Kolor Forums | Autopano, Panotour & Autopano Video Help

I started using Panotour 2.2. when it came out (not the Pro version) but have hit a snag

I can't get the minimum zoom working as I like and as it works in 2.1

On 2.1 the minimum zoom by default filled the screen exactly whereas in 2.2 it is possible to display a narrow strip of the whole width of the pano across the screen with big black borders above and below

I can't see the setting to get it back to just filling the whole screen and not smaller

The screen prints below might explain better !

Browser views are different - on appears to be fullscreeen.

Other than that I cannot account for a difference if tyhe numeric values are the same in both cases.

The full screen one (2.1) is the lowest it goes and that is what I am aiming for

I can carry on using 2.1 to get round the issue but is there a way of using 2.2 to achieve this ?

marzipano wrote:The full screen one (2.1) is the lowest it goes and that is what I am aiming for

I can carry on using 2.1 to get round the issue but is there a way of using 2.2 to achieve this ?

The fullscreen one appears to show the black bars that you don't want - or am I mistaken?

Are these tours online?

I think you are seeing the top of the one below

my site only has the "correct" zoom examples at present but I could send you more info if required

Martin

marzipano wrote:I think you are seeing the top of the one below

my site only has the "correct" zoom examples at present but I could send you more info if required

Martin

The default values work for me? - see screenshot.

And the result is just the same using either PTP 2.1.3 or PTP 2.2.

Do the default values not work for you?

Are your panos 360x180 FOV?

The ones that have caused the issue are partials

I think the 360 ones are OK

marzipano wrote:The ones that have caused the issue are partials

I think the 360 ones are OK

Are the pano FOV and vertical offset values correct for the partial panos?

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:The ones that have caused the issue are partials

I think the 360 ones are OK

Are the pano FOV and vertical offset values correct for the partial panos?

As far as I know (and see the 2 screenshots earlier) but if you want to see for yourself here is the actual partial pano :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/isx2kspgpz61dp6/Valdez.jpg?dl=0

marzipano wrote:

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:The ones that have caused the issue are partials

I think the 360 ones are OK

Are the pano FOV and vertical offset values correct for the partial panos?

As far as I know (and see the 2 screenshots earlier) but if you want to see for yourself here is the actual partial pano :

https://www.dropbox.com/s/isx2kspgpz61dp6/Valdez.jpg?dl=0

You problem has arisen because in PTP you have set the projection type to planar and the image does not have a planar projection, I can see from the EXIF that you chose a cylindrical projection when rendering the pano in APG.

But PTP can only correctly handle images with either a spehrical or a planar projection.

Here I have set the projection to spherical and you can see that PTP correctly reads the EXIF to complete the Input field of view values, and that with default values for default view and zoom limits the end result when viewing the tour is as one would expect although it may not be quite 'right' because PTP 'thinks' it's a spherical projection when in fact it's a cylindrical projection.

The solution for you is to re-render the pano in APG choosing a spherical projection.

Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

marzipano wrote:Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

Just as an experiment I have used your image and replicated your original settings - output planar projection, etc - in both PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 and the end result is identical, with no sign of the black bars you reported.

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

Just as an experiment I have used your image and replicated your original settings - output planar projection, etc - in both PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 and the end result is identical, with no sign of the black bars you reported.

That's odd - All I can think of is that I use PT 2.1 and 2.2 not PTP

could they behave differently ?

Tested on PT 2.2 and PTP 2.2 Windows 7 64bits version it's the same.

Into IE11, Chrome 37 and Firefox 32 the panorama load in "fullscreen" an I can zoom out to view all the planar panorama with black borders over/under with the default values on a 1920x1080 screen.

marzipano wrote:

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

Just as an experiment I have used your image and replicated your original settings - output planar projection, etc - in both PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 and the end result is identical, with no sign of the black bars you reported.

That's odd - All I can think of is that I use PT 2.1 and 2.2 not PTP

could they behave differently ?

It seems not.

If you don't want those viewing the tour to be able to zoom out to see the entire image with black bars top and bottom, then choose the Spherical output projection with your cylindrical projection image.

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

Just as an experiment I have used your image and replicated your original settings - output planar projection, etc - in both PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 and the end result is identical, with no sign of the black bars you reported.

I have to say I'm confused about this. We must be testing these versions differently somehow

I just downloaded trial versions of PT Pro 2.1 and 2.2 and the same difference in zoom functionality occurred with these two. PTP2.1 behaved nicely (for me !) and PTP2.2 exhibited the big black bars

Just to reiterate - I am using the + and - control bar functions to zoom in and out to the maximum / minimum extents possible to generate the zoom differences. Using the mouse wheel has the same effect too

best
Martin

marzipano wrote:

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:Thanks for that analysis

I think that answers my query and I will use that approach in the future

However, as I said earlier (and the reason for my posting) Panotour 2.1 does actually handle these cylindrical projections as I like whereas 2.2 does not. So as an alternative to re-rendering existing panos as spherical it is equally viable to just use Panotour 2.1 on these

Martin

Just as an experiment I have used your image and replicated your original settings - output planar projection, etc - in both PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 and the end result is identical, with no sign of the black bars you reported.

I have to say I'm confused about this. We must be testing these versions differently somehow

I just downloaded trial versions of PT Pro 2.1 and 2.2 and the same difference in zoom functionality occurred with these two. PTP2.1 behaved nicely (for me !) and PTP2.2 exhibited the big black bars

Just to reiterate - I am using the + and - control bar functions to zoom in and out to the maximum / minimum extents possible to generate the zoom differences. Using the mouse wheel has the same effect too

best
Martin

Probably a misunderstanding on my part.

I assumed you were comparing initial default view in both cases but I don't think you were?

Yes, PTP 2.1.3 and PTP 2.2 appear to behave differently when zooming if you choose the planar output projection for your image rendered with a cylindrical projection in APG.

If when using PTP 2.2 you choose a planar output projection and then zoom out to max. then you will see the black bars.

If instead you choose a spherical output projection then you will not; better still render with a spherical projection and the choose spherical output projection in PT/PTP to match.
.............

But if you wish to allow the user to see the entire image there will (have to) be black bars. I can see situations where I might use that.

Aha - thanks for all your work on that
Personally I prefer the 2.1 functionality where the zoom is limited by screen dimensions but I can see the full pano view may be attractive to others

I think I will just use 2.1 for my existing panos as I am happy with them being cylindrical projections but then try and remember to use spherical projections on new ones

Martin

marzipano wrote:Aha - thanks for all your work on that
Personally I prefer the 2.1 functionality where the zoom is limited by screen dimensions but I can see the full pano view may be attractive to others

It is logical behavior for planar images that are typically intended to be seen in their entirety.

I think I will just use 2.1 for my existing panos as I am happy with them being cylindrical projections but then try and remember to use spherical projections on new ones

Martin

You can use your cylindrical projection rendered images in PTP 2.2 if you set the Output projection to spherical - then it behaves in almost teh same way as you observe with planar output projection in PTP 2.1.3.

The downside of sticking with 2.1.3 is that you don't benefit from various enhancements and bug fixes made since that release.

mediavets wrote:

marzipano wrote:Aha - thanks for all your work on that
Personally I prefer the 2.1 functionality where the zoom is limited by screen dimensions but I can see the full pano view may be attractive to others

It is logical behavior for planar images that are typically intended to be seen in their entirety.

I think I will just use 2.1 for my existing panos as I am happy with them being cylindrical projections but then try and remember to use spherical projections on new ones

Martin

You can use your cylindrical projection rendered images in PTP 2.2 if you set the Output projection to spherical - then it behaves in almost teh same way as you observe with planar output projection in PTP 2.1.3.

The downside of sticking with 2.1.3 is that you don't benefit from various enhancements and bug fixes made since that release.

I had a look at the spherical output from partial panoramas in 2.1/2.2 and agree that it resolves the issue with the zoom levels

However, I usually post-process my panoramas with editing software just to tidy up minor stitching errors etc and for this I am currently using paint.net and have been for some time

When I got Panotour quite recently I discovered paint.net overwrites the exif user_comment field that PT uses to get FOV and Offset info and as such the use of the spherical output option on planar panos is completely destroyed

I actually logged this with your forum and also with the paint.net user forum a few weeks/months ago but as yet it is unresolved

(I may consider going to a new editor in the light of this thread)

FYI this is what paint.net does to the pre and post exif data field and the effect on the spherical output of planar panos as attached

(I'm not expecting a quick fix !!)

Many (most) image editors will 'damage' that tag.

In your case the relevant data is still readable (by the EXIF reader) that is HFOV, VFOV and vertical offset, so you could enter those values manually in panorama properties.

PT/PTP cannot apparently read the post-edit tag.

If the tag appears to be missing then KPT/PTP will attempt to guess the values based on the aspect ratio of the image, in most cases of partial panos this guess will inevitably be incorrect, unless the image has a pano HFOV of 360 and a symmetrical crop.

marzipano wrote:I started using Panotour 2.2. when it came out (not the Pro version) but have hit a snag

I can't get the minimum zoom working as I like and as it works in 2.1

On 2.1 the minimum zoom by default filled the screen exactly whereas in 2.2 it is possible to display a narrow strip of the whole width of the pano across the screen with big black borders above and below

I can't see the setting to get it back to just filling the whole screen and not smaller

The screen prints below might explain better !

This change of behaviour is due to a "fix".
Most users using planar projection complained about the fact they were not able to zoom out enough to see the whole panorama.

If many users like you prefer the first behaviour, then we may add a tunable to choose which one to apply in the tour.

Gérald

bdd wrote:

marzipano wrote:I started using Panotour 2.2. when it came out (not the Pro version) but have hit a snag

I can't get the minimum zoom working as I like and as it works in 2.1

On 2.1 the minimum zoom by default filled the screen exactly whereas in 2.2 it is possible to display a narrow strip of the whole width of the pano across the screen with big black borders above and below

I can't see the setting to get it back to just filling the whole screen and not smaller

The screen prints below might explain better !

This change of behaviour is due to a "fix".
Most users using planar projection complained about the fact they were not able to zoom out enough to see the whole panorama.

If many users like you prefer the first behaviour, then we may add a tunable to choose which one to apply in the tour.

Gérald

I think the 'fix' behaviour is appropriate for 'proper' planar images.

In his case he was actually using a cylindrical projection stitched pano, but assigning an output projection of planar.

It would have been better to render with a spherical projection and use a spherical output projection to achieve the result he desired.

It even worked quite well using a spherical output projection with his cylindrical projection input image.

...........

If you were to create this option it would really need to be per-pano rather than tour-wide to be useful I think.

mediavets wrote:

bdd wrote:

marzipano wrote:I started using Panotour 2.2. when it came out (not the Pro version) but have hit a snag

I can't get the minimum zoom working as I like and as it works in 2.1

On 2.1 the minimum zoom by default filled the screen exactly whereas in 2.2 it is possible to display a narrow strip of the whole width of the pano across the screen with big black borders above and below

I can't see the setting to get it back to just filling the whole screen and not smaller

The screen prints below might explain better !

This change of behaviour is due to a "fix".
Most users using planar projection complained about the fact they were not able to zoom out enough to see the whole panorama.

If many users like you prefer the first behaviour, then we may add a tunable to choose which one to apply in the tour.

Gérald

I think the 'fix' behaviour is appropriate for 'proper' planar images.

In his case he was actually using a cylindrical projection stitched pano, but assigning an output projection of planar.

It would have been better to render with a spherical projection and use a spherical output projection to achieve the result he desired.

It even worked quite well using a spherical output projection with his cylindrical projection input image.

...........

If you were to create this option it would really need to be per-pano rather than tour-wide to be useful I think.

Apart from the "glitch" with the exif data (see above) which means the FOV and Offset values have to be copied over manually to the spherical projection parameters, I have to say I actually like this projection better than planar now I have had a chance to compare them side by side

Not only that - on a double blind poll of experts (i.e. the wife) she also thought the spherical was better than planar projection without knowing which was which !

I would go as far as to say that cylindrically stitched panos are handled just as well as spherical in Panotour so there would be no need to re-stitch anything

As it also solves the minimum zoom issue I will just need to regenerate the html and swf files from my exiting pano library

Thanks again for all your help getting to the bottom of this

Martin