HGTV Dream Home Virtual Tour

Hey Robert:

Well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, no? :)

The color and contrast appear just fine, here on my Macbook.

I thought the hotspot labels were pretty inconspicuous, myself -- and, the fact they work at all is nice considering the issues with redraw and performance in QTVR as soon as you place anything with transparency on top of the QTVR. It would have been nice for you to be able to turn off the hotspot labels; that would be a good, finessing touch.

Agreed -- the window's way too small... The wow factor as we all know is when you approach full screen.

--
Sunset Magazine has been using QTVR on their site for several years now, to "showcase" their Idea Houses. They were all shot in-house, a la iPix; if you want to see small, grainy and generally not great examples you can head over to their site and search for some of the "tours". By contrast, HGTV's is stellar. :-)

Cheers!

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

Yes, agree, beauty, can be subjective, but I think these could be much better from a quality photography perspective.

Your comment about QTVR performance has further convinced me that Flash is the way forward for now for VR with any complexity embedded in it. The examples shown at Flash Panorama could have been used to make this VR so much better. The persistent hot spots (sometimes as many as 6 on screen) really distract me, especially if you zoom in, the spots and dynamic text gets bigger as you zoom in and the performance starts to craw, at least in Firefox.

And yes, the HGTV VR's would be stellar to any iPIX tours I've ever seen. But that's not much of a complement given iPIX's inherently low quality.

I'm not trying to knock iPIX, it's just a fact; any mirror system is at the bottom of the VR food chain, two fisheye shots is next, then 3 then 4, etc. al. Each step up offers the opportunity for higher quality VR and more post production :)

Regards all,

Robert

Robert
The lower quality of most iPIX Images has a lot more to do with the cameras used than the 2 fisheye capture method itself.

I'm guessing most of the iPIX Images you've seen are of homes for sale. If I'm wrong, correct me.

Most iPIX Real Estate photographers are using Nikon Coolpixes, or similar "pro-consumer" point & shoots, with a lens converters, not DSLRs with true, hi-quality fisheye lenses. Most of the Nikon Coolpixes were 2-5MP cameras.

File size also has a lot to do with it. Most of the sites that host & distribute real estate tours recommend the image file be less than 300kb. I routinely find QTVR & other near full-screen images at a megabyte or more. The images on IVRPA.org have 1MB as a file size limit. With 3 times as much file, the quality of the image gets alot better.

I've always wondered why so many higher end iPIX photographers had a small and large version of each scene to accomodate Dial-Up and Broadband users, and almost no other VR technology users do this? There's a lower quality image and a higher quality image depending on what the users connection can handle.

I charge non-real estate customers $100-150 per image for a higher quality product and my Realtors $120 total for a 4 scene tour. A Realtor is only going to use the Virtual Tour for 3-6 months so its just not worth it to them to pay $100-150 per image. To make the tour profitable I have to minimize the work flow and time involved to produce the virtual images.

A hotel/resort will use images for years, probably until their next renovation which could be 5 years or more away. Of course they want and can afford a better quality image. So I use a 3 fisheye capture, more editing, more touch up, etc. There's more money to pay for my time after all

Comparing Real Estate virtual images, regardless of technology, to most of those used in other industries is like comparing Cadillac to Chevrolet. It just doesn't make any sense to compare them, since by the nature of the markets, ther are 2 levels of quality.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Hi Doug,

"The lower quality of most iPIX Images has a lot more to do with the cameras used than the 2 fisheye capture method itself"

Have to disagree, the capture method determines the level of detail possible. A mirror system is at the bottom because it uses the fewest pixels, 2 fish eye images stitched together is the next step up, three is a bit above that, 4 is more, etc. Using non fish eye lenses is even better. I've seen VRs produced using the kit lens from a pro consumer DSLR that looks better than that produced by a FF pro DSLR using the best currently available fish eye. Possible quality starts with the number of pixels captured and used. Of course it is only the base line of possible quality, the photographer is the most important factor among many others.

I've seen a lot of iPIX images over the years, and I've produced virtual tours I'm proud of using mirror systems, but I do not use either system or approach today. Both of those technologies can produce wonderful images, as you can from an XPan or a Circuit camera. However, today, I use 4 shots with a fish eye as my bottom tier, all the way to well over 100 shots for a single VR. It just depends on the client needs and budget.

And yes of course for delivery file size and quality can be directly related if you know what you're doing, but a 300K file produced from a 4 shot fish eye stitch will be better than a 300K file from a 2 shot stitch.

And while all markets are different, I think you charge way too little for your services. You should be losing at least 20% of your quotes on price. If not, your simply leaving too much money on the table. Just my view on pricing, I think most VR photographers charge too little.

And yes I completely agree, you can not compare real estate for sale photography or virtual tours to almost any other form of photography. It reverses the value 180 degrees in that the best real estate picture are the ones never taken as the property has been sold. The second best ones are never used as the property sold.

I've shot over 8,000 homes over the past 5 years, stills and virtual tours. Like you, I've seen a lot of places for sale, and meet perhaps too many real estate agents. It's a market that's all about good enough, volume and cheap. Over the last couple of years as I've moved on to architects, builders, and other value based clients I still get calls from agents that are sorry to here I've become too expensive for most of them to use. It seems they are not happy with the kids who should be flipping burgers that are now shooting their properties. Hey, what can you expect for $69.95?

Regards,

Robert

Robert
We're both saying the same thing; more pixels equals sharper images.

But there's 2 ways to get more pixels; A bigger sensor or more photos.

The Nikon FC-E8 Fisheye Converter fits on several Coolpix Cameras from the 2Megapixel 700 to several with 3MP, the 4MP Coolpix 4500 and the 5MP Coolpix 5000. Same 183°FOV on all of them but more pixels. More pixels, sharper image.

Same for the FC-E9 lens, the 5400 & 5700 had 5MP sensors and the 8400, 8700 and 8800 were 8MP. 183°FOV on all but the 5400 which had 190°, but more pixels. Again, more pixels, sharper image.

I've learned to Zoom my 5400 with the FC-E9 from its default setting so I get a bigger circle and twice as many pixels. The default setting produces a 1350 pixel diameter circle, zooming gets me a 1920 pixel diameter.

And Coastal Optics still makes a 185° fisheye lens that comes with a Nikon or Canon mount so they could theoretically use a D2X with its 12.4MP sensor or a 5D with is 12.8MP sensor. The lens is outrageously expensive, but so is a used Nikkor 8mm I've seen as the lens used on a Member Gallery image.

And with the increases in sensor size in just the last 5 years, where do you think they'll be in another five.

Shooting more photos and stitching them together isn't the only way to get more pixels.

So like I said, the lower quality of most iPIX Images has a lot more to do with the cameras used, than the 2 fisheye capture method itself. The camera isn't the only factor, its just the biggest one.

And there is the point where more pixels have no benefit because the monitor on the other end has a finite size or the printer has a finite DPI output.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

"So like I said, the lower quality of most iPIX Images has a lot more to do with the cameras used, than the 2 fisheye capture method itself. The camera isn't the only factor, its just the biggest one."

I don't think so, it still comes back to the photographer and their skill or lack of it. If it was just all about cameras then our profession would not exist. Having better cameras/lenses/software obviously does offer the opportunity for higher quality images, but it is the skill of the user that drives quality first.

But then again I'm not sure why you keep trying to defend iPIX or the two fish eye approach to VR. I never said iPIX produced low quality, just that it's in second place to the bottom of the VR food chain when it comes to technology used to produce VR's. Surley you don't think thats not the case. You've stated as much in your reply if you follow the pixel logic. Larger sensors don't change that position as they uplift all options including even the very bottom, mirror systems.

And just to be clear, not all pixles are created equal. In just about any lens the ones toward the center of the lens are better. This is especially true with any fisheye I've ever seen. So adding more shots with a 180 degree+ fisheye lens is not adding more pixels to an image, just better ones from the center of each shot. This is why 3 shots is betterthan 2, etc.

Regards,

Robert

Robert
You're right, the photographer is a bigger factor than the camera, but even a good photographer can't overcome too low a resolution camera. Where a mediocre photographer's work is enhanced by a good cameras/lens combo.

I just have a problem putting iPIX and the the 2 fisheye capture method as one step above the single shot systems. Maybe that's not the way you ment it to come accross.

In your post you referred to "iPIX's inherently low quality," later, in a separate paragraph, listing your chain of improving quality capture methods. Not actually linking the 2 fisheye method to "iPIX's inherently low quality."

You didn't mention that PTGui has always had 2 fisheye stitching, being a Graphic User Interface for Dersche's PTStitcher. Easypano has had 2 fisheye stitching for a while and RealViz just added the capacity with their "DS" version.

So do you consider these programs to have "inherently low quality?"

The 2 fisheye capture method has some real quality limitations, but that's not unique to iPIX as you implied.

I may be a little touchy about critisim of iPIX, I had repeated converstions with mangers and they always treated me very well.

I may be even more touchy of critism from VR photographers, many of whom have never tried the software. Don't know if you're one of those or not.

With the iPIX bankruptcy, I've been trying out PTGui and RealViz Sticher and will be looking at easypano. I've been gaining a real understanding of the strengths & weaknesses of different stitching software, cameras & lenses. iPIX had a lot of advantages and some definite weaknesses, but "inherently low quality" wasn't one of them.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Hi Doug,

Sorry to confuse things, I guess I should not have used iPIX, but instead 2 fisheye shots whichever software is being used to put them togethor. Now that the legal battles appear to be behind the industry to a degree there are lots of 2 fisheye solutions for stitching, even in the US. You should also check out Ford Oxcell's (sp?) product in your search.

But yes, I did mean to put two fisheye shots only right above the mirror systems. The mirror systems are basically a single fisheye shot. While each of these varies in it's capability, just like various fisheye lenses it's still a single "fish eye" shot being used to capture a 360 degree image. 2 fisheye shots is just the next step up. But the mirror systems can produce very useable and workable images. So can 2 fish eye shots. But neither one of these is as good as 3 fish eye shots or even more shots with a rectalinear lens. It's just basic pixel logic that has nothing to do with the software being used to stitch them togethor.

You should let the past go, a few of the mirror systems work very well within their limits and I did not mean it as an insult that iPIX is just a step above that. It's just a fact that two fisheye shots is bascially double the pixles of one mirror shot. Don't be too hard on the mirrors. If I was still shooting real estate at your prices I would be using a mirror system. I did this, sometimes shot and processed 20 homes in a single day. While I was not thrilled with the quality, most of the agents were. So it can work for the market need. In that market iPIX is considered higher end, but relative to mirror systems. 2 fish eye shots can not compare to 3, 4, etc. if all things are the same.

The reason so many people in the industry like to knock iPIX was their legal position, not image quality. Right or wrong that's just the way it was. But it's over, and now we just have many more possible solutions.

Regards,

Robert

Actually, I don't know if I'd put a 2-shot fisheye just above a mirror system. They both have pluses and minuses. Both are a lower quality image than you can get with other methods, but the lowest quality section of the image is different. A mirror has it's lowest quality (most distortion) at the top and bottom of the final panorama whereas a 2-shot fisheye has its lowest quality section at the seam where the 2 hemispheres join. The only advantage of a 2-shot fisheye in image quality is that it can have a higher resolution for a given camera. But the image might not look as good all the way across as a mirror.

Landis
I'm not sure if "quality" is the right word, but I've always thought Full 360°x 360° Spherical/Cubic Images were "better" than the semi-cylindrical scenes from any of the one-shot systems.

Many Southwestern Homes have fancy ceilings with Vigas, Beams, Latillas & Tougue & Groove, etc, so being able to show them with a 2 fisheye system is always "better" than not showing them at all with a one-shot system.

But you're right on the problem with 2 fisheye stitching, the small overlap of the 2 fisheye capture system is its biggest weakness. Using the Nikon FC-E8 and FC-E9 lenses, the field of view is 183° on all but one Coolpix camera. That's not much to work with.

Theoretically, there is also some "fall-off" in light and clarity the lens as it gets near the edges too

The one combo that did a better job was the FC-E9 and Coolpix 5400. For some reason it has 190° FOV. That 10 degrees makes almost all my seams invisible even to me. There is still the "fall-off" issue, but I have almost never been able to see anything that might be caused by it.

I just think any spherical/cubic virtual image, within reason, from 2 fisheyes is a vastly "superior" product to any one-shot system.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Robert
You haven't read the latest news about iPIX In the Knoxville News Sentinal (nearest major newspaper to iPIX's home town of Oak Ridge, TN). iPIX may not be gone.

Here's a challenge for your statement "2 fish eye shots can not compare to 3, 4, etc. if all things are the same"

Tell me how many fisheyes were used to make each of the images in this virtual tour, 2 or 3.

www.goldavenuelofts.com/beta/mountainVista.html

Hint: At least 1 was 2 fisheyes and at least 1 was 3 fisheyes

All all other things are equal, they were shot with the same camera/lens/rotator combo and stitched on the same iPIX Interactive Studio on the same computer.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Hi Doug,

So iPIX is reborn? I'm happy for you. Hope it's what you want.

Your challenge reminds me of my least favorite thing about iPIX, it's viewers. The web/Java based one is slow to load and slow to respond. There really are much better options today. I really dislike the wait time, it appears to me that the iPIX viewer does not allow you to scroll around until the entire 360 by 180 image has loaded. When I viewed your example, I found myself being quite frustrated by not being able to move around until 10-30 seconds after the initial image loaded. It was something I forgot about as I'll have to admit, it's been quite a while since I looked at any real estate for sale virtual tours.

Anyway, you're right, I could not tell any significant difference in the examples you show. They are all very soft, and all suffer from extensive chromatic aberations and not what I would like from a multiple exposure or quasi HDR. I now know I have no hope of helping you see what I've been explaining. You'll have to go down that path by yourself eventually.

In closing my part of this thread I would highly recomend a couple of things. One, get a DLSR with a sigma, or nikon fisheye as soon as possible. You will not regret the uplift in possible image quality. Any point and shoot with a fish eye adapter does not begin to come close to what you can achive with better glass and sensors. Don't worry about megapixels, a old used 6 megapixel DSLR with good glass on it will easily outclass any point and shoots with an adapter, even the current new crop of 8 and 10 megapixel point and shoots - no comparison.

Two, start buying some books on photography for architecture, etc. Study them, try to understand the composition, challenges faced by the photographer. It will help you be a better photographer. I do this as much as possible, it's just make sense to see what an art form can truly be and to study the work being done by masters and others.

Good Luck and Regards,

robert

Omigod!!!

You mean the quality of the images WOULD get better with a better camera????

What a revelation!!!

Wait a minute, didn't I say "The lower quality of most iPIX Images has a lot more to do with the cameras used than the 2 fisheye capture method itself" a reeeeally long time ago???

Oh and I also said "Most iPIX Real Estate photographers are using Nikon Coolpixes, or similar "pro-consumer" point & shoots, with a lens converters, not DSLRs with true, hi-quality fisheye lenses.

Is it possible....we agree?????????????????

And you're suggesting I get a DSLR with a Sigma 8mm or Nikon 105mm?

How does a Canon 350D or 400D sound? I want a camera with a CMOS sensor to reduce Bloomimg around the edges of brite windows when I composite with Photomatix and to reduce the chromatic abberations tha the high end point & shoots seem prone to. I'm thinking a Sigma 8mm f3.5 for the Canon. Or do you like the old f4.0 better? And I hear good things about the Nodal Ninja rotator and is affordable, what do you think?

Oh did I forget to mention I've actually done some research and plan to upgrade beyond the Coolpix line of cameras the end of this year or beginning of next to improve the quality of my work.

Kind of like I started with a Coolpix 700, then bought a Coolpix 950, currently using a 5400 and stepping up to a 8700 shortly.

Damn, seems like I've been doing what you're suggesting for 5 "frackin'" years. (Anybody besides me like the new Battlestar Galactica's addition to American english?)

Robert, you made it too easy, but its been fun

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Patrick
I appreciate that you noticed that that the original post in this was to point out a nice use of virtual imaging on a high profile website that would benefit all virtual tour photographers the more it is seen.

We've had this discussion about Java before.

The sentence,"Virtual Tour requires no software to view," taken completely out of the context of a computer already setup and running, that is connected to the Internet, and the user can wander the Web with sufficient proficiency (like that phrase? Try saying it 3 times fast) to actually connect to the page the floorplan appears on, IS inaccurate.

Let's see they need an Operating System, drivers to run a monitor, the keyboard, a mouse, a browser program and slew of other things.

Yup, they need "software to view" the images. Lots of software. Tons of software!

But taken "in the context" that a Web Surfer has progressed far enough setting up their computer to be stumbling around the Internet and to have arrived at this page, it is unlikely they need anymore software to view the images.

If they came through any prior page on the site, they'd have had to use one of the little drop down menus on the left side to get there and I think those use Java to "drop down." We have drop down menus like them them on our Realtor MLS website and they use Java for them there so I'm assumong the ones on the tour page work the same.

There are just too many websites that use Java for too many things.

Hell, my bank's website requires Java if I want to check the balance in my account. You might have heard of them, just a little company called Bank of America? ;)

And there's this little website that's kind of popular with a few folks called eBay?????? The "Java" link on the homepage goes to a page that says "Welcome eBay Users, eBay is Java Powered and you should be too!" ;)

It would just be too frigging hard to Surf the 'Net for very long without Java, or Flash for that matter. Yes software is required to view the tour, is not magic, but probably not anymore once on the floorplan page

So I can live with "Virtual Tour requires no software to view", feeling its acccurate taken in the context it will be read.

I suppose I could change it to "Virtual Tour probably requires no more software to view", but that might not encourage the visitor to just go ahead and click on something, which is what I, the webmaster and, omigod, the seller of the condos want's them to do.

After all the whole point is to show and sell the product in the images, not be technically and precisely accurate

Thank you for the sort of back-handed compliment on the tour.

My point, after the major shift in direction Robert has taken this thread on from the original post, was that the camera, and therefore the lens, are more important than the whether a photographer is taking 2 or 3 fisheyes "all things being equal."

And that sperical/cubic images are are a much superior product to those from a one-shot system.

And, okay, I had a leeeeeeeettle tiny problem with with the "iPIX's inherently low quality" dis'.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

I agree with Doug and Patrick this is a very good/slick presentation! The photography is good and looks good here on my Powerbook TiG4. I didn't think this was flat at all. If the VR was 800 px wide it would look much better.

I would love to know who shot this.

Also I refuse to get sucked into the whole i*&( thing. NaNa!

Cheers
Robert C. Fisher
VR Photography/Cinematography

Robert
I'm getting hooked on big images, too

Maybe a "2 size option" to see the smaller image thats there now for dial-up users and your 800pixel wide suggestion for broadband viewing of the images.

A patient dial-up could view the 800pixel version too.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

If they came through any prior page on the site, they'd have had to use one of the little drop down menus on the left side to get there and I think those use Java to "drop down." We have drop down menus like them them on our Realtor MLS website and they use Java for them there so I'm assumong the ones on the tour page work the same.

There are just too many websites that use Java for too many things.

It's probably worth mentioning at this point that Java and Javascript are not the same thing - it's perfectly possible that someone could navigate to that page using the Javascript navigation (requiring no plug-ins at all, but is occasionally turned off), but NOT be able to view the Java application that is showing the panoramas. Several versions of Windows XP shipped without any version of Java installed, and it's not the smallest or easiest of downloads. :-(

Meanwhile, back to the original tour that was linked to...

Good Points:
- Reasonable-quality panoramas - not stunning but pretty good.
- Overall scheme seems well-planned.
- General visual design of map and interface is good.

Bad Points:
- No option to go fullscreen.
- Horrendous processor usage - my dual-processor G5 hits 50% without even panning.
- 'Wandering' hotspots.
- Lo-res hotspot graphics - zoom in at all and they look pretty bad.
- Reloading the page just to go from one node to the next.

In general, it's a very good attempt let down by poorly implemented technology. Aldo's SPi-V viewer would have been a much better choice than QuickTime - high-res hotspot images could have been used more easily, they would have been 'locked' onto the background panorama and processor usage would be much lower.

You can see some of the stunning things people have done with SPi-V:
http://www.pixel-propaganda.com/visite/demo_maison/demo_maison_fullscree...
http://www.tristanshu.com/projets/temp7/demo-tour-uk.htm
And especially:
http://www.tristanshu.com/projets/temp7/demo-tour-uk.htm

Ian

Ian
Thanks for taking the time to make more specific and detailed comments about the HGTV Dream Home Tour instead of broad, unspecific put downs about it and any other technology and technics you're not a fan of.

Java remains a mystery to me.

Microsoft was supposed to stop shipping the MS Java Virtual Machine a few years ago, but the Reports & Statistics from the company that provides the ad serving on www.VirtualAlbuquerque.com show 96.2% of visitors have it enabled. Not a survey, actual visitors.

It shows 93.1% of the visitors are Windows users with the bulk being XP at 82.1% so far this year.

So I don't know how they're getting Java on their computers, but they've got it.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Oops, that last link should have been:
http://www.roubaix-lapiscine.com/visite-virtuelle/index.htm

To over-simplify things - Java is for full-blown applications and needs to be installed, while Javascript is 'built-in' to the web browser and does things like resizing windows or allow fancy navigation systems.

I don't remember exactly when XP shipped without Java installed, but I think it was the first couple of years it was released. Quite a few third-party computer sellers added it, though.

Ian

Ian
I could only get the first link

http://www.pixel-propaganda.com/visite/demo_maison/demo_maison_fullscree...

to work even after upgrading my shockwave player.

I thought it was the other way around with Java, Microsoft inluded Microsoft Java Virtual Machine from Win 95 through the first couple years of Win XP. Heres a list from Miscrosoft of what doesn't have the MSJVM:

The MSJVM is not included with Windows XP SP1a, Windows XP SP2, Windows Server™ 2003, or any future Microsoft software

I think you may be right, the computer sellers & manufacturer just stepped in and included Sun Microsystem's Java when Microsoft stopped.

It would explain why the "iPIX Viewing Problems" page on VirtualAlbuquerque.com has so few hits; 118 out of 41,388 pages viewed so far in March

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

"Aldo's SPi-V viewer would have been a much better choice than QuickTime - high-res hotspot images could have been used more easily, they would have been 'locked' onto the background panorama and processor usage would be much lower."

Hi Ian,

Your right about the implementation and it brings up one of the biggest challenges we all face trying to produce and present rich media on the internet - uncontrolled publishing. I think HGTV was actually very brave, perhaps even foolish, even considering or using QT. While iTunes has done a wonderful job extending the installed base, it's still at best only on 70% of the eye balls out there. Using Aldo's viewer, while a much better technical choice, would have limited their viewer population even more. Have many plug-ins have you downloaded recently that you don't know? For most people Shockwave is an unknown.

I think one thing all of us interested in providing full screen VR's have to face is Java, Flash or QT or other even more non standard plug-in's. At this point it's even more important than dial up verses broad band considerations for most markets.

From the recent developments in Flash I think this is the short-to-medium term future of our medium where rich interactive content as part of VR's is key to the experience. In the commercial world of big bucks advertising using VR's I'm really surprised that HGTV did not use a FLASH solution. At 90+ % for Flash 8 or above it would have seemed the obvious choice.

Regards,

Robert

I think HGTV was actually very brave, perhaps even foolish, even considering or using QT.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that. The reasons for not using QT on that project have got nothing to do with installed user base of different viewers. HGTV use large amounts of RealPlayer-specific content which has a substantially lower install base than QuickTime (which can do the same streaming video and audio) and is only a couple of percent more common than Shockwave.

In my experience QuickTime is by far the most commonly used panoramic viewer outside of real estate. Flash viewers on the other hand have only come of age in the last few months - much too late for this project as post-production presumably started in Summer last year, with planning in the Spring.

For the 2008 or 2009 Dream Homes the viewer market will look different.

Ian

P.S. People will download plug-ins for compelling content - ask Hans Nyberg.
P.P.S. I'm more worried about Doug not being able to view some of the SPi-V panos than by Shockwave's install base.

Robert & Ian
In the short term future, I like what has been routine with video; 2 versions of each Virtual Image. A "standard" size and a "full-screen" or near "full-screen" size.

iPIX did this with smaller version of images being viewed with their java viewer and the larger, better quality versions needing their plug-in. I think part of the reasoning was memory demands of the java viewer on Pentium 1 & II computers of the time. The Plug-In worked much better, loading images faster with smoother rotation even on a Win 95 machine.

PhotoWeb, a company that speacializes hotel virtual tours, is taking a similar approach using the PTViewer for the initial smaller image and offering a Full-Screen version that uses QuickTime. Here's their favorite sample link;
http://www.photowebusa.com/westin/loscabosHD/index.html

After the smaller image has been viewed, I think a lot of web surfers will install QT just to see the Full-Screen version as Ian said.

ICE Portal also specializes in hotel tours, although their focus is more on tour distribution than producing very hi-quality images. They use the PTViewer for the "stanadrd" size image and the ImmerVision Pure Viewer for Full Screen images that really take the full screen. Here's link to their Full Screen Showcase;
http://showcase.iceportal.com/ultra/

Note that the images don't rotate straight up and straight down. Apparently they don't take zenith & nadir shots.

I agree Flash will become a major viewer we use, now that I'm seeing players that correct the warp in Cylindrical Projections. Until the samples on Pano2QTVR, I hadn't come accross a VR Flash viewer that could do what QT and the Java Viewers do: Full 360°x 360° viewing.

Flash VR viewers will have the same benefit Java VR viewers have enjoyed; large already existing installation bases. And I just like the idea of people viewing my work without adding any more software.

The reservation I have about depending on Flash is if the computer that is used to view the images in on a business/government network, was Flash pre-installed by the manufacturer/seller or istalled by the IT manager. In most business/government environments the computer users are restricted from installing new software without the IT department's advance approval. I think a lot of the IT managers see Java as a necessary resource, but look on Flash as, well, "flash". They probably don't want their workers on You Tube watching Flash movies. That will undoubtedly change as the serious uses of Flash are acknowledged and accepted, but if I'm selling a business/organization on the benefits of a virtual tour today, they want the most potential cutomers to see the images with the least effort.

I'm using the reasoning for a Macromedia Director CD project I'm working with a developer on to show my work. For now I'm sticking with the iPIX format because with the Xtra for iPIX because the CD doesn't require any other software to view the image. To view QuickTime files with Director, QuickTime has to be installed on the computer. If and when the .ipx file type dies, I'm keeping Spi-V in mind (Aldo tells me it has the same benefit), but I'm also learning about W3D for CD based Director projects because its "native" to Director and both the iPIX Interactive Studio and RealViz Stitcher can generate the file type. And W3D won't need any additional software for viewing

Back to Web viewing, the 2 Image Size/2 Viewer approach also solves the Dial-Up/Broadband problem.

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

OK first of all, i don't want to get wrapped up in this argument of best web players etc, but i thought this may help out.

I checked the top link (The reason for the post before it was hijacked lol) and i think it looks superb. Excellent navigation, great tours and well presented. If that was mine, i would be proud to put it in my portfolio.

Only problem i can see, is why didn't they just use one technology, they have used Flash and QT, so if they don't have one of them, it wont work. Wouldn't it just have been easier to produce it in Flash, and then all links will work what ever version you have, and you could even add a preloader to show it downloading and how long there is left in time or percent, which i love, as you don't leave it not known to the visitor, who then gives up and leaves. They could also have the other panos downloading in the background whilst your viewing the first one, so by the time you get around to clicking on the next pano on the map, it will be there ready for you.

Secondly
In Feb i moved house, and whilst i was waiting for the Internet to be connected, i took the opportunity to back up my PC and reformat it using a Genuine Win XP Pro SP2 disk i bought in the last 12 months or so. I then added all the software etc and QT6, as i use VR Worx 2.0 every now and then which crashes with anything higher, and when i got the Internet back, updated it all.

That was about 8 weeks ago. I use eBay every day and have sold loads of stuff, and my online banking as well as many other sites as my job is on the net.

When i opened the link from Doug, which says at the top, "no software required" at the top, it just showed a blank space. It didn't have any errors, no pop ups saying i needed to download anything, nothing, just a blank space.

I realised after a 5 Min's of playing i don't have Java installed and put it on.

But my sister trying to buy a house, would never have known this was the problem, and even if she did, would probably not have downloaded it as she is terrified she will cause problems to her laptop by installing something that shouldn't be there. She often calls and asks for advice, but if she had to install flash or Apples Quick Time, she probably would, as even the most novice of users will have heard of flash, and Apple is very well respected with the advent of Ipods and Itunes. So it makes people have confidence they wont be screwed over. But if you walked up to Mr Joe Blogs on the street and said have you ever heard of Microsoft Java Machine, how many will really say yes. Even if it was pre-installed by Dell or Packard Bell when they bought it, they probably don't even know its there.

I have used my sister, as she is an average person, well educated but uses her PC as a word processor and to check her emails etc and then maybe to find the latest prices of shoes, like the other 99% of people in the world. People using this forum are almost all computer pros and use it commercially to quite a high level and cant be used as a comparison.

After installing Java I could then see the tours.

I'm using a 10mb connection here, and regularly get about 600-2000kbps download, and it took over a min to start to turn. It was jumping on my screen and wasn't smooth until the whole thing downloaded and then i have to say the image quality was very good.

But a few days back i asked about Flash viewers on here, and a few people on this thread replied back giving some great samples.

Flash is a tiny (less than a mb) download, so even the small chance that its not on a visitors computer, it doesn't take any time at all to add. Also if you haven't got the flash viewer, if the web page was made correctly, the browser will tell you its not there and give you the link to download it from Adobe.

I don't see any advantage at all, of using Quick Time or Java over flash anymore. it is much easier to work with, much more people have it on their PCs, it is faster to start interacting, it doesn't have hardly any problems between different versions of flash, and is much easier to connect to something like a map for navigation.

I would shout till i was red in the face about QT a year or 2 back (i mean look at my website URL), but now i feel Flash has come along way and is much better suited for the job for speed, downloads, development, and web use.

You see I'm not trying to look at this from a photographer/web designers point of view, I'm trying to see it from an average person, who knows nothing to little about this kind of stuff, and what would be the easiest, quickest and simplest solution for them.

Regards
Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

Ian
I think you're right, Flash is the future for virtual image players.

I haven't been a fan of Flash becasue of those wesbites that greet you on the home page with a Flash movie that takes too long to download a display that doesn't really do anthing to benefit the owner of the site. Its just a Flash developer showing off and billing for work.

But that's bad website design, not a problem with the technology.

I share your "average person" approach to technologies and more specifically virtual image players.

Java Viewers served that approach very well until Microsoft stopped including the MSJVM in mid-Win XP as part of their settlement with Sun Microsystems. Flash is fast taking its place as an almost universal media platform, especially since Adobe bought Macromedia and the use of their Flash movie format/player on YouTube.com and other video websites.

In my own defense, the webmaster eliminated the "Viewing Problems" link I put below the floorplan to a page that explained the need for Java to be enabled and a link to download and install it.

Thanx for the compliment on the images.

I still can't figure out why the Super-Size versions are taking so long to load. The files are only about 1MB.

I sent the webmaster a Mini-CD with the working webpages and image files, but he only had a CD Drive that takes full-size CDs, so he had me Zip it all together and e-mail the whole thing as an attachment. I'm thinking the Zip compression or extraction process did something to the .jar or .class files. I've sent him a full-size CD since and am going to suggest he replace everything from the full-size CD.

Would you do me a favor and send me an e-mail about the results I can forward to him.

Thanx
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Which results mate, you mean after he has uploaded all the new files?

Just drop me a blank email through my NWD site below so i can reply back :)

I'm not sure the start up time is the size of the file mind you, i think its the fact that JM takes a while to run and then set up, similar problems are with PDF, the pdf doc may only be 500k or so, but it will take about 60+ secs to open on my PC.

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

Ian
No I wanted some written feedback to encourage the webmaster to replace all the files from the later CD, if you think there's a problem.

I just sent this to you through your website;

Ian
Thanx for taking a look at these for me.

Both are using the same version of the iPIX Java Viewer. The way they're both setup is to begin turning when the whole fileis loaded. So I'm interested in wheather thers a big difference in time from Click to when the Spin Starts

Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM

Hi Ian,

I feel Flash is the Future for VR however the image quality is poor while panning compared to Java or Quick time, I do Real Estate Tours and get complaints if I use Flash (Immervision Pure Player for Flash) Due to the Image "Twikle and warping" inherent with Flash VR at this time....once it is ironed out it will be fantastic !

Here is a link to some of my Java Tours....

http://www.dmcdigitalmedia.com/hostvt/167sh/index.htm

http://www.dmcdigitalmedia.com/hostvt/10lit/index.htm

Dennis M. Carbo

Hey there:

I dunno, but I'm pretty pleased with Flash delivery, even at this point in its development:

http://www.cheathamlane.net/clients/SFCM/flash/

I'm not shy about KB at the link -- panos could be 3-6MB. My little controls are just quickies, but they work.

This is versus QT delivery (which is what the client requested) at:

http://www.cheathamlane.net/clients/SFCM/qtvr/concert_1.html

Cheers,

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

Hi Patrick,

Great Photography !......I bet this would look 100% better in Java or Quicktime though....Flash cannot render a straight line to save it's life at this point! And the Twinkle phenomenon is still present while panning. Take a close look at column bases and moldings they are wavy. Again....Great work and Photography with out a doubt ! Just not a fan of Flash yet .Take a look at the low res realestate tours I posted ...the images are under 1mb so they look a little fuzzy at full screen

Dennis M. Carbo

OOPS Sry Patrick didnt see the quick time version until after my post......That is BEAUTIFULY Done... QT is far superior to anything thus far .

Dennis M. Carbo

Your right Dennis, QT is much more superior in quality, performance and interaction, but the problem comes when the visitor hasn't got QT.

Like i said in an earlier post on this thread, the only people that wont be happy with the flash version of Patrick's music hall, would be Patrick himself or another VR photographer as he knows what he wants as he is a VR Pro and will have become a perfectionist. The music hall which commissioned the work, if they didn't have the QT version to compare it against, would be thrilled with the flash version and their web viewers would still be very happy as they will still see the venue.

Flash VR is still only just in its conception, it hasn't really been fully developed yet. The first Flash VRs i saw a few years back looked terrible, the jumped and then froze, and then they would all of a sudden jump again, instead of being nice and fluid like QT.

Flash has really developed over the past few years, and every time i see a flash VR it seams to get closer and closer to QT standards. It wont be long before a Flash whizz developer will produce something that will be equally as good as QT. They are almost there now.

But in my eyes, it is pretty much there now.

But being realistic, you have to remember as well, VR work is lovely to look at, but it needs to be functional as a business tool. And if your client has even one visitor who cant see the VR tour, never mind what quality it is, then you have failed in your job.

99% of VR tours are just to see a hotel reception/room, or a property that they may wish to buy or rent. As long as they can see that and get a good idea what they are buying or will see when they get there, then your job is done.

Patrick excellent image by the way.

Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

Oh PS
I find Java Applet VR tours lower quality on my PC than Flash. So if it was an option between Flash and Java, I would choose Flash all day.

But that's just my personal preference.

Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

Hi all:

Many thanks for the kudos on the photography... (blush)

Yes, I guess beauty is still in the eye of the beholder (re: flash/java/qt), though I do think that if Flash isn't "there" yet, it will be very soon. :-)

Cheers,

Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development

Hi Ricardo,

Using your example size above I find the Immervision Java FAR clearer and smoother than the Flash Version, Have you tried adding the Quality Parameter to the xml parameter...by default it is at 100. If left here I agree with you the flash is better, however set the quality to 400 or better (Max is 1000) and you will see much better results. I am running on a Dual 2ghz G5 with 4MB Ram and GT6800 Card and can run 2 monitors fullscreen and silky smooth. Perhaps I am doing something wrong with their Flash version ?...If I could get it clearer I would prefer FLASH for all the Reasons listed in this thread !

Dennis M. Carbo

Dennis, Im using a Packard Bell P3 600 mhz that i bought in 2000. It has 760mb of ram and and a Maxtor dual output graphics card which cost me £20 from ebay. And have 2 x 17" CRT screens set to 1024x768 each.

I bought a P4 dual processor laptop at xmas which is great, and i also bought 12 months ago a P4 dual processor PC with all the bells and whistles, and i still find my P3 faster for what i use it for.

It struggles a little with full size panos and 3D stuff, but in general most of my work is dreamweaver and notepad based or photoshop for web quality images, so i don't mind to much.

But on my little elastic-band powered machine, the Flash version is smoother and faster than the Java version.

I use this machine as i personally prefer it, and also when I'm building web stuff, there are very few clients who can say there PC is slower, so if my PC can run it, so should theres, and if it doesn't, its not my fault. This is also the same reason for having large resolution, i use the same as the average visitor, so i see what they see when I'm designing and testing it.

But when it comes to the 3D rendering from light-wave and stitching huge images together, i use my new P4 on the other side of the room.

I think nowadays, the size and speed of your machine unless you are doing something extraordinary (like 3D or stitching) even the most basic PC should run this kind of thing, never mind the flying machines the guy in your computer shop says YOU MUST HAVE.

I wouldn't mind seeing a version with the quality bumped up to 400 if you have a link, so i can see it and test. I'm not a java guy, so this is all a good learning curve for me, and I'm sure others reading this as well.

Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

I think to try and end this epilog of a conversation, there is an obvoius market out there for a flash VR viewer to be developed, or to slightly improve the already excellent viewers available.

If you can do this and sold it, you will prob become a very wealthy man (or woman).

Im not a flash developer, so i couldnt even hope of doing this. But im sure there must be way for a competitent developer to produce a Flash Viewer that

- Is fast
- Loads smoothly
- and gives clear crisp images whilst moving.

Regards
Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

> But im sure there must be way for a competitent developer
> to produce a Flash Viewer that
>
> - Is fast
> - Loads smoothly
> - and gives clear crisp images whilst moving.

Oh, dang. Silly me. Why didn't I think of that?

Do you really think that if it were as simple as 'being competitent', that someone wouldn't already have done it? Rest assured that there are quite a lot of competent Flash developers who have already done an astounding job with what Flash can do today.

Aldo, I'm not sure why you criticised what i said, as i wasn't slating the work already done, for i have just spent this entire thread saying that Flash is better than Java and QT.

You took what i said the wrong way, i meant it as one day somebody will have that break through that is needed to finish of the excellent work already done.

How much more of a compliment can i give it.

Ian

www.NewWorldDesigns.co.uk
CMS Systems, Web Design, 3D Animation

www.QuickTimeVirtualReality.com
Object, Pano, Multinode, QTVR, Flash, Java

I did not mean to sound overly critical of you, but wanted to point out that maybe, what we've seen to date is as good as it is going to get with the current batch of Flash players.

This thread generated more comments than any other in the listed history of this site. Perhaps a healthy debate can be a good thing? Just the best to all those that contributed, perhaps we all learn somethings - I know I did.

And note, this is comment 46.

Regards,

Robert