panorama software,virtual tour software
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-03-21
#1

Image Quality After Publish

I shoot in RAW and then convert to tiff (PSE5) the images are then stitched in PW and saved as bitmap. They are then resized to 2 1/2 times the size of the viewer and saved as a jpeg under 'save for web' function. Image looks crisp when saved and I then publish the tour,  once this is done I replace the image that TW outputs with the original image but the quality is no better. The image is still blurred and not at all crisp. I use a D80 with 8mm sigma fisheye. Am I missing something?

http://www.virtuallythere.es/VTours/T43/Tourviewer_Targa43.html


Keep smiling....
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-03-21
#2
Sorry forgot to mention the first image is edited in the way described above and the second image (bedroom) is simply resized to 1500 x 750 and then published. I cannot tell the difference between them as they both have a blurred effect. Any thoughts? Thanks
Keep smiling....
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-10
Send Msg:
Posts: 112
2007-03-21
#3
i don't think they look that bad.Did you try using the sharpening feature in photo shop?
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-12-26
Send Msg:
Posts: 141
2007-03-21
#4
You are right, the images look blurred. What version of TW do you use?

Michael
http://www.premiumpano.de
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-03-21
#5

Hi Michael, I use TW 1.3.

daugaard47, I have not used the sharpening feature in PSE as I dont think it will make a massive impact, my main concern is that I dont think I am getting anywhere near the best results possible from the equipment and software I am using.

Regards


Keep smiling....
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-12-26
Send Msg:
Posts: 141
2007-03-21
#6
Quote: Originally posted by roadrunner on March-21-2007

Hi Michael, I use TW 1.3.

Regards




I expected this, since the always blurred impression was the reason to me NOT to buy TW 1.3 but wait for 2.0 (well, there are other issues with that version... plenty of stuff to read in this forum). The TW 2.0 player is a lot sharper, but you have no opportunity to exchange the published scene images with your own optimized ones.

I don't think your problem is due to bad equipment (Sigma 8 and corresponding camera to produce RAW is absolutely ok) nor to poor software, if you are happy with the final result prior to publishing by TW.

If you want to continue using TW 1.3 and your original images are crisp without additional sharpening I would say: Give Photoshop Unsharp Mask filter a try. Resize your original to your target size, do the sharpening with different parameters and see what parameters give the best result.

For me, e.g. a 2000x1000 image works fine with something like 150 - 0,6 - 3, aiming at ptviewer images. Some settings above/below should give you a feeling, what you need for TW 1.3 to display your fine panoramas less blurred (you only need to change the two first parameters, I think).

Yours,
Michael



http://www.premiumpano.de
Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-21
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-03-22
#7

Thanks for your reply Michael and your pm, I will give what you suggest a try and let you know the results.

Regards

Dave


Keep smiling....
Alternate Text
Joined: 2007-01-25
Send Msg:
Posts: 35
2007-03-22
#8
Dave,

My understanding is with TW 1.3 you can swap the compressed images produced by TW with your original panos. I wish I can do that in TW 2!

I don't think you need to sharpen. Why don't you just replace the compressed panos in the published files with your original (resized to 2 1/2 times the size of the viewer) panos.


Alternate Text
Joined: 2006-11-04
Send Msg:
Posts: 156
2007-03-23
#9
I wish we could do this in 2.0. I used the swaping images trick with 1.3 and love the flexibility of it.
Roadkill
Alternate Text
Forum Moderator
Joined: 2002-11-23
Send Msg:
Posts: 5438
2007-03-23
#10

Yes, I agree.

The compression with Tourweaver doesn't give the results I want and certainly doesn't allow us to make the most of our panorama images. I tried to edit the paths and file extensions from .jpe to .jpg to see if I could find a way around this but it failed.

Personally it would be "PREFERABLE" if we got to choose a check box for Encryption like we did with Tourweaver 1.3 Pro. So we can use normal .jpg unencrypted and .jpe when we select encrypted.

Regards, Smooth


Alternate Text
Joined: 2004-04-14
Send Msg:
Posts: 382
2007-03-23
#11
I hope Joe sees this thread so he can restore that feature.

Thanks,
eagle