 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
Hey guys,
I look for advices how to optimise my virtual tour made with PTP last RC to avoid long delay at little planet startup and same for loading time of each panel ! Virtual tour is there: http://visites.skivr.com/visites/7_Laux … index.html
I changed time for little planet in PTP but no success ! I tried also tiles size of 512 and 1024 without real differences !
Hosting is done in france on a very efficient server well connected to internet so problem is not there !
Thanks for advices,
Vincèn
Offline
Do you embed all data?
How many panos are there in the tour and is there also other media (audio and/or video)?
Offline
mediavets wrote:
Do you embed all data?
Sorry I didn't mention it but for sure I don't embed anything ! Happily considering whole size of virtual tour 
mediavets wrote:
How many panos are there in the tour and is there also other media (audio and/or video)?
12 panos and nothing else embedded ! webcam are just jpeg files refreshed on server itself through cron job (so no impact on tour itself !).
Vincèn
Offline
is qualitiy level set at 12? 10 is faster on loading...
(Panorama Properites -> Pictures -> Jpeg Quality
Georg
Offline
gkaefer wrote:
is qualitiy level set at 12? 10 is faster on loading...
(Panorama Properites -> Pictures -> Jpeg Quality
Thanks for idea but I don't want to kill quality of my panos by changing jpg compression setup !
I'm sure there is something badly configured somewhere as same panos just passed in KRPano tools load in correct time so there is something wrong in PTP but I don't find what 
Vincèn
Offline
Vin,
I agree something is configured wrong,..I avoid little planet just because they are slow,....but cool. Still, I couldn't even get the first pano to load,... 12 to 10 does not make a big difference,..even down to 8 is ok sometimes,..are you cutting,.. are they high res images,..are you front loading a ton of large plugins???
Rob
Offline
rbackhaus wrote:
are you cutting,.. are they high res images,..are you front loading a ton of large plugins???
I use tiles, I tried size 512 and 1024 but none real differences ! for plugins nothing important ! my panoramas are pretty large 20 000 pixels side but it should not be so long as with krpano tools pano loads much faster !
Vincèn
Offline
I would have to see your code to help any futher,...try cutting size 1200,...also my high res panos are around 640 x 640 tile size
Offline
rbackhaus wrote:
I would have to see your code to help any futher,...try cutting size 1200,...also my high res panos are around 640 x 640 tile size
Hi,
I can send you the code but it has nothing special ! It's just regular code generated by PTP ! I tried already cutting size for tiles at 1200 but none real difference !
Vincèn
Offline
Hi Vincen,
a virtual tour with 64 megabite size, withg gallery, thumbnails, pictures, map.
http://schellinger-fotografie.de/tour-f … ontes.html
Size of each panorama 1200, cutting size 512, jepg-quality 10, nothing embedded.
All files load up in a folder on my server.
Does the tour load faster than yours?
Best michael
Last edited by micha22 (2011-02-02 10:29:46)
Offline
micha22 wrote:
http://schellinger-fotografie.de/tour-f … ontes.html
Size of each panorama 1200, cutting size 512, jepg-quality 10, nothing embedded.
Thanks Michael for link, it looks to load a little faster than mine. On mine I removed little planet intro and it looks to start at least faster ! what is original size of each of your pano ?
Vincèn
Offline
micha22 wrote:
the original size of each pano is 12000 x 6000
oky 
mine are between 15000 and 30000 on larger side so perhaps explain difference of loading time, unless tiles should do no difference !
Vincèn
Offline
Hi,
does the panoramasize really matter?
I´ve thought panotour render down the panorama to the selectet size, no matter how big the original is:|
I have tested it with my panos, downsampling to half the size, make 1200 panoramasize and 512 cutting size
and see no difference in the size of the file.
Perhaps my panos are to small to have big difference.
Best micha
Offline
vincen wrote:
micha22 wrote:
http://schellinger-fotografie.de/tour-f … ontes.html
Size of each panorama 1200, cutting size 512, jepg-quality 10, nothing embedded.Thanks Michael for link, it looks to load a little faster than mine. On mine I removed little planet intro and it looks to start at least faster ! what is original size of each of your pano ?
Vincèn
PS: for me it take no longer than 2 seconds until all is loaded for each of the panos...
8mbit sync dsl line...
Georg
Offline
so I updated the whole virtual tour and used for each pano size tile given by KRPano tools so it should be best settings ! http://visites.skivr.com/visites/7_Laux … index.html
How fast does it load ?
Thanks,
Vincèn
Last edited by vincen (2011-02-02 17:28:06)
Offline
vincen wrote:
so I updated the whole virtual tour and used for each pano size tile given by KRPano tools so it should be best settings ! http://visites.skivr.com/visites/7_Laux … index.html
How fast does it load ?
Thanks,
Vincèn
It's slooooow and I get an error messgae:
Offline
You can easily find the issue with a virtual visit by using Chrome and developper tools.
So, a giant logo and a map in PNG.
For natural images ( not synthetic, PNG is often far more big than the same image in jpeg ).
Offline
mediavets wrote:
It's slooooow and I get an error messgae:
Error is due to cache of your browser, please empty it and it should be ok as little planet has been removed already and google analytics plugin is correctly setup so it should not generate errors !
Thanks
Vincèn
Offline
AlexandreJ wrote:
For natural images ( not synthetic, PNG is often far more big than the same image in jpeg ).
PTP is not supposed to optimise such files so it loads fast ? or am I supposed to do that myself ? It looks like it's last solution
Vincèn
Offline
Update: for logo my fault, original file is very large resolution :S so I'm changing it right now so for that it should be ok ! For map fault looks to be on PTP side, I used a PSD file in PTP as I needed transparency and it converted it to a big PNG so I have to try to find a better way to do that so probably convert it myself in PNG to get smaller file !
Offline
That's a really good question Vincen : should Panotour optimize your images or not ?
I'm sure there are many people that want that and some that definitively don't want it ( imagine we optimize a panorama and then deteriorate the huge job you did on it to be able to get it really nice and crispy ... ). Moreover, this should be done per image ( not for a projet but perhaps only on some image of a project ).
My short term answer is 'do it yourself'. My long term answer could be Panotour could cope of that or at least warn you that one ressource is bandwidth eater
Offline
Should load faster now ? right ?
Thanks all for your help,
Vincèn
Offline
vincen wrote:
Should load faster now ? right ?
Vincèn
Yes.
Offline
mediavets wrote:
vincen wrote:
Should load faster now ? right ?
VincènYes.
Thanks for test
Vincèn
Offline
