Image-stitching and virtual tour solutions My account Updates
It is currently Sat Jul 26, 2014 4:12 am

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:11 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
All my 360 degree panoramas are single rows of images in cylindrical format

I am keen to put these onto Google+ panorama display for sharing but this viewer primarily supports equirectangular projections - it will take cylindrical as well but the display is concave lens shaped

Is it possible (preferably but not essentially in APG3) to convert copies of these cylinders to equirectangular format?

I appreciate that my images will not fill the available height of 180 degrees but it would be OK to just have those parts plain white if the format was equirectangular (spherical)

Any thoughts ?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 27, 2013 3:47 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:
All my 360 degree panoramas are single rows of images in cylindrical format

I am keen to put these onto Google+ panorama display for sharing but this viewer primarily supports equirectangular projections - it will take cylindrical as well but the display is concave lens shaped

Is it possible (preferably but not essentially in APG3) to convert copies of these cylinders to equirectangular format?

I appreciate that my images will not fill the available height of 180 degrees but it would be OK to just have those parts plain white if the format was equirectangular (spherical)

Any thoughts ?


I think you'd have to stitch them again, force the pano FOV to360x180 and select a Spherical projection. The settings shown in the screenshot will do that.

Those parts with no image data will be black.


Attachments:
1-apg308-spehrical360180.jpg
1-apg308-spehrical360180.jpg [ 114.67 KiB | Viewed 534 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 5:58 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4663
Location: Australia
What ever the length of your images is.. Divide by 2.... Then create a blank page in Photoshop at that six and then drop you image into that 2:1 page and centre on the Y.. Save as a full equirectangular image... Since Google makes a real dog dinner out of the nadir, and the rest of the pano for that matter.. I guess it won't matter to much.. I have no idea why Google are so picky in who they choose to capture their street view panos, when their own software turns the panos into a very amerterish looking pano.. You will find heaps of ripples and terrible stitching spots, all of which are not on your original pano. I think Google do it to destroy photographers credibility..

Destiny..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 9:19 am 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Destiny wrote:
What ever the length of your images is.. Divide by 2.... Then create a blank page in Photoshop at that six and then drop you image into that 2:1 page and centre on the Y.. Save as a full equirectangular image... Since Google makes a real dog dinner out of the nadir, and the rest of the pano for that matter.. I guess it won't matter to much.. I have no idea why Google are so picky in who they choose to capture their street view panos, when their own software turns the panos into a very amerterish looking pano.. You will find heaps of ripples and terrible stitching spots, all of which are not on your original pano. I think Google do it to destroy photographers credibility..

Destiny..


That won't end up with the correct result if the original image uses a cylindrical rather than a spherical projection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 28, 2013 2:07 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7619
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
mediavets wrote:
Destiny wrote:
What ever the length of your images is.. Divide by 2.... Then create a blank page in Photoshop at that six and then drop you image into that 2:1 page and centre on the Y.. Save as a full equirectangular image... Since Google makes a real dog dinner out of the nadir, and the rest of the pano for that matter.. I guess it won't matter to much.. I have no idea why Google are so picky in who they choose to capture their street view panos, when their own software turns the panos into a very amerterish looking pano.. You will find heaps of ripples and terrible stitching spots, all of which are not on your original pano. I think Google do it to destroy photographers credibility..

Destiny..


That won't end up with the correct result if the original image uses a cylindrical rather than a spherical projection.



Correct!

The way is to do a new stitch/render using spherical projection.

best, Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:25 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
Thanks Destiny, Klaus and Mediavets for those tips

Just to reiterate, I wanted to post 360 panoramas on the web to share with friends where the panorama is displayed full screen and rotates.

Google+ have this facility but it is tailored to equi-rectangular (360x180 spherical) panoramas to fit in with their Android phone app to capture this type

Mine are all cylindrical and don't display very well so I was looking to see if a simple conversion to 360x180 was possible

I compared the following

1.Original cylindrical image (approx 21000 x 4000 pixels)
2.cropped down version of (1) approx 21000 x 3500
3.put existing image inside a 360 x 180 "wrapper" using paint editor (not Photoshop) - Destiny suggestion
4.Restitch original images under a spherical projection + render to max extent (360 x 180) - Mediavets and Klaus suggestions
5 Restitch 2 identical copies of existing panorama using spherical projection + clamped extent
6.Restitch original images under a spherical projection + render to clamped size
7.Cropped down version of (6)

To submit to Google+ it is required first to submit the images to Google PhotoSphere to add metadata about the image itself and the geographical location. This step also imposes a size limitation (undocumented !) of about 15MB file size or 50-60 Mpixels so a lot of the above needed resizing first

I put all the above on Google+ to compare results

As suggested, the ones that had been restitched as spherical from scratch (4,6,7) came out better than those that were just reformatted cylinders (1,2,3,5)

There was no difference in the actual panorama detail between using the maximum extent or clamped extent when restitching as spherical

None of them was anywhere near as good as displaying via a viewing system designed for cylindrical panoramas - I use wpanorama at wpanorama.com for this but it is not easily shareable as the software runs locally on my own PC and not on the web (in the same format)

I elected to go for the option (7) above - the restitched spherical panorama using clamped extents and slightly cropped. This required less re-sizing tan the other spherical options

Thanks for your help on this

best
Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:35 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:
I elected to go for the option (7) above - the restitched spherical panorama using clamped extents and slightly cropped. This required less re-sizing tan the other spherical options

Thanks for your help on this

best
Martin


That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You said the pano image had to have a 360x180 FOV, but if you 'clamp to extent' then it won't.

You can specify image size when rendering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:36 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 11:55 pm
Posts: 4663
Location: Australia
Re: Google... Read this, it might help.. Mine still looks yuck but I might be doing something wrong..

http://www.panotwins.de/technical/five- ... gle-views/

http://google-latlong.blogspot.nl/2013/ ... -view.html

Destiny...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:40 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:
I elected to go for the option (7) above - the restitched spherical panorama using clamped extents and slightly cropped. This required less re-sizing tan the other spherical options

Thanks for your help on this

best
Martin


That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You said the pano image had to have a 360x180 FOV, but if you 'clamp to extent' then it won't.

You can specify image size when rendering.


The maximising of the extent just has the effect of putting a lot of blank space around the image to make it 360*180 (and massively increases the file size) but the actual image you get is exactly the same as the clamped one which has no blank space inserted

I still have the results if you want to see images

Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:
I elected to go for the option (7) above - the restitched spherical panorama using clamped extents and slightly cropped. This required less re-sizing tan the other spherical options

Thanks for your help on this

best
Martin


That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You said the pano image had to have a 360x180 FOV, but if you 'clamp to extent' then it won't.

You can specify image size when rendering.


The maximising of the extent just has the effect of putting a lot of blank space around the image to make it 360*180 (and massively increases the file size) but the actual image you get is exactly the same as the clamped one which has no blank space inserted

I still have the results if you want to see images

Martin


OF course - but you said you needed an equirectangular image (which is why I outlined the process as I did).

But it seems you don't?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:07 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
marzipano wrote:
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:

That doesn't seem to make sense to me.

You said the pano image had to have a 360x180 FOV, but if you 'clamp to extent' then it won't.

You can specify image size when rendering.


The maximising of the extent just has the effect of putting a lot of blank space around the image to make it 360*180 (and massively increases the file size) but the actual image you get is exactly the same as the clamped one which has no blank space inserted

I still have the results if you want to see images

Martin


OF course - but you said you needed an equirectangular image (which is why I outlined the process as I did).

But it seems you don't?


Yes I did but I didn't know how the results would turn out till I did the comparisons (and I'm still in the market for more suggestions)

As it turned out, putting non 360*180 image into Google+ and letting Google+ fill the empty space (with black) is identical to doing a full 360*180 in APG3 and filling the space yourself (which is slightly nicer because I can "paint" it white). However, the resizing needed to be with PhotoSphere size limitations is of course much more drastic if you are uploading a load of blank space in addition to the image so on balance the clamped image is marginally preferable

So yes, I take your point about asking for equi-rectangular at the beginning because I was hoping for a perfect solution but none of the options give that

Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 2:19 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
Destiny wrote:
Re: Google... Read this, it might help.. Mine still looks yuck but I might be doing something wrong..

http://www.panotwins.de/technical/five- ... gle-views/

http://google-latlong.blogspot.nl/2013/ ... -view.html

Destiny...


Hi Destiny

I saw some of these articles when I was looking into what needed to be done to submit panoramas

Apart from the forced equi-rectangular format I haven't really noticed that many issues with the quality - just 2 things I spotted which apply to only some of the panoramas I submitted. Most of mine needed some downward resizing which was noticeable on occasions

1. There are one or two stitching errors that were not in my originals (yes I checked my copies for sure !!)

2. The seam at 0/360 degrees is slightly visible sometimes

Had you got other definitions of "yuck" ?

Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 3:00 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Posts: 7619
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
marzipano wrote:
Thanks Destiny, Klaus and Mediavets for those tips

Just to reiterate, I wanted to post 360 panoramas on the web to share with friends where the panorama is displayed full screen and rotates.




Martin - just use PTP 1.8 for making your panos intercative, put them on your webspace and show them on the web.
No matter it´s spherical, cylinderical or rectangular.

Forget all other stuff :cool:

Klaus


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:22 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
klausesser wrote:
marzipano wrote:
Thanks Destiny, Klaus and Mediavets for those tips

Just to reiterate, I wanted to post 360 panoramas on the web to share with friends where the panorama is displayed full screen and rotates.




Martin - just use PTP 1.8 for making your panos intercative, put them on your webspace and show them on the web.
No matter it´s spherical, cylinderical or rectangular.

Forget all other stuff :cool:

Klaus


Thanks Klaus - I'll have a go with the free trial !

Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 4:26 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:

Yes I did but I didn't know how the results would turn out till I did the comparisons (and I'm still in the market for more suggestions)

Martin


As Klaus suggests...is there a reason you would not use Panotour or Panotour Pro to display your panos online?

PT/PPT require input images to have a spherical or a planar projection.

An alternative might be pano2VR with 360panogallery:
http://ggnome.com/pano2vr
http://ww2.360panotours.com/

Pano2VR can also handle images with a cylindrical projection.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 5:28 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:

Yes I did but I didn't know how the results would turn out till I did the comparisons (and I'm still in the market for more suggestions)

Martin


As Klaus suggests...is there a reason you would not use Panotour or Panotour Pro to display your panos online?

PT/PPT require input images to have a spherical or a planar projection.

An alternative might be pano2VR with 360panogallery:
http://ggnome.com/pano2vr
http://ww2.360panotours.com/

Pano2VR can also handle images with a cylindrical projection.


I just looked at Google+ to see whether it would be appropriate and (as it is free for use) it was an obvious choice to try first

I don't have licenses for any of the others on the list although if they are suitable I have no issue with purchasing one. If I go down that route (which now looks more likely) I would want to look at all reasonable contenders I can identify to see which is the most suitable against my own requirements checklist before I lay out for one of them. This is what I did for APP/APG against PTGUI, Arcsoft etc etc and it was time well spent IMO as I think APP/APG was the best choice for me

As an aside, are you saying above that PT/PTP only supports Spherical and planar projections - in which case that would already be a "no" for me wouldn't it ?

best
Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:17 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:

I don't have licenses for any of the others on the list although if they are suitable I have no issue with purchasing one. If I go down that route (which now looks more likely) I would want to look at all reasonable contenders I can identify to see which is the most suitable against my own requirements checklist before I lay out for one of them. This is what I did for APP/APG against PTGUI, Arcsoft etc etc and it was time well spent IMO as I think APP/APG was the best choice for me


Then you are welcome also to consider

Flashificator+Flash Panorama Player.

Tourweaver.

Panosalado.

360cities.net

viewat.org

And I dare say others will propose yet more.

But...if you want your panos/tours to be veiwable from Flash-enabled platforms and iDevices and Android devices, then in my opinion Panotour Pro is the best choice, and Pano2VR an alternative in its Pro incarnation.

Quote:
As an aside, are you saying above that PT/PTP only supports Spherical and planar projections - in which case that would already be a "no" for me wouldn't it ?


No...but you would need to restitch your panos with a spherical projection.

Spherical in this case means that the images have a spherical projection not that they have a 360x180 FOV.

FOV and projection type are two separate things.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... ctions.htm


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:48 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:

I don't have licenses for any of the others on the list although if they are suitable I have no issue with purchasing one. If I go down that route (which now looks more likely) I would want to look at all reasonable contenders I can identify to see which is the most suitable against my own requirements checklist before I lay out for one of them. This is what I did for APP/APG against PTGUI, Arcsoft etc etc and it was time well spent IMO as I think APP/APG was the best choice for me


Then you are welcome also to consider

Flashificator+Flash Panorama Player.

Tourweaver.

Panosalado.

360cities.net

viewat.org

And I dare say others will propose yet more.

But...if you want your panos/tours to be veiwable from Flash-enabled platforms and iDevices and Android devices, then in my opinion Panotour Pro is the best choice, and Pano2VR an alternative in its Pro incarnation.

Quote:
As an aside, are you saying above that PT/PTP only supports Spherical and planar projections - in which case that would already be a "no" for me wouldn't it ?


No...but you would need to restitch your panos with a spherical projection.

Spherical in this case means that the images have a spherical projection not that they have a 360x180 FOV.

FOV and projection type are two separate things.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... ctions.htm



Thanks for that list and the terminology heads-up :)

I'll have a look at the members of the list against my wish list although the prospect of restitching all my cylindrical panoramas fills me (and even more so my wife) with some trepidation

Martin


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:57 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 13570
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
marzipano wrote:

I'll have a look at the members of the list against my wish list although the prospect of restitching all my cylindrical panoramas fills me (and even more so my wife) with some trepidation

Martin


Are you sure your panoramas were sticthed and rendered with a cylindical projection?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 29, 2013 7:01 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Richmond London UK
mediavets wrote:
marzipano wrote:

I'll have a look at the members of the list against my wish list although the prospect of restitching all my cylindrical panoramas fills me (and even more so my wife) with some trepidation

Martin


Are you sure your panoramas were sticthed and rendered with a cylindical projection?


100%


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 20 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group