http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/photo_scene_editor/

this Autodesk technology preview is free to use til the end of the year I think.
You take a bunch of shots around an object, upload them, and some supercomputer
(I presume) crunches them and sends you back very detailed looking models
without too many holes. Like Photosynth can do but I think this might be better
at capturing all around an object, and deriving fine 3d detail of surfaces.

I wonder how far it is before we have the popular Flash pano viewers with
hardware accelerated geometry support -- a couple of years I guess.

PeterM

Sorry if this is a silly question, I'm quite new to all this.

Does anyone know if there is any standard way of representing cubic panorama
video and what viewers are available for such video?

You might be a couple of years or so off the mark in your guesstimate, but
this has already being looked into by my Proggy, and will be looked more
into as time progresses.
... or maybe I am just off the mark by a couple of years :)  In any case,
this has been on my personal wishlist for panoramas for quite a long time.

Trausti

On Wed, Jun 1, 2011 at 3:24 AM, panovrx <panovrx@...> wrote:

>
>
> http://labs.autodesk.com/utilities/photo_scene_editor/
>
> this Autodesk technology preview is free to use til the end of the year I
> think. You take a bunch of shots around an object, upload them, and some
> supercomputer (I presume) crunches them and sends you back very detailed
> looking models without too many holes. Like Photosynth can do but I think
> this might be better at capturing all around an object, and deriving fine 3d
> detail of surfaces.
>
> I wonder how far it is before we have the popular Flash pano viewers with
> hardware accelerated geometry support -- a couple of years I guess.
>
> PeterM
>


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

Hi all,

In an effort to avoid competiton by the likes of Google I'm still trying to find
an efficient way to get full screen high resolution VR images on distant
computers.

My 10MB 'direct to full screen' testing didn't go down too well for some of you,
especially for those on the other side of the globe, so this time I'm trying to
find out if using Pano2VR's multiresolution feature is a better strategy.

Of course a fast internet connection doesn't do much good when intercontinental
routes are as congested as they apparently are (thanks YouTube & co!), so if you
are based far far away from Amsterdam loading speed will remain an issue.
A solution to that particular problem would be to pay for the services of
mirroring servers like Amazon or Akamai, but I don't think that's an option for
many of us.

For this test I am concentrating on transport and image quality only, the
challenge of persuading viewers to click that full screen button will have to be
dealt with some other time.

After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR for my
Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:

Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
Bias: 0.35
Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
Interpolator: Lanczos 2
initial pano window: 1000x540
initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)

This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on other
screen sizes.

Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:

http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN

Please please click that full screen button, that's how they are intended to be
seen!
Yes, there's a lot of aliasing ('shimmering'), but that's something we'll have
to live with for at least the next year or two if we want sharp and highly
detailed images now. For me blurring the sh*t out of them is no option.

And no, there is no option to view them on hand held devices as this test is
about high resolution work for which they are completely unsuitable.

Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Cheers!

Erik Leeman

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

I'm in California and the work great here! Beautiful panos.



--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In an effort to avoid competiton by the likes of Google I'm still trying to
find an efficient way to get full screen high resolution VR images on distant
computers.
>
> My 10MB 'direct to full screen' testing didn't go down too well for some of
you, especially for those on the other side of the globe, so this time I'm
trying to find out if using Pano2VR's multiresolution feature is a better
strategy.
>
> Of course a fast internet connection doesn't do much good when
intercontinental routes are as congested as they apparently are (thanks YouTube
& co!), so if you are based far far away from Amsterdam loading speed will
remain an issue.
> A solution to that particular problem would be to pay for the services of
mirroring servers like Amazon or Akamai, but I don't think that's an option for
many of us.
>
> For this test I am concentrating on transport and image quality only, the
challenge of persuading viewers to click that full screen button will have to be
dealt with some other time.
>
> After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR for my
Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:
>
> Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
> Bias: 0.35
> Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
> Interpolator: Lanczos 2
> initial pano window: 1000x540
> initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
> minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
> maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)
>
> This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on other
screen sizes.
>
> Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN
>
> Please please click that full screen button, that's how they are intended to
be seen!
> Yes, there's a lot of aliasing ('shimmering'), but that's something we'll have
to live with for at least the next year or two if we want sharp and highly
detailed images now. For me blurring the sh*t out of them is no option.
>
> And no, there is no option to view them on hand held devices as this test is
about high resolution work for which they are completely unsuitable.
>
> Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Erik Leeman
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
>

Hi Gill,

Typically full spherical panoramic video is encoded in an equirectangular
projection. I am aware of two good viewer options in Flash.

Lucid Viewer has lots of bells and whistles. I believe it offers Flash 9, 10 and
WebGL versions. A license is €300:
http://www.lucid.it/

We have an open source project (Creative Commons Share-Alike Non-Commercial)
called Pantaloons. It's based on JWPlayer for Flash 10+. If you need a
commercial license we can provide one for about $100:
https://github.com/sditmore/Pantaloons

Hope this helps.


Michael Rondinelli
Chief Technology Officer
EyeSee360, Pittsburgh PA



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

On Wed, 01 Jun 2011 19:19:48 +0900, erik_leeman <erik.leeman@...>
wrote:

> In an effort to avoid competiton by the likes of Google I'm still trying
> to find an efficient way to get full screen high resolution VR images on
> distant computers.

I can't imagine Google competing at THIS level for quite a while. For
one thing they would have to get photographers of the same ability,
and they are not common.

> My 10MB 'direct to full screen' testing didn't go down too well for some
> of you, especially for those on the other side of the globe, so this
> time I'm trying to find out if using Pano2VR's multiresolution feature
> is a better strategy.

Well, I'm in Japan, so I suppose that makes my experience relevant.

> Of course a fast internet connection doesn't do much good when
> intercontinental routes are as congested as they apparently are (thanks
> YouTube & co!), so if you are based far far away from Amsterdam loading
> speed will remain an issue.
> A solution to that particular problem would be to pay for the services
> of mirroring servers like Amazon or Akamai, but I don't think that's an
> option for many of us.

I notice a difference between the behaviour for the first three and the
last two.

The first three quite rapidly load up to 50, 51 or 52% and then the
indicator freezes. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether I
click on the full-screen button at once, or leave it off. However,
the image appears in full colour almost at once, and is obviously
getting clearer while the meter ticks up to 50%. Getting bored with
the 50% meter display, I tried panning around, and this works, both
with full-screen ON and OFF. Only of course there are large areas
that remain blurred.

Eventually, the meter starts moving again, and I can enjoy these
splendid panoramas with full clarity. I do not notice shimmering, but
I do find the panning a little jerky--perhaps "stuttery" would be a
better word. Smooth it is not.

The fourth image showed no loading meter, and although the coloured
image could be panned, the image retained unclarified areas for so
long that I fear the casual viewer would ask themselves why the focus
is so bad in places, and move on without waiting. I did wait until
this dark image of a church eventually clarified (I have a particular
interest in and love of panoramas of churches) and it was worth the
wait.

The fifth image just suffered a long, slow load.

Hope this helps.

Roger W.




>
> For this test I am concentrating on transport and image quality only,
> the challenge of persuading viewers to click that full screen button
> will have to be dealt with some other time.
>
> After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR
> for my Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:
>
> Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
> Bias: 0.35
> Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
> Interpolator: Lanczos 2
> initial pano window: 1000x540
> initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
> minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
> maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)
>
> This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on
> other screen sizes.
>
> Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN
>
> Please please click that full screen button, that's how they are
> intended to be seen!
> Yes, there's a lot of aliasing ('shimmering'), but that's something
> we'll have to live with for at least the next year or two if we want
> sharp and highly detailed images now. For me blurring the sh*t out of
> them is no option.
>
> And no, there is no option to view them on hand held devices as this
> test is about high resolution work for which they are completely
> unsuitable.
>
> Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>
> Cheers!
>
> Erik Leeman
>
> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>


--
Work: www.adex-japan.com

I'm also in California on a very slow connection.  I
tried PodereCerale.  It took a minute and a half to load.
The image quality is good -- I can read some book titles
and the thermometer is clear.  Not much shimmering.

In full screen, there is some tearing because I have
only the Intel GX45 chip set for graphics -- that's
low end graphics.  Screen size is 1280x1024 old but
good tube monitor with 85Hz refresh rate.

The transition between resolutions is very smooth and
unnoticable.  Thomas did a good job on that.  I noticed
how smooth it was in tests I did for myself.

Mouse zooming is weird though.  But Thomas knows about it.

gregoryv92821 wrote:
> I'm in California and the work great here! Beautiful panos.
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> In an effort to avoid competiton by the likes of Google I'm still trying to
find an efficient way to get full screen high resolution VR images on distant
computers.
>>
>> My 10MB 'direct to full screen' testing didn't go down too well for some of
you, especially for those on the other side of the globe, so this time I'm
trying to find out if using Pano2VR's multiresolution feature is a better
strategy.
>>
>> Of course a fast internet connection doesn't do much good when
intercontinental routes are as congested as they apparently are (thanks YouTube
& co!), so if you are based far far away from Amsterdam loading speed will
remain an issue.
>> A solution to that particular problem would be to pay for the services of
mirroring servers like Amazon or Akamai, but I don't think that's an option for
many of us.
>>
>> For this test I am concentrating on transport and image quality only, the
challenge of persuading viewers to click that full screen button will have to be
dealt with some other time.
>>
>> After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR for my
Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:
>>
>> Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
>> Bias: 0.35
>> Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
>> Interpolator: Lanczos 2
>> initial pano window: 1000x540
>> initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
>> minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
>> maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)
>>
>> This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on other
screen sizes.
>>
>> Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN
>>
>> Please please click that full screen button, that's how they are intended to
be seen!
>> Yes, there's a lot of aliasing ('shimmering'), but that's something we'll
have to live with for at least the next year or two if we want sharp and highly
detailed images now. For me blurring the sh*t out of them is no option.
>>
>> And no, there is no option to view them on hand held devices as this test is
about high resolution work for which they are completely unsuitable.
>>
>> Feedback would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>> Cheers!
>>
>> Erik Leeman
>>
>> <http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>
>>
>
>
>

On 01/06/2011 16:59, Michael Rondinelli wrote:
> Hi Gill,
>
> Typically full spherical panoramic video is encoded in an equirectangular
projection. I am aware of two good viewer options in Flash.
>
> Lucid Viewer has lots of bells and whistles. I believe it offers Flash 9, 10
and WebGL versions. A license is €300:
> http://www.lucid.it/
>
> We have an open source project (Creative Commons Share-Alike Non-Commercial)
called Pantaloons. It's based on JWPlayer for Flash 10+. If you need a
commercial license we can provide one for about $100:
> https://github.com/sditmore/Pantaloons
>
> Hope this helps.
>
>
> Michael Rondinelli
> Chief Technology Officer
> EyeSee360, Pittsburgh PA
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
Yes, that's very helpful thanks.

Gill

IVRPA absolutely is spearheading the effort to deal with this. People
can find out more at our '400 patent page <http://ivrpa.org/patent> and
hopefully help in the effort however you can.

Scott
(for IVRPA)

On 5/30/2011 8:15 PM, tom_a_sparks wrote:
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Greg Nuspel"<Greg.Nuspel@...>  wrote:
>> These attacks on tour creators by the Low Life Company (LLC) should be
grounds for a class action lawsuit against them for misrepresentation of the
patent.
> I just hope IVRPA spearheads this class action lawsuit

--
Scott Witte

<http://www.scottwitte.com>
<http://www.tourdeforce360.com>
414.345.9660
Member, IVRPA



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

Thanks for having a look and your reports!

@ Roger:
As was to be expected the vast distance between you and the server causes a
problem that really can only be solved by moving that server closer to your
location.
Microsoft, Apple or Google couldn't do their business any other way, but for
people like us it's a bit too expensive.
So now we have to deal with a situation where we (including our potential
audience) all have powerful enough computers, good enough screens, and fast
enough internet connections, but we STILL cannot shift our pixels fast enough to
far-away locations. What a bummer!

However, reading your report makes me think there might also be a second
limiting factor for these relatively large panoramas: available memory.
With my 'direct to fullscreen' preloaders I made sure memory is released every
time you 'escape' a panorama. Not doing so would lead to a browser crash if you
tried to load a series of these large panos quickly one after the other. But
that flushing mechanism made some people complain about having to endure another
complete download if they wanted to revisit a panorama.
So this time I did nothing to influence unloading, and the slowdown and
choppyness you are experiencing might have something to do with that.
Pano2VR does have some parameters in its Multi-resolution menu that seem to
provide a means to fine tune memory use, but I have no idea what to do with them
(yet).

In fullscreen I see no hesitations or anything, panning is very smooth, but to
my surprise there's a lot of tearing in the windowed view! Apparently Flash is
MUCH less efficient in an HTML page when compared to its full screen
performance, at least on my computer.

Let's hope things can still be improved, because being able to produce  panos of
higher resolution and quality than the likes of Google can means nothing if no
one can see them!

Cheers!

Erik Leeman

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams"  wrote:

> ...snip...
> Well, I'm in Japan, so I suppose that makes my experience relevant.
>
> I notice a difference between the behaviour for the first three and > the last
two.
>
> The first three quite rapidly load up to 50, 51 or 52% and then the
> indicator freezes. It doesn't seem to make any difference whether I
> click on the full-screen button at once, or leave it off. However,
> the image appears in full colour almost at once, and is obviously
> getting clearer while the meter ticks up to 50%. Getting bored with
> the 50% meter display, I tried panning around, and this works, both
> with full-screen ON and OFF. Only of course there are large areas
> that remain blurred.
>
> Eventually, the meter starts moving again, and I can enjoy these
> splendid panoramas with full clarity. I do not notice shimmering,
> but I do find the panning a little jerky--perhaps "stuttery" would
> be a better word. Smooth it is not.
>
> The fourth image showed no loading meter, and although the coloured
> image could be panned, the image retained unclarified areas for so
> long that I fear the casual viewer would ask themselves why the
> focus is so bad in places, and move on without waiting. I did wait
> until this dark image of a church eventually clarified (I have a
> particular interest in and love of panoramas of churches) and it was
> worth the wait.
>
> The fifth image just suffered a long, slow load.
>
> Hope this helps.
>
> Roger W.

The Nook Color with its IPS display seems to be a fine gadget to view 360°
panoramas. Anybody is able to test the Nook Color with panos?

--
View this message in context:
http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/Nook-Color-for-360-Panorama-Viewing-tp35\
66721p3566721.html
Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something
smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for
remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.  Something like a
high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of.  I've
only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2
body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how
well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would
be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
Thanks,
Matt

On Jun 2, 2011, at 2:41 PM, web@... wrote:

> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something
smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for
remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.  Something like a
high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of.  I've
only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2
body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how
well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would
be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.

I can only repeat my satisfaction with the Pentax K-x, which may not be quite as
small and light as the Lumix you are considering, but works very well for me
even with the FSU  Peleng 8mm fisheye lens and would probably do even better
with the modern Samyang. Four around on a monopod works well, and the low noise
levels make it easy to expose for unsaturated highlights and bring out shadow
detail, so much so that I seldom feel the need to use HDR techniques (except for
indoor shots with day-lit windows). This is a low-cost option but it gives me
results virtually indistinguishable from those I get with Nikon D300 and
Fujifilm S5 Pro. These days the latter get left at home while the Pentax goes
almost everywhere with me.

Hope this helps...

Roger W.

Can anyone make available a set of original images shot with

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GF2 and
Panasonic Lumix G 8mm/F3.5

Or alternative?

Jan


On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 7:59 AM, Roger D Williams <roger@...>wrote:

>
>
> On Jun 2, 2011, at 2:41 PM, web@... wrote:
>
> > I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
> something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
> video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.
> Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
> thinking of. I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the
> Lumix fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I
> know nothing about them or how well 360s turn out with it. Any suggestions
> or links to prior discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me
> directly as well.
>
> I can only repeat my satisfaction with the Pentax K-x, which may not be
> quite as small and light as the Lumix you are considering, but works very
> well for me even with the FSU Peleng 8mm fisheye lens and would probably do
> even better with the modern Samyang. Four around on a monopod works well,
> and the low noise levels make it easy to expose for unsaturated highlights
> and bring out shadow detail, so much so that I seldom feel the need to use
> HDR techniques (except for indoor shots with day-lit windows). This is a
> low-cost option but it gives me results virtually indistinguishable from
> those I get with Nikon D300 and Fujifilm S5 Pro. These days the latter get
> left at home while the Pentax goes almost everywhere with me.
>
> Hope this helps...
>
> Roger W.
>
>
>


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

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@... wrote:
>
> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something
smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for
remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.  Something like a
high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of.  I've
only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2
body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how
well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would
be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
You can make very nice sharp panoramas with a Lumix fisheye lens on a GH2 or GF2
I am sure. That lens is very sharp and well corrected (and very small). The GH2
has excellent video quality but image quality of the GH2 or GF2 is not up to
Sony Nex level - especially  in low light. - is what I read.

The Nex would be good for panoramas except it has no remote socket. There is a
Nex 3 but the successor to the Nex5 isnt here yet. If they dont put a remote
socket on that Sony are brain dead.

Nikon and Pentax are rumored to be releasing mirrorless cameras soon. There is a
cheap, <$200, C-mount still camera announced -- coming shortly (name I forget).
Can use Fujinon fisheyes on that http://www.fujinon.com.cn/pdf/FE185C046HA-1.pdf
.. or maybe on the rumored Pentax which is meant to have a very small format.

PeterM

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@ wrote:
> >
> > I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority. 
Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
thinking of.  I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix
fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing
about them or how well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior
discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
> > Thanks,
> > Matt
> >
>  . There is a cheap, <$200, C-mount still camera announced -- coming shortly
(name I forget). Can use Fujinon fisheyes on that
http://www.fujinon.com.cn/pdf/FE185C046HA-1.pdf .. or maybe on the rumored
Pentax which is meant to have a very small format.
>
> PeterM
>

Yes the C mount camera announced but not for sale yet is by Kenko
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/04/kenko-shows-off-c-mount-based-compact-camera-\
with-interchangable/

and it is meant to be $370 so it might be quite ok .
PeterM

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "panovrx" <panovrx@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority. 
Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
thinking of.  I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix
fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing
about them or how well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior
discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
> > > Thanks,
> > > Matt
> > >
> >  . There is a cheap, <$200, C-mount still camera announced -- coming shortly
(name I forget). Can use Fujinon fisheyes on that
http://www.fujinon.com.cn/pdf/FE185C046HA-1.pdf .. or maybe on the rumored
Pentax which is meant to have a very small format.
> >
> > PeterM
> >
>
> Yes the C mount camera announced but not for sale yet is by Kenko
>
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/04/kenko-shows-off-c-mount-based-compact-camera-\
with-interchangable/
>
> and it is meant to be $370 so it might be quite ok .
> PeterM
>

http://www.electronista.com/articles/11/02/04/kenko.shows.c.mount.camera.system.\
in.japan/
Kenko camera release Japan, Summer it says -- but tsunami?

PeterM

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@... wrote:
>
> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something
smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for
remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.  Something like a
high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of.  I've
only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2
body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how
well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would
be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
> Thanks,

The  Lumix G3 http://www.dpreview.com/previews/
Will be out in shops in june. It has a New 16mp sensor and a quality comparable
to the Sony Nex.
And it has All the functions that SONY does not have. Remote and bracketing.
I Will be lokning for it as soon as  it comes to Denmark.

Hans

Better
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/

Hans


--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
>
>
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@ wrote:
> >
> > I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority. 
Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
thinking of.  I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix
fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing
about them or how well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior
discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as wel
> > Thanks,
>
> The  Lumix G3 http://www.dpreview.com/previews/
> Will be out in shops in june. It has a New 16mp sensor and a quality
comparable to the Sony Nex.
> And it has All the functions that SONY does not have. Remote and bracketing.
> I Will be lokning for it as soon as  it comes to Denmark.
>
> Hans
>

Hi Roger,

I replaced the old, barely visible, loading bar of the church pano.
Thanks for reminding me ; )

In case you'd like to know, here is it's official name:
Basilica Sancti Servatii Trajecti Ad Mosam
or more informal: 'Basiliek van Sint Servaas'.
It's in the city of Maastricht, the Netherlands.

Cheers!

Erik Leeman

<http://www.flickr.com/photos/erik-nl/>  <http://www.erikleeman.com/>

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Roger D. Williams" wrote:
> ...snip...
> The fourth image showed no loading meter, and although the coloured
> image could be panned, the image retained unclarified areas for so
> long that I fear the casual viewer would ask themselves why the
> focus is so bad in places, and move on without waiting. I did wait
> until this dark image of a church eventually clarified (I have a
> particular interest in and love of panoramas of churches) and it was
> worth the wait.
> ...snip...
> Roger W.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman" <erik.leeman@...> wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In an effort to avoid competiton by the likes of Google I'm still trying to
find an efficient way to get full screen high resolution VR images on distant
computers.
>
> My 10MB 'direct to full screen' testing didn't go down too well for some of
you, especially for those on the other side of the globe, so this time I'm
trying to find out if using Pano2VR's multiresolution feature is a better
strategy.
>
> Of course a fast internet connection doesn't do much good when
intercontinental routes are as congested as they apparently are (thanks YouTube
& co!), so if you are based far far away from Amsterdam loading speed will
remain an issue.
> A solution to that particular problem would be to pay for the services of
mirroring servers like Amazon or Akamai, but I don't think that's an option for
many of us.
>
> For this test I am concentrating on transport and image quality only, the
challenge of persuading viewers to click that full screen button will have to be
dealt with some other time.
>
> After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR for my
Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:
>
> Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
> Bias: 0.35
> Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
> Interpolator: Lanczos 2
> initial pano window: 1000x540
> initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
> minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
> maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)
>
> This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on other
screen sizes.
>
> Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN
>
> Please please click that full screen button, that's how they are intended to
be seen!
> Yes, there's a lot of aliasing ('shimmering'), but that's something we'll have
to live with for at least the next year or two if we want sharp and highly
detailed images now. For me blurring the sh*t out of them is no option.
>
> And no, there is no option to view them on hand held devices as this test is
about high resolution work for which they are completely unsuitable.
>
> Feedback would be greatly appreciated.

I am on a 30 mbit fiber so I never see anything else than a 1 sec glimpse of the
loading bar , does not matter if I go fullscreen directly or not.
Everything works perfect on my 27"  iMac.

Your first test did load just as fast.

However I was interested in how well Pano2VR multi tiles work on Android.
I tried it with my 3G connection which is just 1 mbit.

Unfortunately it does not work. It loaded around 30% and then shuts off flash
loading.

Changing to WiFi and using my 30mbit connection did not help.

With KRpano I have no problems loading 5 gigapixel panoramas which use  512x512
pixels tiles.

I also have several of my own 28000x14000 panoramas which works perfect and on
which you can zoom all the way in.

I am not sure why Pano2VR does not work .
Normal 6 cubefaces panos up to around 1600 with FPP does load even if they are
hard to navigate.


Hans

Hi.
Have you look at this :
http://store.nodalninja.com/products/NEX%252d5-Rokinon-8mm-R1-Nikon-Bundle.html
Best regards from France
Francois


Le 2 juin 2011 à 09:33, Hans a écrit :

> Better
> http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonicdmcg3/
>
> Hans
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "Hans" <hans@...> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.
Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
thinking of. I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix
fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing
about them or how well 360s turn out with it. Any suggestions or links to prior
discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as wel
> > > Thanks,
> >
> > The Lumix G3 http://www.dpreview.com/previews/
> > Will be out in shops in june. It has a New 16mp sensor and a quality
comparable to the Sony Nex.
> > And it has All the functions that SONY does not have. Remote and bracketing.
> > I Will be lokning for it as soon as it comes to Denmark.
> >
> > Hans
> >
>
>




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

Hi,

I am looking for someone owning a
Lumix DMC-GF1 and
Lumix G 8mm/F3.5

to do a few test shots for me.

Please contact me off-list for details:
janmartin AT diy-streetview DOT org

Thanks,
Jan


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

Hi Matt,

Maybe you should look to the sony, but not the nex's 33 or 35, see the sony
  A55..its simply amazing. Smaller ..cheaper....better ..that's the way Sony
enters fully in the dslr market .

rgds
Fernando
Salvador Bahia
Brazil


On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 2:41 AM, <web@...> wrote:

>
>
> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for
> something smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and
> video, for remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.
> Something like a high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm
> thinking of. I've only done a quick search thus far and came across the
> Lumix fisheye and the GF2 body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I
> know nothing about them or how well 360s turn out with it. Any suggestions
> or links to prior discussions would be appreciated; feel free to contact me
> directly as well.
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
>


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

Hans - and everybody - What lens would you recommend to use on the Lumix
G3 smaller camera you recommend?

Thank you.

Paul Fretheim

On 2011-06-02 8:02 AM, Hans wrote:
>
> --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "erik_leeman"<erik.leeman@...>  wrote:
>> After some experiments I settled on the following settings for Pano2VR for my
Canon 5D + 15mm Fisheye equirectangulars:
>>
>> Multi resolution cube face levels: 1530 - 2550 - 3570
>> Bias: 0.35
>> Tile size: 510 with 1 px overlap (giving 512x512 pixel tiles)
>> Interpolator: Lanczos 2
>> initial pano window: 1000x540
>> initial vertical FoV: 60 degrees
>> minimum vFoV: 37.5 degrees (zoomed in)
>> maximum vFoV: 80 degrees (zoomed out)
>>
>> This works well on my 1920x1200 screen, hopefully it also does so on other
screen sizes.
>>
>> Here are links to a number of test pano's treated this way:
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/08-06-25-PodereCerale-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-24-NovyBor-school-01-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-30-Pacinek-1-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/07-09-17-stServaas-EN
>> http://tinyurl.com/10-06-29-museumKamSenov-2-EN
>
> However I was interested in how well Pano2VR multi tiles work on Android.
>
> Unfortunately it does not work. It loaded around 30% and then shuts off flash
loading.
>
> With KRpano I have no problems loading 5 gigapixel panoramas which use 
512x512 pixels tiles.
>
> I also have several of my own 28000x14000 panoramas which works perfect and on
which you can zoom all the way in.
>
> I am not sure why Pano2VR does not work .
> Normal 6 cubefaces panos up to around 1600 with FPP does load even if they are
hard to navigate.
>
>
> Hans
It worked fine on my PC but also had problem viewing on Android.

I have been using Pano2VR to publish my panos recently and they work on my
Android phone.
8400 X 4200 pano.
Faces of 510, 1528, and 2548 with tiled to 510 with 1 pixel overlap creating
tiles of 512x512.
The 510 are embed in the swf file, the 1528 and 2548 are decoded at startup.
http://photocreations.ca/camp/?Camp2011_16#Camp2011_16

With yours, with the phone in portrait mode, and not going full screen, so it is
only a small thumbnail size, I believe it was downloading all the faces and
tiles. At 30% download flash would run out of memory and close. Even 1530 marked
as Embed or Load_at_startup might be too much.

For touchscreen devices using flash it is necessary to add zoom in/out buttons.
I have also added a button to switch to drag mode on touchscreen devices.

--
Jim Watters
http://photocreations.ca

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Paul Fretheim <paul@...> wrote:
>
> Hans - and everybody - What lens would you recommend to use on the Lumix
> G3 smaller camera you recommend?
>
> Thank you.
>
> Paul Fretheim
>


Panasonic 8mm fisheye.
http://www.dpreview.com/previews/panasonic_8_3p5_o20/

With the G3 it would give you  a spherical of around 13000x6500 using 5 around +
zenith

Hans

Depending on how small you want to go (and the quality you seek), you could
indeed go for a P+S with fish-eye adapter. Higher end P+S have raw capabilities,
or with CHDK you may be able to access raw images on cameras with no native raw
support. Fish-eye adapters are definitely available for some of these cameras. I
couldn't recommend a particular setup or vouch for the quality as i haven't used
such a setup. I have however used CHDK with much success and know it can enable
raw. I guess it's up to you to decide where the balance between size and quality
lays.

--- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, web@... wrote:
>
> I've been using a D300 and D700 for my panoramas, but am looking for something
smaller and lighter for 360s, preferably with raw file storage and video, for
remote trips where weight (and saving my back) are a priority.  Something like a
high-end point and shoot with a fisheye adapter is what I'm thinking of.  I've
only done a quick search thus far and came across the Lumix fisheye and the GF2
body is the sort of size I'm looking for, but I know nothing about them or how
well 360s turn out with it.  Any suggestions or links to prior discussions would
be appreciated; feel free to contact me directly as well.
> Thanks,
> Matt
>

Echoing Roger.  I absolutely love my Pentax K7.  If you can still find
one on a dealer's shelf, try it out.  Why Pentax took it out of their
product line I can't understand.

It's smaller, easy to handle, lighter in weight than most, built like an
armored car, and very weather-resistant.  In my entire life, I have
never been more satisfied with a purchase than I am with the K7.

--
--Peter

Peter A. Schaible



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