Ron, that was the link I was looking for. I looked at the other link also
Trausti and it's very similar technology. Looks good.

Many thanks to you both.

Andrew

I didn't get that the first time I read it.

That's pretty funny Roger!  Good one!

Erik Krause wrote:
> Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:
>
>> Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.
>
> Humanity or humidity? ;-)
>

May be.. but user ratings rankings comments and reviews are perceived
as the most effective resources...  not visual content wich is what tey
sell (if I understand it correctly)..

Do you know any other investigation.. more neutral.. ?
Thanks
j.

--
Jaume Llorens i Bach
Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
http://www.vistes360.com




Al 01/10/10 19:00, En/na Hans ha escrit:
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:PanoToolsNG%40yahoogroups.com>, Trausti Hraunfjord
> <trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:
> >
> > In the linked forums post you will find a .pdf document with quite
> good and
> > up to date info (HotelBusinessSurveyReport2010.pdf).
> >
> > http://flashificator.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=8191#p8191
>
> That investigation is nothing worth.
> Check the company.
> They are a producer of tours themself.
> http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
>
> So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
>
> Hans
>
> >
> > Trausti
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Jaume Llorens <jaume@...> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi,
> > > Do you know any investigation, study, serious survey.. that talks
> about
> > > the impact that coud have a full screen spherical panorama or a
> virtual
> > > tour over the decision of potential clients to book a hotel or
> anyother
> > > tourism bussiness... ?
> > > Thanks!
> > >
> > > jaume
> > >
> > > --
> > > Jaume Llorens i Bach
> > > Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
> > > Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
> > > http://www.vistes360.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
>
>




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

...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
loaded almost instantly while the webp images
loaded much more slowly.  And the webp images
are smaller.  Bad codec!

Ken Warner wrote:
> YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
>
> How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
>
> Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
>>
>> Jeffrey Martin
>> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
>>
>> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
>> See us on the BBC
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
>> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Rodolpho Pajuaba <rpajuaba@...> wrote:
>
> Fabio,
> I used to have the 5D and I used it with the Tokina 107, shaved. It's
> a good combo, because it allows you to do a 3-shot pano when set to
> 10mm, if needed, and a higher-res 6+1+1, when set to 15mm. Currently,
> for lack of need, I only have a Canon D60 (old, yes, I know, but I
> don't use DSLRs) and I can output a 8600px wide equi; I guess you can
> do way better with the 5D in 15/16mm, not to mention with the 5DMkII.


The Tokina is OK at 10 and 12mm especially if you also take a zenith however it
is not at all good at 15mm.

The corners are not at all sharp unless you stop down to f16 and  there is also
some  lightfall.

For maximum result with 6 + 1 images the Canon 15mm or maybe also the Sigma 15mm
is the best.

You get a 14800x7400 which you can reduce to 12000 x 6000 for maximum quality.
Stitching is much easier and faster with it than using a fullcircle lens.
You always get enough controlpoints and  with a template you can batchstitch
without any errors at all.

Hans

>
> 2010/10/1 Fabio Bustamante <contato@...>:
> >  All this Canon 5D mark II discussion left me thinking. I've been
> > considering taking the resolution of my panos a step ahead for a while.
> >
> > Today I use a Canon 5D with a shaved 10.5 Nikon. I shoot 4 horizontal +z
> > +n. It's very convenient, but I can't stich 360 panos bigger than 6500
> > pixels wide. I'd like to get a bit more out of my panos, but I'd also
> > like to keep the work load not too big, so at first I would avoid
> > shooting more than 1 horizontal row.
> >
> > Of course I intend to get a 5D mark II, which will boos the resolution
> > considerably, but I'd like to go for a better shooting technique too. Is
> > there a good combination for a 6 horizontal +z +n you'd recommend?
> >
> > Thanks a lot
>
> I hope this helps,
> --
> Rodolpho Pajuaba
> www.pajuaba.com.br/heterose
> www.pajuaba.com.br/panoblog
> www.pajuaba.com.br/traduzindophotoshop
> Follow me on Twitter - @rpajuaba
>

The WebP images are saved as png's, otherwise nobody could see them ;)

Com os melhores comprimentos,
Best Regards,

Paulo Fernandes
Multimédia



Go Go Pixel - Design, Fotografia e Multimédia
Calçada do Lidador, 22, 1ºAndar
4480-690 Vila do Conde - Portugal
Tel. +351 252 119 375 - Fax. +351 252 119 375


On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:

>
>
> ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
> loaded almost instantly while the webp images
> loaded much more slowly. And the webp images
> are smaller. Bad codec!
>
>
> Ken Warner wrote:
> > YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
> >
> > How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
> >
> > Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
> >> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
> >>
> >> Jeffrey Martin
> >> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
> >>
> >> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
> >> See us on the BBC
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
> >> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
> >>
> >>
> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>


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

I noticed that after I wrote my note.

Paulo Fernandes wrote:
> The WebP images are saved as png's, otherwise nobody could see them ;)
>
> Com os melhores comprimentos,
> Best Regards,
>
> Paulo Fernandes
> Multimédia
>
>
>
> Go Go Pixel - Design, Fotografia e Multimédia
> Calçada do Lidador, 22, 1ºAndar
> 4480-690 Vila do Conde - Portugal
> Tel. +351 252 119 375 - Fax. +351 252 119 375
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 6:23 PM, Ken Warner <kwarner000@...> wrote:
>
>>
>> ...and when I opened the gallery pages, all the jpgs
>> loaded almost instantly while the webp images
>> loaded much more slowly. And the webp images
>> are smaller. Bad codec!
>>
>>
>> Ken Warner wrote:
>>> YAJA (Yet another jpeg alternative)
>>>
>>> How many does that make now 4? 5? 6?
>>>
>>> Jeffrey Martin | 360Cities.net wrote:
>>>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20018146-264.html
>>>>
>>>> Jeffrey Martin
>>>> tel. +420 608 076 502 / skype jeffrey.s.martin
>>>>
>>>> www.360cities.net - The world's best panoramic photography
>>>> See us on the BBC
>>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/click_online/8176497.stm
>>>> See us on WIRED www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/12/panoramic-photo-prague/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>

This is an absurd, pointless move. Besides marginal compression
efficiency improvements (and for low-resolution stills, even 30% is
marginal - we're not exactly starved for bandwidth and struggling to
load JPEGs these days are we?), this new format offers nothing but
confusion. A poorly defined metadata strategy; likewise for color
management. No new features - hell, not even alpha channel support. No
16 bit or greater bit depths. Based on a container format with
basically no track record in still imaging. A fucking limit of
16383x16383 in the year 2010 (no doubt extensible later, but why the
hell would anyone conceive of an image format with such a modest pixel
dimension limit).EXCLUSIVELY 4:2:0 YUV color space. WTF.

Wow, this has put me in a bad mood. Google knows fuckall about the
needs of the imaging world.

If we must have a replacement for standard JPEG, Microsoft's (yes,
Microsoft) JPEG EXR is a fantastic format, well thought out and
forward thinking. WebP is a rehash of 1990's file formats, with
marginally better compression - the *least* interesting thing in a new
digital image file format.

There. Feel better? :o)

Mark

www.northernlight.net
www.virtual-travels.com
www.pinnacle-vr.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Roger Howard
> Sent: Friday, October 01, 2010 1:40 PM
> To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] new jpeg alternative
>
> This is an absurd, pointless move. Besides marginal compression
> efficiency improvements (and for low-resolution stills, even 30% is
> marginal - we're not exactly starved for bandwidth and struggling to
> load JPEGs these days are we?), this new format offers nothing but
> confusion. A poorly defined metadata strategy; likewise for color
> management. No new features - hell, not even alpha channel support. No
> 16 bit or greater bit depths. Based on a container format with
> basically no track record in still imaging. A fucking limit of
> 16383x16383 in the year 2010 (no doubt extensible later, but why the
> hell would anyone conceive of an image format with such a modest pixel
> dimension limit).EXCLUSIVELY 4:2:0 YUV color space. WTF.
>
> Wow, this has put me in a bad mood. Google knows fuckall about the
> needs of the imaging world.
>
> If we must have a replacement for standard JPEG, Microsoft's (yes,
> Microsoft) JPEG EXR is a fantastic format, well thought out and
> forward thinking. WebP is a rehash of 1990's file formats, with
> marginally better compression - the *least* interesting thing in a new
> digital image file format.
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> --
>
>
>

Worth NOTHING?  I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.

What do you base that on?
To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the paper,
have not been dragged through any courts or press as being liars or
fraudsters.  I have come across NOTHING that would back up what seems to be
your private and personal opinion of the paper being "nothing worth".  But
then again, you might have access to some information I have not come
across?

I agree that it is always good to check the background for any information
before spreading it further, and I did my own checking when I first came
across this paper, finding nothing that even remotely supports your
opinion.  Of course you can say that just because the people behind the
paper happen to provide tours, they can only provide corrupt data worth
nothing... but unless you have something to back such words up with, it will
have to be in the "libel/slander" category.

It is the best report I have come across, but would absolutely be interested
in other data as well, be that data provided by someone who doesn't use
Flash... or who doesn't use Java, or who doesn't use either Mac or PC.

I am sure such people could also be suspect to provide opinions that are
"nothing worth" based on the equipment and software they happen to use.

Do you have a more neutral report?  Numbers that are more useable than the
ones in the report I have fallen prey for?

Anything beyond google analytics statistics for your own sites?  Something
that is based on a broad investigation that this paper surely seems to be
based on?

Putting the logic of "they provide tours/have interest in what they claim"
to the test... a test that anyone can repeat and confirm... or prove to be
"worth nothing", I did the following

Using www.google.com I searched for the word "bing".  It resulted in "About
71,700,000 results"
Using www.google.com I searched for the word "google", and it resulted in
"About 1,490,000,000 results"

Oh... darn, google is in the search engine business and clearly their
numbers are worth nothing.... their numbers claim that "google" is 20,78
times more frequent than "bing".

So the next thing I did, to "prove" how biased and unreliable the google
numbers were, I went to www.bing.com and did the very same search.

The word "bing", results in 7.460.000 results
The word "google", results in 223.000.000 results

... which translates into "google" being 29,89 times more frequently found
in their search engine than the word "bing".

From the looks of it, Google Inc. must have corrupted the Bing results, or
maybe they have purchased bing, and are providing even more worthless
numbers than they themselves do.... just to make themselves look better?

No Hans.  I think that you are only expressing your opinion, based on
nothing but... your opinion.  I do however look forward to you providing
supporting evidence of your words, or - if you can't, then at least
admitting this being only your opinion.

Until then, it would be welcome to have some other more valid surveys
presented.

Trausti




On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Hans <hans@...> wrote:

>
> That investigation is nothing worth.
> Check the company.
> They are a producer of tours themself.
> http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
>
> So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
>
> Hans
>


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

:)  75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images.  4mb image
could end up being only 1mb.  That would be a huge improvement.

Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable with
this not yet available format?

Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
later on?

Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?

Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better.  I wish we
were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to wait
a little for that to become the reality.

Trausti


On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:40 PM, Roger Howard <rogerhoward@...> wrote:

>  WTF.
>


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

Once again I am with you Trausti .
The study seems good .

I never heard about a study ordered/made by someone not interested in the
area.
I am sick and tired of false moral, the most abundant European product.

Fernando
Salvador Bahia
Brazil

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 3:21 PM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

>
>
> Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.
>
> What do you base that on?
> To the best of my knowledge, the people behind the company and the paper,
> have not been dragged through any courts or press as being liars or
> fraudsters. I have come across NOTHING that would back up what seems to be
> your private and personal opinion of the paper being "nothing worth". But
> then again, you might have access to some information I have not come
> across?
>
> I agree that it is always good to check the background for any information
> before spreading it further, and I did my own checking when I first came
> across this paper, finding nothing that even remotely supports your
> opinion. Of course you can say that just because the people behind the
> paper happen to provide tours, they can only provide corrupt data worth
> nothing... but unless you have something to back such words up with, it
> will
> have to be in the "libel/slander" category.
>
> It is the best report I have come across, but would absolutely be
> interested
> in other data as well, be that data provided by someone who doesn't use
> Flash... or who doesn't use Java, or who doesn't use either Mac or PC.
>
> I am sure such people could also be suspect to provide opinions that are
> "nothing worth" based on the equipment and software they happen to use.
>
> Do you have a more neutral report? Numbers that are more useable than the
> ones in the report I have fallen prey for?
>
> Anything beyond google analytics statistics for your own sites? Something
> that is based on a broad investigation that this paper surely seems to be
> based on?
>
> Putting the logic of "they provide tours/have interest in what they claim"
> to the test... a test that anyone can repeat and confirm... or prove to be
> "worth nothing", I did the following
>
> Using www.google.com I searched for the word "bing". It resulted in "About
> 71,700,000 results"
> Using www.google.com I searched for the word "google", and it resulted in
> "About 1,490,000,000 results"
>
> Oh... darn, google is in the search engine business and clearly their
> numbers are worth nothing.... their numbers claim that "google" is 20,78
> times more frequent than "bing".
>
> So the next thing I did, to "prove" how biased and unreliable the google
> numbers were, I went to www.bing.com and did the very same search.
>
> The word "bing", results in 7.460.000 results
> The word "google", results in 223.000.000 results
>
> ... which translates into "google" being 29,89 times more frequently found
> in their search engine than the word "bing".
>
> From the looks of it, Google Inc. must have corrupted the Bing results, or
> maybe they have purchased bing, and are providing even more worthless
> numbers than they themselves do.... just to make themselves look better?
>
> No Hans. I think that you are only expressing your opinion, based on
> nothing but... your opinion. I do however look forward to you providing
> supporting evidence of your words, or - if you can't, then at least
> admitting this being only your opinion.
>
> Until then, it would be welcome to have some other more valid surveys
> presented.
>
> Trausti
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 12:00 PM, Hans <hans@... <hans%40nyberg.com>>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > That investigation is nothing worth.
> > Check the company.
> > They are a producer of tours themself.
> > http://www.vfmleonardo.com/vbrochure
> >
> > So they have an interest in what they claim in the "investigation"..
> >
> > Hans
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>


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

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM, Trausti Hraunfjord <
trausti.hraunfjord@...> wrote:

>
>
> Worth NOTHING? I find that to be quite a broad statement Hans.
>
The study has some value as long as you're clear what it represents. It does
not explore actual ROI/effectiveness of virtual tours and other aspects of
hotel; it explores the perceived effectiveness by those surveyed.

What this means in a nutshell:

1. Good news if you're selling to people represented by this survey. In
other words, there appear to be a sizable number of hotel professionals who
perceive VT's as effective in their business.
2. Somewhat useless in actually arguing that VT's *are* effective on an ROI
basis. Meaning, for skeptical customers not prone to groupthink (in other
words, those who won't be convinced merely because their peers consider such
a product effective) this paper has little evidence to convince them
otherwise. The larger the organization, in my experience, the more likely
they are to want quantitative data on the effectiveness of a marketing tool.
Advertisers expect this, as they are all about quantitative results. Small
and mid-sized business operators are more likely to go on perception - the
cool factor - and VT's, 360s, and other new media have always been that
shiny object they can't put down.

I've seen more serious studies about ROI of panoramas and object VR in
certain markets, and even then the results were somewhat ambiguous and more
often than not poorly interpreted by people looking to promote their content
businesses on the basis of the studies. Do individuals users *say* they like
interactive content more than static - to a point (there are diminishing
returns)... does it actually increase sell-through? Less clear - marginally
at least, yes. Does it increase engagement time (how long people linger)?
Sure, but that seems largely proportional to the amount of time it takes to
experience the content, and not an increase in interest in the object or
service being sold.

I realize I had a bit of an outburst this morning on the list, so this is my
effort to return to my (usually) measured, objective tone :)

-R


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

On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Jaume Llorens <jaume@...> wrote:

>
>
> May be.. but user ratings rankings comments and reviews are perceived
> as the most effective resources... not visual content wich is what tey
> sell (if I understand it correctly)..
>

As long as the study is properly understood for what it represents, I see no
reason to doubt the results or the methodology. But that proper
interpretation is key.

> Do you know any other investigation.. more neutral.. ?
>
Ummm, yes.

Organizations that don't have a vested interest in the outcome are the
ethical standard for neutral studies. I'm not saying no interested party can
perform a neutral study, but I am saying that those without a financial
interest in the stakes are more likely to promote the results regardless of
their implications. Put another way, businesses perform research and studies
all the time, and since they are pursuing facts that will impact their
business they do, of course, tend to want to perform accurate tests. What is
less common is a business *promoting* or *publishing* a report that calls
into question the quality, effectiveness, or benefits of their
product/services. Whereas organizations - universities, groups like Consumer
Reports that represent the *buyers* of a service or product, and others
whose primary stake is in the unvarnished truth - are more likely to promote
and publish a study regardless of outcome.

In short, if I'm a buyer of a service, if the service is worthless I like to
know and share this information; if the results are positive I *also* like
to know and share this information.

If I'm a provider of a service, if a study demonstrates that service is
worthless I'm unlikely to publish that, but extremely likely to publish it
if the results are positive.

This is 101 stuff.


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

På Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:33:43 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord
<trausti.hraunfjord@...>:

> :)  75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images.  4mb image
> could end up being only 1mb.  That would be a huge improvement.
>
> Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable
> with
> this not yet available format?
>
> Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
> later on?
>
> Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
> expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?
>
> Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
> that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better.  I wish
> we
> were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
> digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to
> wait
> a little for that to become the reality.

It will always take many years before a new format will be fully
integrated. Look at how many years it took for png to be supported
everywhere.
IMO it's a good initiative, and at this time it's probably quite easy to
make changes, like upping the size limit, bit depth options etc?

Lucky it wasn't Steve Jobs and Apple that "invented" this new format!
Then Apple would probably have stopped supporting jpg within a few months
;)

--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - 3D and panoramas.

Hello, Hans, thank you for the insights. Well, there is also the
Zenitar 16mm in the game, I forgot. I don't know how it compares to
the Sigma and the Canon, but it's incredibly sharp, and incredibly
inexpensive too.

2010/10/1 Hans <hans@...>:
>

>
>
> The Tokina is OK at 10 and 12mm especially if you also take a zenith however
it is not at all good at 15mm.
>
> The corners are not at all sharp unless you stop down to f16 and  there is
also some  lightfall.
>
> For maximum result with 6 + 1 images the Canon 15mm or maybe also the Sigma
15mm is the best.
>
> You get a 14800x7400 which you can reduce to 12000 x 6000 for maximum quality.
> Stitching is much easier and faster with it than using a fullcircle lens.
> You always get enough controlpoints and  with a template you can batchstitch
without any errors at all.
>
> Hans
Regards,
--
Rodolpho Pajuaba
www.pajuaba.com.br/heterose
www.pajuaba.com.br/panoblog
www.pajuaba.com.br/traduzindophotoshop
Follow me on Twitter - @rpajuaba

On Oct 1, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Bjørn K Nilssen wrote:

> På Fri, 01 Oct 2010 20:33:43 +0200, skrev Trausti Hraunfjord
> <trausti.hraunfjord@...>:
>
>> :)  75% and more cut in size can be achieved on some images.  4mb image
>> could end up being only 1mb.  That would be a huge improvement.
>>
>> Is this the "FINAL MAXIMUM POSSIBLE" compression and quality achievable
>> with
>> this not yet available format?
>>
>> Or is this just the beginning of the format that might be improved upon
>> later on?
>>
>> Kind of like buying the best available consumer computer of today, and
>> expecting it to be the best of the best... for many years to come... ?
>>
>> Of course it is not perfect, but it is a good alternative, and I am sure
>> that once it is out and about, it will evolve and become better.  I wish
>> we
>> were already there, where it was perfect, and were everything else in the
>> digital and physical world was perfect... but I suspect we will have to
>> wait
>> a little for that to become the reality.
>
> It will always take many years before a new format will be fully
> integrated. Look at how many years it took for png to be supported
> everywhere.
> IMO it's a good initiative, and at this time it's probably quite easy to
> make changes, like upping the size limit, bit depth options etc?

No, I disagree. Making these sorts of changes are little easier than rolling out
a brand new format. Look at BigTIFF support, which is arguably *easier* to roll
out as TIFF doesn't affect nearly as many users as, say, one of the default
browser image formats.

Anyone designing an image file format in 2010 which uses a 14 bit value for the
maximum number of pixels on either dimension of an image, which supports only
4:2:0 YUV color space, which has no coherent embedded metadata strategy, which
has no color management strategy, which doesn't support *the most common*
requests of Web image formats - 8 bit (minimum) alpha channels, 16bit or higher
depth per channel, and both lossy and lossless compression modes, has no clue
what the market wants or needs.

Somewhat better image compression has *never* been enough to sell a new format
into a rapid, fickle market like the Web. Look at JPEG 2000. When was the last
time you said "Jeez, this Web site would be so much better if the still images
were 30% smaller". I'm sorry, that's not compelling. Yet color management; high
bit depths; a single format with great lossy AND lossless compression modes
(which also happen to provide comparable efficiency gains to WebP in similar
modes, and likely much better in many instances); and useful alpha channel
support - those are features I would welcome intensely. Your mileage/needs may
vary, of course.

Google will implement in Chrome, because they can. Some people will experiment
with it, and rapidly dismiss it for lack of support in other products, and other
browsers will not bother because it does not solve a pressing problem. This
format will fail. You can file this note in your claim chowder bucket - if this
format takes off and sticks for the long term (I think that will be
self-evident, but if you'd like we can define what that means) I'll make
t-shirts for everyone that has contributed to this thread (Jeffrey Martin,
Joost, Paulo, Sacha, Trausti, Bjørn, and Ken) so far with my face on it and a
big fat "I was stupidly wrong about WebP in 2010" bubble coming out of my mouth.
Hold me to it. :)

As much as I'm a skeptic of all things Microsoft, if any format deserves broad
take up it is JPEG XR.

-R

Hi,

I did that in 2004/2005 for museums and tourism. 'Museums' are in English and
'tourism' only in Slovene language. It is very close corelation.

:) Bostjan


________________________________
From: Jaume Llorens <jaume@...>
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 5:53:40 PM
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] Study about efectiveness of panoramas in tourism business


Hi,
Do you know any investigation, study, serious survey.. that talks about
the impact that coud have a full screen spherical panorama or a virtual
tour over the decision of potential clients to book a hotel or anyother
tourism bussiness... ?
Thanks!

jaume

--
Jaume Llorens i Bach
Av. Països Catalans, 1-3, 3E. 17820 - Banyoles
Tels: 972 981 141 / 657 038 339
http://www.vistes360.com






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

I posted that once - here is a link to my
study: http://www.burger.si/MuzejiInGalerije/VirtualRealityMuseumsOfSlovenia.pdf
,
  which is now 6 years old. I did same study for Show Caves in my country (we
have here quite a number of show caves among over 10.000 other caves...) - it
was a very positive reaction and number of visitors increased. Even Mr. Arthurc
Clarke saw my virtual tours of caves in the year 2000 and wrote in that time
"the best example what to do on the Internet". And consider that the quality of
VRPs in that time was realy bad comparing to nowadays technology. On the other
hand and as an example: an Israeli tourist agency found my web site and started
using it as a promotion for their tours - the number of Israeli visitors had
increased one year later for 900% - ok it is a statistic but it is and indicator
about the positive use of VRPs in tourism.

Bostjan



________________________________
From: Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...>
To: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, October 1, 2010 11:09:22 PM
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] Study about efectiveness of panoramas in tourism
business


Hi,

I did that in 2004/2005 for museums and tourism. 'Museums' are in English and
'tourism' only in Slovene language. It is very close corelation.

:) Bostjan




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

Thank you guys for your comments.

Hans, I had the chance to check a Canon 17-40 and by doing a quick
evaluation (I didn't have a tripod around) I had the impression that I
could even make the 360 with 6 shots, but with very small margin for
error. But what worried the most was the size of the "hole" that would
have to be patched with the zenith and nadir shots. In fact I wasn't
sure I could cover the necessary area in the sky or the ground with a
single shot.

Did you have the opportunity to try this Canon/Sigma 15mm combination?
Hows the margin for error for the Z and N shots? Right now I don't use
those top pano heads so I usually take these shots handheld or by
guessing the position with my tripod.

14800x7400 would be beautiful...


Em 01/10/2010 16:31, Rodolpho Pajuaba escreveu:
> Hello, Hans, thank you for the insights. Well, there is also the
> Zenitar 16mm in the game, I forgot. I don't know how it compares to
> the Sigma and the Canon, but it's incredibly sharp, and incredibly
> inexpensive too.
>
> 2010/10/1 Hans<hans@...>:
>
> The Tokina is OK at 10 and 12mm especially if you also take a zenith however
it is not at all good at 15mm.
>
> The corners are not at all sharp unless you stop down to f16 and  there is
also some  lightfall.
>
> For maximum result with 6 + 1 images the Canon 15mm or maybe also the Sigma
15mm is the best.
>
> You get a 14800x7400 which you can reduce to 12000 x 6000 for maximum quality.
> Stitching is much easier and faster with it than using a fullcircle lens.
> You always get enough controlpoints and  with a template you can batchstitch
without any errors at all.
>
> Hans
> Regards,

I had a look at one of those 3D movie camera setups today .
It's a  camera pointing down towards a "splitter" mirror set at 45 degrees. The
other camera is pointing through the mirror and is moveable left and right. I
guess the movement is computer controlled to find the optimum offset for the
scene. I should learn about this.

Mick

...

Thanks for the link, Mike.

The focusing scale on the Pentax version of this lens is long
and easy to read. Contrasts favourably with the Tokina version,
which appears to have a silly little window rather than a long,
fully calibrated (or at least fully marked) scale.

But unfortunately the live view function on the K-x screen has no
zoom function, so I can't use it to check focus. What a pain! I
couldn't BELIEVE it at first, and hunted carefully through all
the menus and submenus, but couldn't find anything.

It's not a disaster, though, as there is a very good 16.8:1
zoom function available on screen for reviewing shots in memory.

I'm wondering whether my lens should go back for a check, as the
images generally tend to be on the soft side... but perhaps
that's because I am doing all my checking at F/3.5.

Actually I wouldn't care to use F/16 at 10mm as that certainly
would be soft due to diffraction...

Roger W.

On Fri, 01 Oct 2010 23:55:57 +0900, ptgroup <ptgroup@...> wrote:

> Roger,
> I find the ATX stupid to focus.
> Setting to 0.5m should be the best at F 16.
> See at:
> http://www.netzserver2.de/ptgroup/atx107dof.jpg
>
> But hard to find 0.5m - I set at the first 0 of 00 and it works fine
> @12mm
> and F13-16.
> Although AF sets it just in the middle of 00.
> I really don¡­t know if the above posted table is correct or not.
> (Due to production varioation or whatever.)
>
> Ciao
> Mike
>
> ----------------------------
> ----------------------------
> 360¡ë VR Fotografie:
> http://www.360de.de
>
> NEU: Abstrakte Fotografie unter:
> http://www.abstraktfoto.de
> -----------------------------
> Aktuelles vom Virtugrafen:
> http://virtugraf.wordpress.com
>   -----Ursprungliche Nachricht-----
>   Von: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com [mailto:PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com]Im
> Auftrag von Erik Krause
>   Gesendet: Freitag, 1. Oktober 2010 16:33
>   An: PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com
>   Betreff: [PanoToolsNG] Re: Hyperfocal setting for Tokina/Pentax 10-17mm
> fisheye
>
>
>
>   Am 01.10.2010 05:13, schrieb Roger D. Williams:
>
>   > Yes, but in Tokyo it's not the heat, it's the humanity.
>
>   Humanity or humidity? ;-)
>
>   --
>   Erik Krause
>   http://www.erik-krause.de
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>


--
Business: www.adex-japan.com
Pleasure: www.usefilm.com/member/roger

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBiswE6MiK8&feature=related

this looks like standard Ladybug 2/3 360 video but the video is interesting I
think because they supply very high res versions too -- so you can get an idea
what the max detail is in low light. You can upload any res video to Youtube now
I think  -- though you cant control their compression.   I am sure they could
get better blending of the 5 views with a bit of tweaking.
I went to a Defqon dance party in Australia last year. They have the most
impressive stages at their gigs
http://www.mediavr.com/defqonsydney2009.htm

Peter M

Am 24.09.2010 22:43, schrieb jrgen_schrader:
> When using extension tubes for close ups does that affect the FOV of the lens?

Yes, most likely.

> If so, is there a formula for that?

No, not a general one. It depends on the lens what happens. Contrary to
common believe FoV does not exactly depend on some specific parameters
like focal length and sensor size. The common formulas to calculate FoV
from Focal length and sensor size are approximations only that give
reasonably good results for standard photograpy but not for close up
work. For details read Rik Littlefield's paper (PDF):
http://tinyurl.com/d29lu

> Is there also a formula to calculate how a certain extension would affect the
point of the closest distance?

More or less. If you have a classical lens which is focused only by
moving the entire lens the length of the extension tube is simply added
to the focus extension. You can use the thin lens formula:
1/f = 1/S1 + 1/S2 where f is the focal length, S1 is the distance from
the lens to the sensor and S2 is the distance from the lens to the
subject in focus. If the lens is focused to infinity, S1 equals f and
1/S2 is zero.

The complication arises from the near focus usually given as a distance
from the sensor plane. And usual lenses are not thin lenses. They have
two principal planes with a distance. Exact calculations are only
possible if you know this distance.

A very good starting point is the forum on http://www.photomacrography.net/

--
Erik Krause
http://www.erik-krause.de

Project has a forum now. I will still post notifications about major updates
here, but for detailed information use forum rather then email contact.

Register, ask questions, notify about bugs, help building knowledge base about
project.

http://panozona.com/wiki/Special:AWCforum

Hi Pete,

Yes, this is Ladybug2, because you can see two white cables. Ladybug3 doesn't
have a problem with cables.

I also recorded 360video of a dance, not as spectacular as the one that you
posted, but my example is interactive.

http://360stories.net/plymouth_morris_men/

Regards,
Karol Kwiatek

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBiswE6MiK8&feature=related
>
> this looks like standard Ladybug 2/3 360 video but the video is interesting I
think because they supply very high res versions too -- so you can get an idea
what the max detail is in low light. You can upload any res video to Youtube now
I think  -- though you cant control their compression.   I am sure they could
get better blending of the 5 views with a bit of tweaking.
> I went to a Defqon dance party in Australia last year. They have the most
impressive stages at their gigs
> http://www.mediavr.com/defqonsydney2009.htm
>
> Peter M
>

thanks very much so far for all the useful information on my original post, I
have another question, is the camera controllable from a laptop and if so will
it function only under Windows or Mac as well and what can i expect it to be
able to do.

thanks

Neil Scott

I just send my lens for adjustment of focus to Foto-tip in Krakow, as it it is
still under warranty.
Let you know when I get it back, if it is any sharper.

A Kielcz

Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A.




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

Sometime around 1/10/10 (at 11:10 -0500) Trausti Hraunfjord said:

>What I suspect, is that once Flash has been equipped with a WebP
>decoder, flash panoramas will be able to display panos using the WebP
>format, regardless of browsers being compatible with the WebP format or not.

A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
on Flash-less systems... ;-)

k

That can be done already... install "Parallels", then run Win7 on the
iDevice through parallels, and there is completely legal access to anything
Flash.
Parallels costs around 70 dollars I think... and it is said that things do
work (well) with this workaround.

Trausti

On Sat, Oct 2, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Keith Martin <keith@...> wrote:

> A good point. Then all we'll need is a way to read the Flash content
> on Flash-less systems... ;-)
>
> k
>
>


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