Skip to search.

Breaking News Visit Yahoo! News for the latest.

×Close this window

PanoToolsNG · PanoTools NG

The Yahoo! Groups Product Blog

Check it out!

Group Information

  • Members: 2084
  • Category: Multimedia
  • Founded: Jul 10, 2006
  • Language: English
? Already a member? Sign in to Yahoo!

Yahoo! Groups Tips

Did you know...
Real people. Real stories. See how Yahoo! Groups impacts members worldwide.

Messages

Advanced
Messages Help
linked time-series of panoramas   Topic List   < Prev Topic  |  Next Topic >
Summarize Messages Sort by Date  
#33143 From: Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 7:57 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
kwarner000@...
Send Email Send Email
 
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?
>
>



#33147 From: "bohonus" <bradford@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 8:54 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
bohonus
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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.






#33149 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:14 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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





#33148 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:01 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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






#33151 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 9:36 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 

> 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





#33154 From: "guillaume_fulchiron" <guillaume.fulchiron@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 10:21 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
guillaume_fu...
Send Email Send Email
 
"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.






#33158 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 11:20 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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






#33165 From: "Flemming V. Larsen" <fvl@...>
Date: Tue Sep 29, 2009 7:52 am
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
vtourdk
Send Email Send Email
 

----- 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




#33184 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Tue Sep 29, 2009 8:30 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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





#33189 From: Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:18 am
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
blueslander
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33193 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:46 am
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
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
> >





#33194 From: "guillaume_fulchiron" <guillaume.fulchiron@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 10:22 am
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
guillaume_fu...
Send Email Send Email
 
"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.






#33195 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:01 am
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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




#33226 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:17 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
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





#33228 From: crane@...
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:28 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
m_c_r_a_n_e
Send Email Send Email
 
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



#33129 From: Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>
Date: Mon Sep 28, 2009 3:49 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
blueslander
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33199 From: "Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net" <360cities@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:34 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
jefffreymartin
Send Email Send Email
 
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.
>



#33200 From: Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 1:46 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
blueslander
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33213 From: Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:38 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
kwarner000@...
Send Email Send Email
 
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).
>
>



#33217 From: Ken Warner <kwarner000@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
kwarner000@...
Send Email Send Email
 
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).
>>
>>
>



#33218 From: "guillaume_fulchiron" <guillaume.fulchiron@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
guillaume_fu...
Send Email Send Email
 
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.






#33215 From: AYRTON <avi@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:43 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
vrimages
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33216 From: AYRTON <avi@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 5:45 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
vrimages
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33203 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 2:09 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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





#33229 From: "krpanocoder" <mail@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 8:37 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
krpanocoder
Send Email Send Email
 
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




#33230 From: Trausti Hraunfjord <trausti.hraunfjord@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:00 pm
Subject: Re: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
blueslander
Send Email Send Email
 
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]




#33231 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Wed Sep 30, 2009 11:01 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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





#33241 From: "Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net" <360cities@...>
Date: Thu Oct 1, 2009 2:26 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
jefffreymartin
Send Email Send Email
 
...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]




#33242 From: Keith Martin <keith@...>
Date: Thu Oct 1, 2009 2:56 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
the1keith
Send Email Send Email
 
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



#33244 From: "Hans" <hans@...>
Date: Thu Oct 1, 2009 3:44 pm
Subject: Re: linked time-series of panoramas
panoramicsdk
Send Email Send Email
 
--- 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






 
 First  |  |  Next > Last 
Add to My Yahoo!      XML What's This?

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy - Terms of Service - Guidelines NEW - Help