morning all,
I’m having a “play” in Pano2VR output, trying to find the best balance between image quality and file size. I’ve used a recent tour and rendered out different JPG quality – from 100% down to 65% (with a 15x7.5k equirect pano output between 15MB (65% compression) to 144MB (100% quality). I’m trying to find the balance between acceptable quality without too much obvious JPG compression artefacts. Here’s random versions – which do you think shows an acceptable amount of artefacts?:
1. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... _church/BK
2. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... church/DNW
3. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... y_church/F
4. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... _church/HS
5. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... church/JPW
6. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... y_church/M
7. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... _church/QR
8. https://www.360imagery.co.uk/draft/duns ... church/VES
The first, nave, mast pano: 6D / Tokina 10-17mm @ 12mm f10 1600 ISO 1/40s. 6 x shots round = equirect. 10x5k pix
Remainder, 6D / Sigma 15mm @ f10. 6 shots @ -7.5, 2 x zenith @ 90 + offset nadir = equirect. 15x7.5k pix.
Interested to hear your thoughts…..!
Stu
JPG output quality test...
Surprisingly, I don't see too much of a difference, only in the compression on blue the blue sky. I expected to see much more difference right off the bat. Of course, there is a difference, but for the average client/end-user, I think these examples would be all but indistinguishable from each other. I hope other people take a look because id like to hear more opinions on this.
I have been experimenting with different output combinations over the past few projects, I tend to output/process differently depending on the scene.
I find that the jpeg compression is much worse in areas with single-color gradients such as blue skies, which makes sense and is to be expected I suppose.
I have a couple of questions if I may, one related to your post and the other not so much.
Do you think it makes sense to go with a lower output quality on Pano2vr, given that the multi-resolution tech means loading times are not really the issue in anything but extreme cases? In the past, I have usually stuck to below 80% on the final Pano2vr output, but I'm starting to think that there's no reason for this, other than making the transfer and storage of the files easier for us.
Also, how did you capture the image of the Nave?
I'm guessing this must be pole-mounted, but can't quite believe there's a system that gets you so much height. I often use a pole, but can't go anywhere near this high.
Great images, by the way. I'm sure patching the nadir on that Nave shot must have been a headache, very nicely done.
I have been experimenting with different output combinations over the past few projects, I tend to output/process differently depending on the scene.
I find that the jpeg compression is much worse in areas with single-color gradients such as blue skies, which makes sense and is to be expected I suppose.
I have a couple of questions if I may, one related to your post and the other not so much.
Do you think it makes sense to go with a lower output quality on Pano2vr, given that the multi-resolution tech means loading times are not really the issue in anything but extreme cases? In the past, I have usually stuck to below 80% on the final Pano2vr output, but I'm starting to think that there's no reason for this, other than making the transfer and storage of the files easier for us.
Also, how did you capture the image of the Nave?
I'm guessing this must be pole-mounted, but can't quite believe there's a system that gets you so much height. I often use a pole, but can't go anywhere near this high.
Great images, by the way. I'm sure patching the nadir on that Nave shot must have been a headache, very nicely done.