Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution  

Share your tips and tricks here or get help with any Panotour 2.0+ problem!
No bug reports (of any kind) in this forum!
no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Thu Oct 26, 2017 12:58 pm

Hello all,

iam new @ Panotour Pro but I have a question, because iam encountering an issue, which I hope could be resolved or its unfortunately a limitation (what i dont think it is).
I rendered a very high resolution spherical Panorama (15000 px * 7500px). When I look at the Panorama in Photoshop same sections of the image are sharp in Photoshop but not close as sharp in the final Panorama viewed in the browser.
Even when Multiresolution-Checkbox is checked.
Is it a limitation or a conversion-to-Boxmodel Problem internaly in Pano Tour Pro?

Left is Pano in the Browser and right is Photoshop
Attachments
Left_Pano_right_PS.jpg

User avatar
Annis
Kolor Team
 
Posts: 6062
Likes: 801 posts
Liked in: 444 posts
Joined: Mon Aug 12, 2013 12:47 pm
Location: France
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by Annis » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:18 pm

Hello and welcome to the forum,

When the tiles are generated, they are optimised for the web.
Did you set the JPG quality to 12? (max)

Panotour Pro V2.5.8 64bits - New Project_5.png
Panotour Pro V2.5.8 64bits - New Project_5.png (11.52 KiB) Viewed 2733 times

PdZero likes this post.

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Thu Oct 26, 2017 2:40 pm

Hey Annis,
thank you very much for your fast response and help.
Iam happy to be here.
Back to the problem:
Yes I checked this Box but it seems that the resolution is going down after conversion to the panorama. Nothing changes by changing the Jpeg Quality Setting.
After Checking "Use multiresolution" -> iam able to zoom further but resolution seems to be still lower than Photoshop counterpart.

User avatar
signmaster
Member
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 52 posts
Liked in: 36 posts
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: Swan Hill, Australia
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by signmaster » Fri Oct 27, 2017 2:12 am

For Google Maps the optimum image size is 13312 x 6656. Google uses 512px tiles and at the largest zoom in the pano is 26 tiles wide X 13 tiles tall. That = 13312 x 6656. So Panotour may do something similar and be downsizing your image. Perhaps someone from Kolor can comment?

PdZero likes this post.

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Fri Oct 27, 2017 12:19 pm

hey signmaster,

thats an interesting aspect. Maybe that is the case.
I dont know, if iam doing something wrong because iam really disappointed right now. The Quality of the rendering is so extrem detailed and good but it comes at cost: rendertime. So it would be a shame if I have to downgrade my renderingquality, especially because KRPano/Panotour is capable of doing multiresolution.

Iam really wondering what iam doing wrong (maybe)

User avatar
signmaster
Member
 
Posts: 289
Likes: 52 posts
Liked in: 36 posts
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:55 pm
Location: Swan Hill, Australia
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by signmaster » Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:39 pm

Try upping your pano resolution to 15360 x 7680 if Panotour is using 512 tiles it will have 30 tiles instead of downsampling your image? I don’t know for sure but I do know that other systems also use 512 tiles. Worth a try.

Steve

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Sat Oct 28, 2017 2:09 pm

Steve,

thank you very much. Seems you are some kind of technician specialist (like me) but iam currently not really into that Panotour Pro Tool. I will try this right now. Next Panoramarendering will have your above mentioned resolution.
I really like those kinds of answers. Iam a nerd :D

no avatar
menneisyys
New member
 
Posts: 5
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:33 pm
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by menneisyys » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:54 pm

I (a registered customer of both Panotour 2 and AutoPano 4; mag_200070499) have exactly the same problem: the project exported by the tool has far inferior resolution compared to the input. I've tested this with several different inputs, playing with all the parameters, even on the trial version of Pro. This includes the JPEG quality setting recommended above.

No such problems exist for "Pano2VR". I *really* hope I don't need to purchase that app and switch to it entirely...

Could you please investigate the problem? The lack of high-resolution output makes Panotour 2 (which I did pay for) simply insufficient for my needs.

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Sat Oct 28, 2017 7:22 pm

Yes.
And I tested it with aforementioned Resolution but there is no difference. Still resolution not sharp and crisp as Jpg or Photoshop file...

no avatar
menneisyys
New member
 
Posts: 5
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:33 pm
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by menneisyys » Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:36 pm

Let me present an example. Source image (43262x21631px; 140 MBytes): https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 005469725/

A crop of the original (above) photo as rendered by the MacOS Photos app: the paper next to the entrance door: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 553490589/

This is how it’s rendered by Panotour 2.5.8 (JPEG quality 12; fully zoomed in the browser (couldn’t zoom in more, as opposed in all the other cases)): https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 553490589/

(Note that I’ve also upscaled the image before uploading so that its size is appr.. the same as the others; the uploaded image is at https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 553490589/ . As flickr automatically zooms in smaller images, you’re unlikely to need this file.)

And this is Pano2VR 5.2.2’s rendering (JPEG quality is the default 90): https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 553490589/

(Note that I’ve also created a version of the latter with JPEG quality 100: https://www.flickr.com/photos/33448355@ ... 553490589/ . The original image, because of the 200MByte upload size restriction of flickr, already being pretty blocky, the q=100 version doesn’t xhibit significantly better image quality. The project’s size (916 Mbytes) is, nevertheless, more than three times larger than with the q=90 case (290M))

As you can see, Pano2VR delivers the same pixel-level quality as the original image (albeit with a bit less contrast). Panotour’s output, on the other hand, simply doesn’t have the necessary resolution. It can’t even zoom into the panorama as much as Pano2VR and, when checking out the original, single panorama JPG, any standard image viewer.

User avatar
360-compunics-com-ni
Member
 
Posts: 418
Likes: 15 posts
Liked in: 163 posts
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:37 am
Location: León, Nicaragua
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by 360-compunics-com-ni » Sun Oct 29, 2017 7:09 pm

Have you unchecked the "Limit to resolution"-setting on your pano preview as seen on the screenshot?
You can then zoom into up to the max. of 4000%.
I have also attached the actual 512x512pixel tile generated using PTP 2.5.7, which you will find at "<your-project-name>data/<your-filename-with-ID>/0/4/16/8.jpg".
I don't see much of a difference with the P2VR-image of yours, the poor resolution of the presented example is probably due to upscaling the screenshot without prior zooming into the high-resolution level.
Attachments
8.jpg
Resolution-Setting.png
Out now: DeviceCheck for PTP plugins! https://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=37446

Want to know how clients use your tours? Google Analytics Track Events plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34442

Add actions to your hotspots: Hotspot Actionlist plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=35829

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:08 am

I will check that.
I will uncheck this box and see what happens.

Thank you!

no avatar
menneisyys
New member
 
Posts: 5
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:33 pm
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by menneisyys » Mon Oct 30, 2017 7:29 am

360-compunics-com-ni wrote:Have you unchecked the "Limit to resolution"-setting on your pano preview as seen on the screenshot?
You can then zoom into up to the max. of 4000%.
I have also attached the actual 512x512pixel tile generated using PTP 2.5.7, which you will find at "<your-project-name>data/<your-filename-with-ID>/0/4/16/8.jpg".
I don't see much of a difference with the P2VR-image of yours, the poor resolution of the presented example is probably due to upscaling the screenshot without prior zooming into the high-resolution level.


Thanks for the response!

I've tried. The in-browser rendering is exactly the same as in the previous case and is definitely worse than in the image you've posted above. (I've tested this in both Safari and Firefox, both latest versions, MacOS High Sierra, 16GB RAM on a high-end 2017 15" MBP. That is, it's surely not my system's insufficient resources that is causing the problem.) Are you sure your in-browser(!) rendering delivers exactly the same quality as the tile you've posted above? If it's not, then, it must be a problem with the Web zoomer code (and not the tiles) that doesn't allow for utilizing the full capabilities (showing the full resolution) of the, otherwise, available tiles.

A Safari crop (the Firefox one is exactly the same):

Screen Shot 2017-10-30 at 8.24.31.png

User avatar
360-compunics-com-ni
Member
 
Posts: 418
Likes: 15 posts
Liked in: 163 posts
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:37 am
Location: León, Nicaragua
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by 360-compunics-com-ni » Tue Oct 31, 2017 6:27 am

I have tested it using Firefox 56.0 on Linux both with WebGL and CSS3D rendering activated, and i get the resolution of the actual tile in both cases. Don't know how to further debug this, maybe the Kolor developers can shed some light on this.
Out now: DeviceCheck for PTP plugins! https://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=37446

Want to know how clients use your tours? Google Analytics Track Events plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34442

Add actions to your hotspots: Hotspot Actionlist plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=35829

no avatar
PdZero
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 20
Likes: 2 posts
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2017 9:51 am
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by PdZero » Tue Oct 31, 2017 11:47 am

Hi,

do you mean that by manually activating webgl and css3d you get the desired resolution?
Or is activated by default? If not.. thats a problem.

User avatar
360-compunics-com-ni
Member
 
Posts: 418
Likes: 15 posts
Liked in: 163 posts
Joined: Wed Dec 17, 2014 12:37 am
Location: León, Nicaragua
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by 360-compunics-com-ni » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:25 pm

No, there is no need for manual setting, WebGL is set by default and you can change it by modifying the "html5:"-setting in the "index.html"-file.
The relevant KRPano-docu is at: https://krpano.com/docu/html/
Out now: DeviceCheck for PTP plugins! https://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=37446

Want to know how clients use your tours? Google Analytics Track Events plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=34442

Add actions to your hotspots: Hotspot Actionlist plugin: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=35829

no avatar
menneisyys
New member
 
Posts: 5
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Thu May 05, 2016 5:33 pm
Info

Re: Not satisfied with Panorama Resolution

by menneisyys » Tue Oct 31, 2017 2:41 pm

360-compunics-com-ni wrote:No, there is no need for manual setting, WebGL is set by default and you can change it by modifying the "html5:"-setting in the "index.html"-file.
The relevant KRPano-docu is at: https://krpano.com/docu/html/


Enabling css3d didn't help either on my Mac. The index file looks like this (I've just added "+css3d"):

html5:"only+webgl+css3d"


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests