panorama software,virtual tour software
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-02-21
#32
Yeah, I've seen these patent quotations as well. alas, they are only a summary and don't actually say very much. At the end of the day they're patenting their technic and maths. Without actually reading the full patent and then say comparing it with other software... well lets just say I can't read if any infrigement is apparent with just this data.
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-02-21
#33
Yo Dave..., I did send u a private msg and thought I should leave it public therefore duplicating the process. Here is Dave's response:

Thank you for the compliment - all we can say is - we do try hard to help others.

See answers below:


-- Previous Private Message --
Sent by : phoenixrising
Sent : February-19-2003 at 4:41am

Dave,

in the shopping mall thread u mentioned that u saved ur panos as 12mb bmp file as 1500 x 3000 cd r quality.

Now I took my three shot panos and cropped them then saved each as bmp then imported into panoweaver to stich.
problems: each bmp is 9mb total 27mb... do I need to import the cropped jpg pics (cp990 fine 2048 x 1536) into panoweaver and then save as bmp??

If so how do I do that in panoweaver? Also when saving out to cd r qual I seem to have default setting of 800 x 4800 only. What am I missing here? Also how do I then resize the bmp down? (use photoshop)
Probably dumb questions... but heh guru Dave, u have some of the best answers.


>>> Answers >
Our original single image set are 2048 x 1536 Camera Resolution FULL NORMAL 72 pixels per inch not FULL FINE 300 pixels per inch setting. Thats why your stitched image 3 x 9mb is larger than our 12mb final image.

Our process is take at FULL Normal res 3 jpg images, then load all 3 into photoshop. Circle crop each to 1424 x 1424 pixels. Change the black to white background, rotate ccw 90 degrees and SAVE AS .bmp's. Our single images are 5mb each bmp's. 3 x 5 = 15 not counting the 30% overlap reduction.. so our final is around 12mb.

Then take the 3 bmp's into Panoweaver 3.01 (latest update), select out put to CD-r and PW changes the dimensions to 3000 wide x 1500 high output. Stitch and save results as BMP.

Take the final stitched .bmp back into Photoshop [we use PS ver 7 - its the same as Ver 6]. Clean up, do your color balancing and Sharpen 1 time to remove the fisheye fuzzyness. Then save 1 time as bmp.

While still in Photoshop with the 3000 x 1500 dimension image - change the image dimensions to say 1600 x 800 ... then while the reduced image is still on the screen - SAVE for WEB and convert it to a JPEG file type with a new filename. When you close your original image - PS will ask if you want to save - SAY NO because you want to keep the original 3000 x 1500 bmp file, and you already saved it before you resized the image to 1800 x .....

<<<

Hope that helps

Dave
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-02-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 2
2003-03-11
#34

Hi everybody,

 

I?e read most of your posts and found them instructive. In the end however, I was not feeling 100% sure about the legal status of Panoweaver versus the IPIX patents. So I decided to call directly IPIX to know, without any doubt, where do they stand, now, about the Panoweaver issue. I talk to a few persons and their answers where invariably clear: ?f you stitch together two or more fisheye images and apply distortion correction algorithm, you are infringing our patents, panoweaver is infringing our patents?

 

Since I? new to the panoramic community I don? yet have reason to like or dislike a particular company, practice or product ?but I find really unfortunate however that the stitching of fisheye images be the privilege of a single company.

 

Without a fisheye lens I understand that it becomes quite a lengthy and unprofitable practice to create spherical panorama. Yes, there still is the Plus option from RemoteReality ?but according to people I?e written to, the Plus option is not yet reliable enough ?they need more time to improve their algorithm and mirrors so as to come up with higher quality panoramas.

 

So, for now at least, seems like IPIX owns the only legal solution to produce efficiently from fisheye images (good quality) commercial spherical panoramas. We have to live with it ?/P>

 

Alain

 


Alain
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 6
2003-03-11
#35
Was there not a previous post on this board from someone who also contacted Ipix, and was told that they only care about 2-shot panos, and are not concerned with 3-shots?  Is there conflicting information from Ipix themselves?
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-04-29
Send Msg:
Posts: 90
2003-03-11
#36
Hi Craig

      Yeah your were not imagining that response. Its under the
thread title "questions about usage" a topic started by o KNOw.
You have to set the forum to look at the last two months and its on page two of the Panoweaver Forum.

Jack

Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-01-16
Send Msg:
Posts: 959
2003-03-11
#37
HHmm.. I discount the post about Ip_x giving the all go totally.

Without even having to call I can guaraantee u that Ip_x will have policy on the form of statement that will be offered at that sort of querie. It should be standard policy for an aggresive player like Ip_x to defend his patch and move the weaker players out of the way. I mean... who's to know if we're not all involved in a cleaver marketing ploy.

Find Software. Patent it. Build it out. Let a small community of pro's have a go with and refine it. Then start to build out the product and the technologie. Open up a couple of sites where u can get the same product cheaper... Wait till loads use it.... and then f**k everyone into using their product by getting the governement to change the law.

Anyone got a read on the Oxall issue at the beginning of this thread?

Maybe we're the defenders of free intellecutal property who're willing to pay anyone who has a good idea. I mean it is the Americans who proclaim the free world. It seems contradictory to their constitution in quite a major manner... Right of free speach and all that...

Anyway I must just be naive enough to have fallen for this swindle and am going go down with my fists up fighting. Oh and I can be quite the bully. chortle.

It's business... happens every day. Maybe that's why Easypano ain't saying anything... They're already the Ip_x China Picture Inc in disguise...

On a more serios note though:

I shall will invest a little more energy in researching this subject... now that I have a vested interest that is.
If I only had an hour to chop down a tree... I'd spend 45 mins sharpening the axe.
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-04-29
Send Msg:
Posts: 90
2003-03-11
#38
Alain,

      You know just when I thought It was safe to go back in the water. You don't know it but you pulled the carpet right out from under me with that one! I guess I was hoping that ignorance would continue to be bliss but that doesn't stand up in court. I thought with iP*x settlement with Oxxal Ford that it was no longer their intellectual property right . That It now belongs to Oxxal because he had won in court proving previous artwork and that if you buy his software ...when its avialable you will be imune from infringement becouse you would be licenced to use the process... his process now.

Jack
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-04-29
Send Msg:
Posts: 90
2003-03-11
#39
Hi again Forum,


     Some thoughts on this subject. It does seem that iP*x does or did have the market wrapped up. I actually for all about 2min thought about freelancing for the company. It worked out with what they were charging for the work about $30.00 an hour wold be left to you the guy who invested in the gear at that time about $1500.00. You would have to roll a vehicle pay for your gas, then time spent on the shoot, and that $30.00 was if you could do all of the above in an hour! I don't anyone who could do that. So you were erning less than $30.00 an hour. If lets say the scenario was you were going to go it alone use a third party software other than iP*X because there click fees cost to much to compete
in the market. You talked to a realtor in your area that was not seviced by iP*x into allowing you to bring to this market the virtual tour service. And lets say you shoot several properties then you need to post your tours. Well most agentcies worked directly with Homestore. com who although they would never admit it but I believe had an exclusive agreement with iP*x not to publish any other tours by any other producer or third party software. When I challenged Homestore on this issue they said they would establihing a qualification process to except work from other producers. They said they wanted to be sure that the tours would work and they would be of a consistant quality. And that they knew that iP*x's worked. But I can attest to the fact that I have encounterd some pano's from iP*x that have not worked. Its not suprising its not brain surgery but the internet is a very complicated network that evolves and changes almost daily. So phoenix the policies of a president who I did not vote to elect aside I would agree it sounds more like an illegal monopoly than a free democractic market system with a major restraint of trade. I know it has restrained mine for the LAST TWO YEARS!
    What I propose is this lets organize as a VR community
start a leagal fund to take the issue to court! I don't know how Oxxal did it and I'm in awe of that. I'll tell you I'm willing to start it here today! Anybody else want to put their
$20.00 bucks in?

Jack
Alternate Text
Joined: 2003-02-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 2
2003-03-11
#40

Hi,

 

Sorry to have spoiled your evening with my post about the patent issue. The reply given by I--X was disappointing but predictable, what I would like to know now is what Ford Oxaal would reply and if he knows about an alternative efficient and affordable solution to create spherical pano (maybe he will come up with his own solution soon, who knows), I?l try to reach him.

 

Beside the RemoteReality Plus option they are some other solutions to create spherical pano efficiently ?but they are expensive, for me at least:

 

http://www.panopticvision.com/

http://www.panoscan.com/

http://www.spheron.com/

 

Either a cheap mirror solution (not so cheap $1600US ?the quality is cheap) or a too expensive scanning solution (between $10000US and $50000US ?nearly perfect quality), there isn? yet anything to fill the gap between these two extremes ?like a good mirror solution for, let? say, $3000US?

 

Alain


Alain
Alternate Text
Joined: 2002-04-29
Send Msg:
Posts: 90
2003-03-11
#41
Hi Alain,

    Thanks for providing those links! I took a peek and bookmarked the sites. After my wife picked me off the floor after glimpsing the $$$$$$$ I was able to read about the technology. I wasn't aware of the scanning tecnology. Its funny because about 15yrs ago I made just such an investment....but it was in the video industry with the purchase of my first non-linear editing system the "Video Toaster" it was run on what was conisidered at the time a gamming platform the "Amiga" computer. That investment was $20,000 and that was latest technology competing with editing systems costing in the six figures. So today this system has been replaced by a pc for $2,000. You can edit
faster with more effects... you know the drill. After making that investment and living through what happened to the Amiga platform I promised myself never to do that again!
The only reason I'm her today was because I wanted to bring video tours to the internet and this seemed to be the best method available untill the bandwidth through the internet to the lowest common denominator user improves.
But unfortunately there's catch, a gottcha, a fly in the ointment. Well here I sit depressed once again. Somebody
please come up with a definitive answer!

Jack