Flash image quality

[JoyBarclay]

I've been playing around with Pano2VRbeta and comparing it with Pano2QTVR and I notice that any Flash 360s I produce with Pano2VR are not as sharp as it's older brother. I've used the same source equirectangular image and ensured that the quality on all settings was at 100% but it's still producing fuzzy images from source files taken with a D200 and a Sigma which are nice and crisp.

I wonder am I missing something obvious? I like Pano2VR but find the interface less straighforward.

[360Texas]

So we can also see, are they posted somewhere?

[JoyBarclay]

I'll upload them and post the URL here or Private Message you if thats ok?

[360Texas]

here in the forum please. This way others may see too

[JoyBarclay]

This is a SWF created by Pano2VR. All the Image Quality settings were set to 100%

http://www.the360co.com/sandbox/swf/index.htm

The source Tif is a pin sharp 22MB 4000 x 2000 file taken with a Nikon D200/Sigma setup.

When I convert it to a QTVR the quality is great but the SWF is a lot less sharp.

Thanks

[hum@no.id]

http://www.the360co.com/sandbox/swf/index.htm

Looks like very young IPIX (Nikon FC-8 + Nikon CoolPix 950)

___

I have not believed, if say - this D200+Sigma

[JoyBarclay]

I agree - it looks like my old set up with the Nikon 5700 and FCe9 camera.

Here is the same equi produced as a QTVR with the quality set to 77%.
The end result is a much higher quality pano from the exact same equirectangular image.

Any tips?

[360Texas]

One quality item I have learned is that choosing cubeface size improves the quality. Large cube face value... better quality. Compression % controls the flash.swf file size.

So if sharpness is your issue suggest using large cube face value like 2001 or 1901... . Small cube face size like 501 usually results in fuzzy images. Also you can control each cube face % compression value.

[JoyBarclay]

Texas - maybe thats my issue. I've been importing the high res equi TIFF and exporting as a SWF. I wasn't converting to cube faces because I though that step was only applicable to Quicktime formats?

[erik leeman]

@ sparrowhawk360: Maybe you forgot to add the link to the QuickTime version?
I had a quick look at the examples on your website. I hope i don't sound too unfriendly, but were they all made with your old gear? Do you have any you made with your new setup for us to see?
Perhaps you should describe your Pano2VR settings a bit more in detail, the actual cubeface size might be the cause of the problem.

Regards,

erik leeman

[JoyBarclay]

LOL - no problem. They're all shots with the old gear and will gradually be phased out.

And you're right - I forgot to add the link to the QuickTime version.
http://www.the360co.com/virtual_tours_w ... erald.html

[erik leeman]

Well, i'd say the difference is quite dramatic indeed.
But the QuickTime version is not exactly what i would expect it to be either, if i may be so blunt.
From a good 4000x2000px equirectangular you really should be able to produce a 1.30MB .mov that has MUCH more detail and still looks great in a window of, let's say, 800x450 pixels. Creating the largest and best possible cubefaces as a seperate step, and then scaling them down and optimising them in Photoshop BEFORE you let Pano2(QT)VR generate the QuickTime and/or Flash VR's could have quite a positive impact on your results.
If you then use the same pre-fabricated cubeface files for the QuickTime and Flash9 VR versions (with similar quality settings), results should also be very similar.

Regards,

erik leeman

[hum@no.id]

I agree - it looks like my old set up with the Nikon 5700 and FCe9 camera.

hmm.. (If even!) this not the most bad equipment... at desire and skill - using maximum possibilities a poor kit...

I have placed QTVR - example 4mpx-CoolPIX 4500+FC8 and 1 source file

http://humanoid.devalvr.com/4500/ - from 3 around + nadir

http://humanoid.devalvr.com/4500/DCSN2083.jpg

[erik leeman]

Oh, and please be very careful when you work on equirectangulars with things like 'highlights/shadows' in Photoshop! Photoshop does not work 'around the corner', it won't always adjust the image the same right and left, and so the seam can become very visible. I think this, or something similar, is what happened here.

Regards,

erik leeman

[360Texas]

regarding cube face sizes. You do not need to slice and dice to individual cube faces.

In the Flash Output 'Settings' tab... TILE Settings "Cube Face Size" also see below.. Image Quality. This is where you change the cube face Size for each tile.. to say 1901 and adjust Individual Tile Qualities.

You might also consider adjusting the Display Window to say 1024 x 606