Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.  

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
Bambalec
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 18
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 4 posts
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:27 am
Info

Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by Bambalec » Mon Jul 18, 2016 3:59 pm

Hello everyone.

As the title sais, comparing one next to other, the original panorama jpeg file has a much obvious better quality (very visible if you zoom a lot) compared to the actual export of Panotour. Ofcourse using 12 jpeg quaility export from panotour and multires ticked on. Panorama is a full sphere panorama 360x180.

Anyone can please confirm this too, knows why happening and if there is any way to avoid it?

Thanks a lot in advance,
Chris.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Mon Jul 18, 2016 8:31 pm

Bambalec wrote:Hello everyone.

As the title sais, comparing one next to other, the original panorama jpeg file has a much obvious better quality (very visible if you zoom a lot) compared to the actual export of Panotour. Ofcourse using 12 jpeg quaility export from panotour and multires ticked on. Panorama is a full sphere panorama 360x180.

Anyone can please confirm this too, knows why happening and if there is any way to avoid it?

Thanks a lot in advance,
Chris.


Hey Chris!

I usually use jpg=7 to 9 and the quality is good: http://klausesser.de/wp/wordpress/

Which size and which kind are your equirectangular images? I strongly suggest to use TIFF-images - preferably 16bit.
Never(!) use jpg - because they get compressed twice:
1) when you save them in photoshop or whatever they get compressed.
2) when PTP makes tiles of them and compress them a second time by saving the tiles.

best, Klaus

signmaster likes this post.

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:03 pm

I have done some tests comparing the resolution of the outputs from Panotour compared to the resolution of the jpg file of the panorama (I used jpg quality =9 in the builds)

For versions of Panotour before 2.5 there is no significant difference in resolution for any type of panorama

For Panotour 2.5 if the panorama is full equirectangular there is no significant difference in resolution

For Panotour 2.5 if the panorama is a partial (cylindrical or spherical and < 360 x 180) then the multiresolution is ignored and just the HTML rendition of the cube faces from krpano is seen. This is a very noticeable drop off in resolution

The html of the partial panorama needs to be edited to replace html:prefer with html:fallback and this seems to restore the full resolution OK

There was an earlier post on here regarding this topic where a contributor also reported that if you have a tour and just one of the constituent panoramas isn't a full equirectangular then under PTP 2.5 this resolution issue will be present for the whole tour - I haven't tested for this myself

http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31916

I have some screenshots of these differences which I can show later if this would be useful


best
Martin

no avatar
aeriksson
New member
 
Posts: 9
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Wed May 11, 2016 4:48 pm
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by aeriksson » Tue Jul 19, 2016 7:10 pm

another thing is make sure your jpg color profile is srgb. Anything else will change and get ugly

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:29 pm

aeriksson wrote:another thing is make sure your jpg color profile is srgb. Anything else will change and get ugly



Right! Sure thing!

best, klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Tue Jul 19, 2016 10:37 pm

marzipano wrote:I have done some tests comparing the resolution of the outputs from Panotour compared to the resolution of the jpg file of the panorama (I used jpg quality =9 in the builds)

For versions of Panotour before 2.5 there is no significant difference in resolution for any type of panorama

For Panotour 2.5 if the panorama is full equirectangular there is no significant difference in resolution

For Panotour 2.5 if the panorama is a partial (cylindrical or spherical and < 360 x 180) then the multiresolution is ignored and just the HTML rendition of the cube faces from krpano is seen. This is a very noticeable drop off in resolution

The html of the partial panorama needs to be edited to replace html:prefer with html:fallback and this seems to restore the full resolution OK

There was an earlier post on here regarding this topic where a contributor also reported that if you have a tour and just one of the constituent panoramas isn't a full equirectangular then under PTP 2.5 this resolution issue will be present for the whole tour - I haven't tested for this myself

http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31916

I have some screenshots of these differences which I can show later if this would be useful


best
Martin


Hi Martin!

Seems it´s ok with mix of planar and spherical images -
http://www.klausesser.de/Bild_Fassade/
http://klausesser.de/wp/wordpress/index ... stbereich/

best, Klaus
http://klausesser.de/wp/wordpress/

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:02 am

marzipano wrote:There was an earlier post on here regarding this topic where a contributor also reported that if you have a tour and just one of the constituent panoramas isn't a full equirectangular then under PTP 2.5 this resolution issue will be present for the whole tour - I haven't tested for this myself


I have now tested this condition for myself and found the opposite to be the case

That is to say that the full equirectangular 360x180 panoramas in the tour have the resolution of the original jpg files whilst the partial panorama constituents suffer from the large drop in resolution as described in my post above (for PTP2.5) as explained

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Wed Jul 20, 2016 12:08 pm

marzipano wrote:That is to say that the full equirectangular 360x180 panoramas in the tour have the resolution of the original jpg files whilst the partial panorama constituents suffer from the large drop in resolution as described in my post above (for PTP2.5) as explained



I understand you´re referring to equirectangulars you cropped in PTP`s editor - rather than to planar images!?
I cannot realize any reduced resolution in my mixed tour!

best, Klaus

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Wed Jul 20, 2016 3:12 pm

klausesser wrote:
marzipano wrote:That is to say that the full equirectangular 360x180 panoramas in the tour have the resolution of the original jpg files whilst the partial panorama constituents suffer from the large drop in resolution as described in my post above (for PTP2.5) as explained



I understand you´re referring to equirectangulars you cropped in PTP`s editor - rather than to planar images!?
I cannot realize any reduced resolution in my mixed tour!

best, Klaus

Hi Klaus

I( was referring to a mixture of full equirectangular panos and panos produced in APG that are less than 360 x 180 but still spherical (e.g. 360x60 for just a landscape in "strip" form). These 360x60 "strips" are the ones that don't have full resolution in PTP2.5 without the edit. 360x180 panos cropped in PTP are fine (in fact this is the Kolor preferred workaround to solve the issue)

best
Martin

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Wed Jul 20, 2016 9:54 pm

marzipano wrote:
klausesser wrote:
marzipano wrote:That is to say that the full equirectangular 360x180 panoramas in the tour have the resolution of the original jpg files whilst the partial panorama constituents suffer from the large drop in resolution as described in my post above (for PTP2.5) as explained



I understand you´re referring to equirectangulars you cropped in PTP`s editor - rather than to planar images!?
I cannot realize any reduced resolution in my mixed tour!

best, Klaus

Hi Klaus

I( was referring to a mixture of full equirectangular panos and panos produced in APG that are less than 360 x 180 but still spherical (e.g. 360x60 for just a landscape in "strip" form). These 360x60 "strips" are the ones that don't have full resolution in PTP2.5 without the edit. 360x180 panos cropped in PTP are fine (in fact this is the Kolor preferred workaround to solve the issue)

best
Martin


hey Martin!

Yes - i understood that already ;) But i wondered whether that´s related to mixing equirectangular- and planar images also - or only to mixing full-spherical and partly-sperical, but not planar images.

best to you, Klaus

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Thu Jul 21, 2016 8:16 am

hi Klaus

In answer to that specific question:-

A mixture of full equirectangular and planar behaves exactly the same as full equirectangular plus partial spherical in that the full 360x180 has the same resolution as the original jpg or tif etc. but the partial is severely downgraded (in ptp 2.5) but can be restored by the html edit to replace html5:"prefer" by html5:"fallback"

best
Martin

no avatar
Bambalec
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 18
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 4 posts
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2015 9:27 am
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by Bambalec » Thu Jul 21, 2016 10:55 am

Hello everyone again!

As a lot have been said, i would like to make my issue a little more clear by providing a screenshot. On the left you can see the quality (12) of the image that panotour exported in a full sphere image. On the right you can see the actual JPG that is imported to panotour to create the tour. If there wasnt any quality drop from panotour those two must be the same exactly. Which are not. So my question is how these two (the jpg we import / exported tour) can have the same quality?

(only by zooming a lot in, you can see the actual difference)

Thanks again in advance,
Chris
Attachments
Screen Shot 2016-07-21 at 11.46.21.png

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:02 pm

marzipano wrote:hi Klaus

In answer to that specific question:-

A mixture of full equirectangular and planar behaves exactly the same as full equirectangular plus partial spherical in that the full 360x180 has the same resolution as the original jpg or tif etc. but the partial is severely downgraded (in ptp 2.5) but can be restored by the html edit to replace html5:"prefer" by html5:"fallback"

best
Martin


hey Martin!

That´s still a bit confusing to me: you say "but the partial is severely downgraded" does mean that the planar image
is NOT severely downgraded? I ask because you said just some words before:
"A mixture of full equirectangular and planar behaves exactly the same as full equirectangular plus partial spherical in that the full 360x180 has the same resolution as the original jpg or tif etc. "

I just need to know whether i need to change anything in the jpg-settings or not when i use a mix of planar-images.

best to you, Klaus

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:19 pm

Bambalec wrote:Hello everyone again!
On the left you can see the quality (12) of the image that panotour exported in a full sphere image.


You mean it exported a full-sphere PANO i guess? Or did you deselect "tiles"?? Can you please describe precisely what
you did?

Bambalec wrote:On the right you can see the actual JPG that is imported to panotour to create the tour.


The right one is much worse than the left one. Do we have a communication-issue here?

Bambalec wrote:If there wasnt any quality drop from panotour those two must be the same exactly. Which are not.


No.

Bambalec wrote:So my question is how these two (the jpg we import / exported tour) can have the same quality?


To me it´s not completely clear what you´re talking about . . sorry. Can you please be more precise?

1)
It´s obvious, that an in image which you import to PTP gets compressed when PTP makes it to thounsands
of tiles.
So it´s not at all a good idea importing JPGs - which already got compressed and lacks tonerange compared
to TIFFs.
2)
which kind of data do you export from PTP?
A) Multiresolution (which means tiles)?
B) not Multiresolution?


best, Klaus

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Thu Jul 21, 2016 7:51 pm

klausesser wrote:
marzipano wrote:hi Klaus

In answer to that specific question:-

A mixture of full equirectangular and planar behaves exactly the same as full equirectangular plus partial spherical in that the full 360x180 has the same resolution as the original jpg or tif etc. but the partial is severely downgraded (in ptp 2.5) but can be restored by the html edit to replace html5:"prefer" by html5:"fallback"

best
Martin


hey Martin!

That´s still a bit confusing to me: you say "but the partial is severely downgraded" does mean that the planar image
is NOT severely downgraded? I ask because you said just some words before:
"A mixture of full equirectangular and planar behaves exactly the same as full equirectangular plus partial spherical in that the full 360x180 has the same resolution as the original jpg or tif etc. "

I just need to know whether i need to change anything in the jpg-settings or not when i use a mix of planar-images.

best to you, Klaus


Hi Klaus
sorry perhaps I could have been clearer !

everything except full 360x180 full equirectangular gets severely downgraded in PTP 2.5

The confusion arises because PTP refers to all these types (including planar) using the term "partial spherical panorama" when it summarises the tour

best
Martin

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Fri Jul 22, 2016 2:56 am

marzipano wrote:
Hi Klaus
everything except full 360x180 full equirectangular gets severely downgraded in PTP 2.5
The confusion arises because PTP refers to all these types (including planar) using the term "partial spherical panorama" when it summarises the tour


Hey Martin!

To be honest: mixing planar images and full spherical images very, very often building tours of average 4-6 Gigapixels i NEVER realized significantly diminuished resolution between in- and output extending the normal values.

I use to use TIFFs for input. I very rarely use JPG as input for PTP.

Of course the output is never 1:1 to the input - that´s impossible, because of the final JPG-saving of the tiles.

Please have a look here: http://www.klausesser.de/Bild_Fassade/

Watch the planar images and watch the spherical panos.

best, Klaus

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Fri Jul 22, 2016 9:36 am

klausesser wrote:
Hey Martin!

To be honest: mixing planar images and full spherical images very, very often building tours of average 4-6 Gigapixels i NEVER realized significantly diminuished resolution between in- and output extending the normal values.

I use to use TIFFs for input. I very rarely use JPG as input for PTP.

Of course the output is never 1:1 to the input - that´s impossible, because of the final JPG-saving of the tiles.

Please have a look here: http://www.klausesser.de/Bild_Fassade/

Watch the planar images and watch the spherical panos.

best, Klaus


I couldn't tell from your example as you need to generate the tour with the zoom set to max (4000%) so that you can zoom right down to the details

I have a sample of a simple (12 frame) pano that I have created as both a 360x180 version and a partial spherical (360x64) and then combined them as a tour

identical results to the above are also obtained from a 360x180 plus a planar version

The images show that when the small section in the red box (see pano image) is zoomed into the resolution is a lot better for the 360x180 version

At the normal viewing level it is very hard to spot and would just appear as a slight lack of sharpness

Applying the html edit to replace html5:"prefer" with html5:"fallback" resolves the issue if you have flash player enabled

best
Martin
Attachments
ptp2.5 issue example.jpg

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by klausesser » Sat Jul 23, 2016 11:13 pm

marzipano wrote:
need to generate the tour with the zoom set to max (4000%) so that you can zoom right down to the details



You mean "zoom right down to the pixels" . . you wouldn´t see any "details" @4000% ;) :cool:

Klaus

no avatar
marzipano
Member
 
Posts: 431
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 14 posts
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 1:32 pm
Location: Richmond London UK
Info

Re: Panotour ruins the original quality of jpeg panoramas.

by marzipano » Sun Jul 24, 2016 11:17 am

klausesser wrote:
marzipano wrote:
need to generate the tour with the zoom set to max (4000%) so that you can zoom right down to the details



You mean "zoom right down to the pixels" . . you wouldn´t see any "details" @4000% ;) :cool:

Klaus


The 4000% is just an enabler available in PTP - the samples above are about 600%

Owning a Ferrari doesn't mean you have to drive at 200 mph all the time :cool: :)


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests