg.com>   panoramicsdk

>

>

> > 360cities panos usually take 30-50 sec to load a simple fullscreen view

> and they use up to 9 mb for that.

> >

> > None of the panos at panoramas.dk use more than 3.5mb most of them 1,5-2

> mb and they load in 10 sec. And the resolution is enough even for the

> largest screens.

> >

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

heh... Here in the most powerful country in the World -- I get 750mbps --

sometimes.





Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

> Hi Jeffrey.... clearly I am out in deep waters when it comes to internet

> connection speeds (having only 2mbps), but the example you provided took 32

> seconds to load from the time I clicked the link, until the pano was loaded

> (just the initial layer).

>

>

I meant 750 K bps -- kilo bits not mega bits.  I could live with 750mbps.



Ken Warner wrote:

> heh... Here in the most powerful country in the World -- I get 750mbps --

sometimes.

>

>

> Trausti Hraunfjord wrote:

>> Hi Jeffrey.... clearly I am out in deep waters when it comes to internet

>> connection speeds (having only 2mbps), but the example you provided took 32

>> seconds to load from the time I clicked the link, until the pano was loaded

>> (just the initial layer).

>>

>>

>

Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>

> heh... Here in the most powerful country in the World -- I get 750mbps --

sometimes.



You mean 750Kbps I guess...



But hey, fibre optic is coming to you :

http://tinyurl.com/y8mns77



Oh btw I just read an article today saying some scientist got a 15,5Tbps

transmission over 7 000 km.

http://tinyurl.com/y8f7ufk



Future sounds nice, isn't it ?



Cheers,



G.

For me in Brazil with a 3mb connectionthe link from

360cities took  12 seconds

panoramas dk took  4 seconds





AYRTON



On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <

trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:



> Hi Jeffrey.... clearly I am out in deep waters when it comes to internet

> connection speeds (having only 2mbps), but the example you provided took 32

> seconds to load from the time I clicked the link, until the pano was loaded

> (just the initial layer).

>

> For the sake of comparison, it took 26 seconds to load this pano from Hans'

> site:

http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas--assassination.html<http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas-\

JFK-assassination.html>

>

> That could of course be due to different file sizes, and most likely is...

> http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas-JFK-assassination.html

> which is why the comparison project is such a nice thing to have around.

>

>

> Trausti

>

>

>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net <

> 360cities@...> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Hi hans,

> >

> > While some fullscreens on 360cities might take longer to load

> *completely*,

> > *all* of our panos show you something to look at immediately, no

> > loading bar, no sitting around for 10-30 seconds, which is certainly

> > not the case with panos on your own site. Our panos show up after a

> > second or two, and the best resolution for your screen shows up after

> > a few more seconds. You can zoom in to load/view even more detail, if

> > that pano is such a size. like this one for example

> >

> >

>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

> >

> > So there are pros and cons to everything. I wish you would admit as

> > much yourself.

> >

> > have a good day,

> > Jeffrey

> >

> > Jeffrey Martin

> > www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality

> > tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin

> >

> > > Re: linked time-series of panoramas

> > >

> > > Posted by: "Hans" hans@... <hans%40nyberg.com>   panoramicsdk

> >

> >

> > > 360cities panos usually take 30-50 sec to load a simple fullscreen view

> > and they use up to 9 mb for that.

> > >

> > > None of the panos at panoramas.dk use more than 3.5mb most of them

> 1,5-2

> > mb and they load in 10 sec. And the resolution is enough even for the

> > largest screens.

> > >

> >

> >

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> --

>

>

>

>





--

------------

| A Y R |

| T O N |

------------

+ 55 21 9982 6313

http://ayrton360.com

follow-me : twitter.com/ayrton360





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I forgot to add :the 360cities come in blurred and began to be clear after

16 seconds

the panoramas dk one on the 4 seconds the image was already sharp !





On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 2:43 PM, AYRTON <avi@...> wrote:



> For me in Brazil with a 3mb connectionthe link from

> 360cities took  12 seconds

> panoramas dk took  4 seconds

>

>

> AYRTON

>

> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 10:46 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <

> trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

>

>> Hi Jeffrey.... clearly I am out in deep waters when it comes to internet

>> connection speeds (having only 2mbps), but the example you provided took

>> 32

>> seconds to load from the time I clicked the link, until the pano was

>> loaded

>> (just the initial layer).

>>

>> For the sake of comparison, it took 26 seconds to load this pano from

>> Hans'

>> site:

http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas--assassination.html<http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas-\

JFK-assassination.html>

>>

>> That could of course be due to different file sizes, and most likely is...

>> http://panoramas.dk/US/dallas-JFK-assassination.html

>>

>> which is why the comparison project is such a nice thing to have around.

>>

>>

>> Trausti

>>

>>

>>

>> On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 8:34 AM, Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net <

>> 360cities@...> wrote:

>>

>> >

>> >

>> > Hi hans,

>> >

>> > While some fullscreens on 360cities might take longer to load

>> *completely*,

>> > *all* of our panos show you something to look at immediately, no

>> > loading bar, no sitting around for 10-30 seconds, which is certainly

>> > not the case with panos on your own site. Our panos show up after a

>> > second or two, and the best resolution for your screen shows up after

>> > a few more seconds. You can zoom in to load/view even more detail, if

>> > that pano is such a size. like this one for example

>> >

>> >

>>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

>> >

>> > So there are pros and cons to everything. I wish you would admit as

>> > much yourself.

>> >

>> > have a good day,

>> > Jeffrey

>> >

>> > Jeffrey Martin

>> > www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality

>> > tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin

>> >

>> > > Re: linked time-series of panoramas

>> > >

>> > > Posted by: "Hans" hans@... <hans%40nyberg.com>   panoramicsdk

>> >

>> >

>> > > 360cities panos usually take 30-50 sec to load a simple fullscreen

>> view

>> > and they use up to 9 mb for that.

>> > >

>> > > None of the panos at panoramas.dk use more than 3.5mb most of them

>> 1,5-2

>> > mb and they load in 10 sec. And the resolution is enough even for the

>> > largest screens.

>> > >

>> >

>> >

>>

>>

>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>>

>>

>>

>> ------------------------------------

>>

>> --

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

> --

> ------------

> | A Y R |

> | T O N |

> ------------

> + 55 21 9982 6313

> http://ayrton360.com

> follow-me : twitter.com/ayrton360

>







--

------------

| A Y R |

| T O N |

------------

+ 55 21 9982 6313

http://ayrton360.com

follow-me : twitter.com/ayrton360





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net"

<360cities@...> wrote:

>

> Hi hans,

>

> While some fullscreens on 360cities might take longer to load *completely*,

> *all* of our panos show you something to look at immediately, no

> loading bar, no sitting around for 10-30 seconds, which is certainly

> not the case with panos on your own site. Our panos show up after a

> second or two, and the best resolution for your screen shows up after

> a few more seconds. You can zoom in to load/view even more detail, if

> that pano is such a size.  like this one for example

>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

>

> So there are pros and cons to everything. I wish you would admit as

> much yourself.



Jeffrey

I really do not know what connection you are using and from where but the link

you provide takes 10 seconds before I can see the blurry preview, 20 seconds

before the initial view is in full resolution and 25-30 seconds before you have

the full pano loaded.



All panoramas at panoramas.dk are at least 3 times faster.

This one for example http://www.panoramas.dk/2009/Ngau-Tau-Kok-hongkong.html



takes 3 seconds before you can se first tiles and in 5 seconds I have the

initial view in full resolution. in 10 seconds the full page is loaded. And this

one has as you can  see a lot of extra loads with 10 images + small thumbnails



Here is another single one which opens to fullscreen browser. Full load 6-7 sec.

Not more than 2 seconds to see first tiles.

http://www.panoramas.dk/2008/flash/valencia-city-of-arts.html



And this is on my oldie PPC Mac from 2005. I guess I have a 20 megabit

connection.

My  connection got upgraded from 15 to 20 probably yesterday  and this has given

me much faster  connection for 360cities.

I know this is a big deal as you get almost 1/3 of the real speed because you

have the server in california.

My european speed has boosted from 1200 to 1600 kb/sec and from California it

jumped from 300 to 500-600



Hans

for me here in austria (with an 8mbit dsl connection) the situation is as

follow:



in this pano:



>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel



the first sharp tiles are there within the first seconds (1-3),

and the full view is ready within more 1-2 seconds, and while panning around the

loading of the new tiles is also fast and they are there after 0-1 seconds,





here:



> http://www.panoramas.dk/2009/Ngau-Tau-Kok-hongkong.html



it takes also 1-3 seconds for the first visible parts, but then it takes longer

to load for the rest (up to more than 10 seconds),

and the panning while loading is much slower and it will slow down the download

even more...





beside of this - the examples are not very good comparable, the 360cities

example load a lot of thumbs and a google map (the google map itself will also

load a lot of small files) at the beginning and the other example load the

thumbs and the other elements when the loading of the pano was done...



best regards,

Klaus

It is impossible to draw any conclusion from download times of one or the

other being better or worse, when the examples are placed on completely

different servers, different images, different layouts, different

continents, different... the whole thing.  That is why

http://www.panoramaphotographer.com/comparisons/ is such a darn good

initiative.  Putting all the eggs in one basket... so to speak.  It is the

only fair model of comparing the different players there is.  Everything

else is just "noise" and "opinions".



Trausti





On Wed, Sep 30, 2009 at 3:37 PM, krpanocoder <mail@...> wrote:



>

>

> for me here in austria (with an 8mbit dsl connection) the situation is as

> follow:

>

> in this pano:

>

>

> >

>

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

>

> the first sharp tiles are there within the first seconds (1-3),

> and the full view is ready within more 1-2 seconds, and while panning

> around the loading of the new tiles is also fast and they are there after

> 0-1 seconds,

>

> here:

>

> > http://www.panoramas.dk/2009/Ngau-Tau-Kok-hongkong.html

>

> it takes also 1-3 seconds for the first visible parts, but then it takes

> longer to load for the rest (up to more than 10 seconds),

> and the panning while loading is much slower and it will slow down the

> download even more...

>

> beside of this - the examples are not very good comparable, the 360cities

> example load a lot of thumbs and a google map (the google map itself will

> also load a lot of small files) at the beginning and the other example load

> the thumbs and the other elements when the loading of the pano was done...

>

> best regards,

> Klaus

>

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "krpanocoder" <mail@...> wrote:

>

> for me here in austria (with an 8mbit dsl connection) the situation is as

follow:

>

> in this pano:

>

> >

http://www.360cities.net/image/hydroelectric-power-plant-mirejovice-control-room\

-gigapixel

>

> the first sharp tiles are there within the first seconds (1-3),

> and the full view is ready within more 1-2 seconds, and while panning around

the loading of the new tiles is also fast and they are there after 0-1 seconds,

>

>

> here:

>

> > http://www.panoramas.dk/2009/Ngau-Tau-Kok-hongkong.html

>

> it takes also 1-3 seconds for the first visible parts, but then it takes

longer to load for the rest (up to more than 10 seconds),

> and the panning while loading is much slower and it will slow down the

download even more...

>

>

> beside of this - the examples are not very good comparable, the 360cities

example load a lot of thumbs and a google map (the google map itself will also

load a lot of small files) at the beginning and the other example load the

thumbs and the other elements when the loading of the pano was done...

>



Well actually in addition to the pano the hongkong panos loads 10 images each of

them are 70 kb so there is at least 700kb + the full panorama which is 2.9mb, in

all 3.6mb



This is the same whatever resolution your display is in and you do not need any

more download except for the additional panoramas.

I have no problem to pan it at all during download. That is of course for the

initial pano in this case as I do not use streamed loading for the other panos

in the tour.

I never use that for special features with several panos in it.

And as it loads within 10 seconds you will of course never even think of trying

to pan it before it is loaded.



The 360 cities example speed will depend very much on the browser display.



If you use an Explorer on a 768 pixels height the size of the pano will be less

than 350 pixels so you will just load the  6 basic tiles of  512x512 which is

just 300kb.

This loads of course very fast.



Hans

...except the fact that this

http://www.panoramaphotographer.com/comparisons/ doesn't include krpano

tiled panos, even though I requested it be included there. :(







Jeffrey Martin

www.360cities.net - The World in Virtual Reality

tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin



  Re: linked time-series of panoramas

>

<http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/message/33230;_ylc=X3oDMTJzdHBnbmk1BF\

9TAzk3MzU5NzE1BGdycElkAzE4MjI3ODQ4BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTAwNjQ5NgRtc2dJZAMzMzIzMARzZW\

MDZG1zZwRzbGsDdm1zZwRzdGltZQMxMjU0NDA2MzI3> Posted

> by: "Trausti Hraunfjord" trausti.hraunfjord@...

>

<trausti.hraunfjord@...?Subject=+Re%3A%20linked%20time-series%20of%20panor\

amas>  blueslander

> <http://profiles.yahoo.com/blueslander> Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:00 pm (PDT)

>

> It is impossible to draw any conclusion from download times of one or the

> other being better or worse, when the examples are placed on completely

> different servers, different images, different layouts, different

> continents, different... the whole thing. That is why

> http://www.panoramaphotographer.com/comparisons/ is such a darn good

> initiative. Putting all the eggs in one basket... so to speak. It is the

> only fair model of comparing the different players there is. Everything

> else is just "noise" and "opinions".

>

> Trausti

>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Sometime around 1/10/09 (at 16:26 +0200) Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net said:



>even though I requested it be included there. :(



Aww, turn that frown upside down Jeffrey. ;-)



Seriously though, it was and is a good point. The reason it isn't

included in what's there now is because that is supposed to be an 'as

it comes'-style set of comparisons. For the sake of the sanity of the

group helping to get this done, if nothing else!



But yes, now that that's done there are further things that would be

good to show as well.



So...



Tiled content. Which players support this?



k

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:

>

> Sometime around 1/10/09 (at 16:26 +0200) Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net said:

>

> >even though I requested it be included there. :(

>

> Aww, turn that frown upside down Jeffrey. ;-)

>

> Seriously though, it was and is a good point. The reason it isn't

> included in what's there now is because that is supposed to be an 'as

> it comes'-style set of comparisons. For the sake of the sanity of the

> group helping to get this done, if nothing else!

>

> But yes, now that that's done there are further things that would be

> good to show as well.

>

> So...

>

> Tiled content. Which players support this?



All flash players does. At least the 4 main ones.

Pano2VR has it as standard option

FPP has it by using tiled QTVR

and KRpano can also do it with QTVR or with tiled cubefaces.



Tiled multiresolutionn  is a completelly different case.



I get back to why that is not always working as it should.



Hans