panorama software,virtual tour software
Alternate Text
Joined: 2007-09-12
Send Msg:
Posts: 1
2007-09-12
#1

quality with current 2.0 version

I was having problems with intermittent flashing with the 2.00.07529 version. I then downloaded the current version 2.00.70803 and it doesn't have the flashing problem, but there is a lot of movement and shaking in the tour. It's especially noticeable with horizontal lines which move and get jagged.
It's very distracting.

Has anyone else had this problem?
skpb
Alternate Text
Joined: 2005-09-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-09-27
#2
Quote: Originally posted by smooth on September-27-2007

As for the picture quality display I suggest you need to adjust your compression style to see what works best in each version of Tourweaver.


I've got a problem in recognizing how the compression style used can affect the fact that straight lines get jagged in 3.0 and not in 1.3 even when using the same pics. Seems like EP has downgraded the focus on picture quality in both ver. 2.0 and 3.0 in favor of making the GUI more fancy and "Dreamweaver look-a-like".
Correct me if I'm wrong.

Here's a couple of examples from a Best Western Hotel using both 1.3, 3.0 Java and 3.0 FlashVR

You can clearly see the difference in picture quality. In 1.3 the pics are ok, in 3.0 Java the straight lines are jagged and in 3.0 FlashVR the straight lines are kinda wavy. All three versions are using the same pictures, go figure.

1.3
http://www.action-photo.se/player/bestwestern/skogshojd_13/Tourviewer_bw_skogshojd.html

3.0 Java
http://www.action-photo.se/player/bestwestern/skogshojd/Tourviewer_bw_skogshojd.html

3.0 FlashVR
http://www.action-photo.se/test/Tourviewer_bw_skogshojd.html

Feedback on what compression style to use is highly appreciated.
Any other feedback on getting 3.0 to produce acceptable picture results are also highly appreciated.

Thanx...



ActionPhoto International
Alternate Text
Forum Moderator
Joined: 2002-11-23
Send Msg:
Posts: 5438
2007-09-27
#3

There is no risk that there are differences in your sample tour and version 1.3 is more lenient on your over sharpened images. I would suggest you adjust your sharpening methods. Because compressing an over sharpened image only adds to the artifacts within the displayed image and emphasises the anti-alias problem of the viewer. Also over sharpening adds to the final file size of the panorama image in KB weight. If you get to the point you can see halo's around straight edges you have gone too far with sharpening. Also it is very obvious you are using HDR as it is very noticeable in tonal range. Some like this, personally I don't as it looks fake.

Still, the anti-alias issue is noticeable with the different Java viewers and perhaps Easypano could look at offering user adjustment on panning quality like some other well known software products. Obviously this has to do with motion display because things look fine when stationary.

Regards, Smooth


Alternate Text
Forum Moderator
Joined: 2002-11-23
Send Msg:
Posts: 5438
2007-09-27
#4

Just some other points of note:

If you zoom in you can reduce the amount of anti-alias shown in the panning panorama. This points to the viewer window size not matching the aspect ratio of the panorama image. Correcting this will come with trial and error and a little bit of testing.

It was a well covered and known fact that when displaying an image in a 400x300 viewer (in the old days) that 1400x700 or 1500x750 was most suited. Now that we need to cover both small and fullscreen views with the same image it would seem logical that you need to keep the same aspect ratios. So "at a guess" 2800x1400 or 3000x1500 should project better in the same viewer window.

I also noted that the anti-alias problem is no ware near as prevalent when being displayed fullscreen.

Regards, Smooth   


Alternate Text
Joined: 2005-09-22
Send Msg:
Posts: 26
2007-09-26
#5

I've got the same problem with hoizontal lines that move and get jagged with TW 2.0 and now with TW 3.0. Don't know if EP has got any solution to this problem, but until they do I'm sticking with 1.3.

Cannot say that I'm impressed with the picture quality in TW 3.0 compared to 1.3. When using the same pictures in a 1.3 and 3.0 tour and comparing them, the pics in the 3.0 tour are really bad.

Feedback on this problem from EP staff is highly appreciated.

Thanx...



ActionPhoto International
Alternate Text
Joined: 2005-05-03
Send Msg:
Posts: 569
2007-09-26
#6
Quote: Originally posted by stampede on September-26-2007

Cannot say that I'm impressed with the picture quality in TW 3.0 compared to 1.3. When using the same pictures in a 1.3 and 3.0 tour and comparing them, the pics in the 3.0 tour are really bad.


I agree. I have also experienced that the picture quality in tw3 compared to tw1.3 is a lot worse. I have heard that EP do no longer use PTviewer as their viewer. But it is just a rumor.

I know that all the bugs and problems that I have heard about and experienced with tw2 and now tw3 have lead to the conclusion that I will look elsewhere to find software to produce my tours with. TW1.3 is still a awsone product, and I will keep using it, but the need for high quality fullscreen tours makes me look at other suppliers..... It is just so frustrating having all these bugs.   

 


Best regards

Morten Andersen
- a newbie trying to improve
Alternate Text
Forum Moderator
Joined: 2002-11-23
Send Msg:
Posts: 5438
2007-09-27
#7

At no stage has Tourweaver ever used PTViewer.

As for the picture quality display I suggest you need to adjust your compression style to see what works best in each version of Tourweaver.

Like anything there is always room for improvement. But you must also try to get the most out of what you have. There is no better "complete" tour builder software package on the market at the moment "unless" you are prepared to hand script.

I remember everybody complaining that the image viewer wasn't good with 1.3 and then saying how much better 2.0 was......

Regards, Smooth