Just say no to Fisheye
I am an Indie producer (Shorts) and started doing "Video" tours for homes (for some income) but soon realized from a business perspective... that was not good business. File Sizes huge, lots of time editing... for very little return. I tried just "panning" around the room to make smaller files (didn't even know of this "Panorama" industry) and after searching came accross the "Panorama" industry and Virtual 360 photography. I originally came in as a totally untainted layman and before I continue to write / ask questions... I wanted to give my first impressions... before I loose them...
1.) Fisheye is totally lame. Even Medium level. A very slight on the edge is ok... but the typical RE tour... aaagg. I have also read that those "Fisheye" looks have given a VERY bad ruputation to the RE Panorama industry. My wife even told me when she was looking for a home... she hated the virtual 360's because they gave her a headache.
2.) WHY QUICKTIME!!?? This is crazy... the Pano Industry is crazy with quicktime yet almost everybody is WINDOWS. I don't know anybody that has Quicktime on their computer and the DON't want to download it or install it. I don't want to, why? FLASH baby... that's the way to go and that's the future. Everybodies got it and it's fast and there can be lots of creator tweaking. I sat down the other day and tapped out some flash code for a "Panorama" viewer. Loads Fast, Everyone can see it and it can be placed anywhere on the page. Even though they are still in their initial stages... and the software is still a little buggy (from reading the forums) I think http://www.pano2qtvr.com/ is going to take over (if not some other "Flash" 360 viewer).
So... two quick things that come from the top of my head.
I read every topic in this forum and many other forums... I now feel I am quite up to date on the Pano scene. I have also found many sites / people who have BEAUTIFUL Panos with NO fisheye... even for Real Estate.
Now... I'm ready to jump in.
Equipment:
I plan on getting into the RE biz (for money) but also want to target companies and tourism. My first choice for equipment is:
Canon XTi with the Sigma 8mm lense
Now... with this setup... I can do everything... but maybe overkill for the RE biz...
Of course the second option is
Coolpix 8700 with the FC-E9
but... I don't think this can take "High Quality" pictures for the "Corporate" 360 world?
Also... I am worried about "Fisheye" and that's where my question is.
Fisheye is caused by the degree of the wide angle lense... but with the Coolpix 8700 and the FC-E9 instead of taking only 2 pictures... if you took 4 or 5 around... would the image come out "flatter" of course with "post production" software and not going strait to stitching?
Would the Canon XTi and Sigma 8mm pictures Also look Fisheye if used only two shots? (the Panos I have been seeing with this settup are usually 4 or 5 horizontal, 1 up, and maybe 1 or 2 down).
Of course... in the RE biz... "Time" and "Amount" is a factor BUT... I want to make quality "Panos" (not ones that make you seasick) so people come back to me... I will charge a slightly higher fee but hopefully... the quality and "look" will pay off.
Would someone please send me a "Two Shot" pictures using the Coolpix 8700 and the FC-E9 so I may play with them in trial software? Also would like a "Four Shot" using the Coolpix 8700 and the FC-E9 and a "Four Shot" using the Canon and Sigma... all med. level jpg's is fine... not so worried about the beauty of the pictures... just want to see how well I can flatten them and what software tools are best for me before deciding on which camera setup to go with.
Brent
cjproduce@yahoo.co.jp
Re: Sorry, Double Post
Hello,
I think you need to do some more research....
1st - You say fisheye is lame yet you want a 2 shot pano to play with......they are shot with "Fisheye" lenses as are the 4 or even 6 shot panos.
2nd - You dont know anyone with Quicktime ?.....Quicktime has and installed base of somewhere around 60% and some PC come with it pre installed.
The reason you hear so much about it is it is THE best viewing engine for panoramas bar none.
If you are looking to enter the real estate panorama market I suggest Java or Flash viewers to reach the broadest audience...you must understand that no viewer will reach 100% of the computers out there with out someone needing to install something. (Java has an installed base around 85%, flash around 90% with java being slightly better quality)
I started my business 5 years ago and went with multi shot (12 shot panos at first , now 6 shot) panos and sold the quality and no distortion. One of our members, Doug Aurand uses the same rig u mentioned and does a 2 shot panorama...probably the best ive seen using the Ipix/2 shot format. You can check out the Higher end Panos of a company I freelance for at www.photowebusa.com...notice they offer a JAVA viewer AND a Full screen Quicktime viewer for maximum quality...we all use Nikon or Canon DSLR'S and either Nikon 10.5 or Sigma 8mm lenses.
Dennis M. Carbo
Re: What do you think "Fisheye" is?
Panorado
First....breeeaaath....take a breath...get a valium! Get two!
What is it you think "fisheye" is?
For someone who's never created a single virtual image, you sure are opinionated.
And from your opinions all of the IVRPA members are doing VR photography completely WRONG?
Just for reference, almost all of the photographers who have images in the Members Gallery used one type of fisheye lens or another.
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: Just say no to Fisheye
Panorado: "I now feel I am quite up to date on the Pano scene."
:-) :-) :-)
"I plan on getting into the RE biz (for money) but also want to target companies and tourism."
join the other some millions - many of them are doing very fine work. You should plan some years to reach their state.
One is here - just as an example for fisheye-use ;-) :
http://www.steinzeit-mediendesign.de/site.html nearly all done with fisheye and a lot with a Spheron-camera.
best, Klaus
Re: Just say no to Fisheye
Klaus
I think we need to recomend Panorado get a Panoscan or a Spheron.
That way he won't have any "fisheye".
I checked, the Panoscan is going for US$36,000.00
What's a Spheron go for these days?
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: Just say no to Fisheye
Hi Doug!
Yes - but would the recommendation be calming him down?
Both, the Panoscan and the Spheron (wich is around 25000€) use fisheyes . . :-)
I´m afraid he doesn´t really know what he´s talking about - sorry, Panorado.
best, Klaus
Shouldn't I have an opinion?
Douglas,
"For someone who's never created a single virtual image, you sure are opinionated."
and... shouldn't I be? ins't the "consumer" the ones we should take opinions from? Isn't that what Forums are about? As a layman, before jumping full in, that's what I think... and my wife and a freind I had shown (about most of the severe fisheye look of a lot of the RE Panos). Shouldn't opinions (especially from laymen who are like a real customer) be "thrown out there" and discussed... well, I threw it out there.
Did you happen to read where I said, "I have also found many sites / people who have BEAUTIFUL Panos with NO fisheye..." That's why I am considering this business... becuase the good stuff I have seen is really a great benefit.
Dennis,
"I think you need to do some more research...."
Actually, I was not giving a negative opinion on fisheye lenses, as I know they are needed to take Pano shots, I was giving my opinion on the Final "Look".
"2nd - You dont know anyone with Quicktime?"
nope, I don't. Quicktime does not come with windows and when an app calls for it on the net the user must choose "install" a lot of users do not like to install. As a matter of fact a lot of the Pano sites use Quicktime (as you know) but I also do not like to intall Quicktime as it grabs hold of my system and I have to go in and re-set everything. Since getting interested in the Pano Industry, this is the first Major use of Quicktime I've seen. A lot of Indie films use it but they always have WMV downloads or Flash available too. Anyways... no big deal... I know for a fact Flash is on over 90% of users computers, easy updates, doesn't grab hold of anything but Flash, and is great for integrating into Flash sites, and has a very bright future... (Also, a lot of people don't like JAVA either... and some have it turned off).
"You say fisheye is lame yet you want a 2 shot pano to play with......"
That is becuase I want to see if a 2 image Pano picture can be straitened and or "flattened". If not, I will not go with a 2 image Pano. That is why I asked "instead of taking only 2 pictures... if you took 4 or 5 around... would the image come out "flatter"
"You can check out the Higher end Panos of a company I freelance for at www.photowebusa.com...notice they "
Thanks for that link Carlos, I did check it out and the site is professional... but what can I say... In MY opinion it's like looking through a glass marble.
This, in my opinion... jeez... is a nice... flat, nice looking pano>
http://www.carloschegado.com/
and...
http://www.mediapiculture.net/360days/qflash/sziget/brazil.html
and...
http://flashpanoramas.com/player/test/gallery_window.html
A couple of those are pretty big files... so have a fast connection.
Klaus,
Thanks for the link... unfortunately I was unable to view those Panos... I tried Flash but didn't play... OH! my PC crashed today (maybe because of my HOT opinions) and I re-imaged... have to update Flash. Will check them out later.
In Final,
"That way he won't have any "fisheye"."
If you check out a couple of those example links I listed above... I am pretty sure they were taken with XTi and a Sigma (If I remember reading the forums correctly) and they ARE impressive... virutally flat and stunning.
Re: Shouldn't I have an opinion?
Hey Panorado,
Sry, I misunderstood what you were getting at, The "The looking through a Glass marble" thing....ahhhh yes. I get it now...this is what turns off a lot of people an is very noticeable in panos like IPIX. On the photo we tour the Java viewer has a little of this effect but the Quicktime versions do not.
In my experience this has alot to do with the viewer settings (Amount the shot is zoomed in when panning) not so much the camera/lens. I use a Java Viewer for my Realestate tours let me know what you think....if it has that Marble look. www.dmcdigitalmedia.com/hostvt/sample/index.htm
Fyi...Quicktime Viewer came on my Dell Laptop and many others come with it preinstalled.
True ....flash has the highest installed base but FLASH was made for vector graphics and has a hard time rendering panos....you get a twinkle effect...this drives me nuts so I dont use it often....see my sample ..I have done the same scene in Java and Flash for comparison.
2 things I would suggest if you are going to start into the Panorama business
1 - JOIN the IVRPA it offers great bang for the buck..I have gotten a lot of freelance work by being a member !
2 - check out the FREE immervision Player...you can experiment with this and see what I mean.
Apologies for being short in my last reply...Just Passionate : )
Dennis M. Carbo
Re: Shouldn't I have an opinion?
Hi Panorado!
I use to do spherical panos with a 20mm Nikon lens - which is definitely not a fisheye. On a Canon 20D i took about 36 single shots to stitch one sphere. The advantage doing so is to have a high resolution of around 70MPx.
That´s fine to be able to zoom in very far when presenting the pano from a cd.
If there´s no need for highresolution i use a fisheye.
Physically there is NO DIFFERENCE between a 20mm and 36 single shots stitched to a sphere and 8 single shots done with a fisheye and stitched to a sphere!
A spherical pano is a SPHERE! If you don´t like (and have the advantages) of looking around in a room in ALL directions, you can make a cylindrical pano. Here you can look around 360deg. horizontal but the vertical angle is limited.
So: what do you need? In RES i iwould say you NEED a sphere - imagine, there is a nice ceiling with a beautiful lamp . . you would want to see it, to present it.
There´s a big mistunderstanding in the functionality of "fisheyes" in your words as i understand. Learn about panos and about projection and about lenses. ;-)
best, Klaus
Re: Shouldn't I have an opinion?
"This, in my opinion... jeez... is a nice... flat, nice looking pano>"
NONE of the three panos is FLAT! The first one is cylindrical, the second one is a sphere and the third one is a
sphere with a limited vertical angle.
You should become a bit more familiar with what you´re talking about . . ;-)
As is said before: from an optical, physical viewpoint there IS NO DIFFERENCE between stitching a sphere with
8 fisheye-shots or 36 or more shots from none-fisheyes.
A sphere is a sphere. If you don´t like spheres: make cylindrical panos. Sometimes they work fine - sometimes not.
But in a presentation it´s never good to mix spheres and cylinders. So better go for spheres - they show much more of
your presented objects. The information-content is higher. And that´s a point in the business you´re going for, isn´t it.
" virutally flat and stunning."
Nonsense - sorry ;-) .
best, Klaus
btw.: http://www.klausesser.de/Stadttor_klein.htm
shot with a 20mm Nikon lens on a Canon 20D - around 60 single shots.
I did the same with a fisheye - looks the same, but took just 8 single shots . .
http://www.klausesser.de/VinKugelH.mov
shot with fisheye
http://www.klausesser.de/Mitte2VR.mov
cylindrical pano 180deg.
And THIS one is FLAT:
http://www.klausesser.de/Efeu.htm
Re: Shouldn't I have an opinion?
Panorado
Identify your target market - for Real Estate the customer does not demand 'high quality' making a 'one shot' system (which to your benefit requires NO STITCHING) - this is presented using QuickTime & Flash http://www.photopanorama.co.uk/farington_lodge/10-qtcyl.html
I realise 'picture quality' is not as good with Flash (works with older versions of Flash though) BUT I think just seeing the image is vital - & that is more likely with Flash...
Fisheye look - if you 'zoom out' on most virtual tour images (with any viewing technology), they look awful (very distorted at towards the edge) - this is not just my opinion, but I have heard it from many people....
Give Your Customers a Better View with
http://www.photopanorama.co.uk/
Many Thanks - Dean Weaver
Re: Just say no to Fisheye
Hi Panorado, Doug and Dennis,
I think Panorado raised a very important aspect: The consumer opinion.
It is crucial for those who make virtual tours professionally.
Actually, the laymen’s point of view is the reason for the existence of the survey industry.
Panorado has a lot to learn from us… and he has a lot to show us.
So, could you give your (and your wife and friend) opinion about the following tours?
www.tourvirtual.tur.br/portobay/en
www.usvp.com.br/recife
www.usvp.com.br/noronha
www.tourvirtualbrasil.com.br/oceani/flash/it
www.tourvirtualbrasil.com.br/luzeiros
Thanks in advance,
Ricardo - USVP
Re: Your opinion
Panorado
Of course you're entitled to your opinion, but in this case an old saying comes to mind,"Better to remain silent and let the world think you a fool, rather than speak, removing all doubt"
Basically, you don't know what you're talking about.
Its unlikely there's any "fisheye" in any of the virtual images you've looked at. (Dennis take note here) One characteristic an image with "fisheye" has is straight lines are curved. What you both are seeing is "perspective." In some cases, probably exaggerated perspective. If you zoom out in the Java image in the link Dennis provided www.dmcdigitalmedia.com/hostvt/sample/index.htm you'll see the "exaggerated perspective." Zoom back in and it goes away. But in both actions all the straight lines stay straight. Not a bit of "fisheye."
So Panorado, you did a couple hours of reading about virtual photography on the Internet, never shot a single virtual image and proclaimed yourself an expert. Of course I don't think you're arrogant, blowhard.
Dennis
I hate to tell you this, it'll rock the preconceived notions you have about iPIX. It essentially has no more, or less, fisheye/perspective than other virtual imaging products. When you create an iPIX image, one of the settings is Image Size. I usually use 2048 pixels wide and 1024 tall. Did you notice that the same width to height ratio as an "Equirectangular" from PTGui and a "Spherical Image" from RealViz Stitcher. I've always assumed there's an Equirectangular Projection inside their proprietary file type ".ipx".
The "math" is essentially the same for all of the stitchers that map to the inside of a sphere. Its pretty simple, the Equator of a sphere (width) is twice as big as the distance from the North Pole to the South Pole (height)of a sphere.
The fun part is the output from one program is interchangeable with the others. I screwed up a 3 shot fisheye after taking the first 2 shots 120° apart, I wasn't paying attention on the 3rd shot and only rotated 60°. iPIX Interactive Studio wouldn't stitch it right. Neither would my RealViz Stitcher DS Demo. PTGui did the job without batting an eye. I opened the Equirectangular from PTGui in IIS and follwed my normal workflow from there, finally saving it as an .ipx file. Looked exactly like any other iPIX image
Its the Kitchen in this link www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm
Blowin your whole statement are the QTVR versions of the Living Room and Patio/Cityview in my Members Gallery http://ivrpa.org/user/2607. Stitched with IIS, then output as a QTVR with IIS
Didn't you know iPIX licensed QTVR output from Apple? I'm going to guess they do it exactly the way Apple set it up, just like the QTVR output from RealViz Stitcher. No more or less fisheye/perspective than any other VR program
Its so easy making guys who take shots at iPIX look like they don't know what they're talking about. Because they usually don't.
See ya next time Dennis ;)
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: Your opinion
Doug,
Ouch...that almost hurt my feeling : )......You are correct sir, first I rag on Panorado regarding the fish eye statement then I essentially do the same thing...sry : )
The viewer perspective is what is creating the "fisheye/glass marble" look panorado is describing, if the view in my viewer is pulled back you get that effect.
I have looked at your galley before....obviously they do not have that warped look...the outside one looks great, inside one is a bit soft for me. No secret I hate IPIX..guess i am biased because of the poor rep they have locally. HOWEVER...if it is a matter of perspective why dont you just fix it in the IPIX viewer ?
I will stand by my feeling that the IPIX viewer is a train wreck and I dislike the viewing experience.
You always say your are on the "Darkside" with IPIX .....Come to the light, you could do so much good with your energy and knowledge !
Chow Darth Aurand (hehe)...till we meet again
Dennis M. Carbo
Nice Hot Opinionated Thread
Dennis
I checked out your,
www.dmcdigitalmedia.com/hostvt/sample/index.htm
and it looks pretty good to me. I still get just a little of that warped feeling on the edges but does not effect my viewing experience and would be a benifit to any real estate tour. I can see this "Twinkle" you are talking about but... really... didn't effect me too much. I did not try the Quicktime Version.
"FREE immervision Player"
I have been checking the immersion player... but don't you think the Pano2QTVR is better? Actually... by watching the samples of the Pano2 ... I don't get that "Twinkle" look. Maybe it's just because their example is in a Park with no bright lights.
Ricardo,
I was blown away by the photography and the views. Your default link (full screen) I did not get a "fisheye" look and very impressive. I did show my wife and she also was very immpressed. The only thing I can say is the "Frame Rate" seems a little jumpy... not smooth... (and I do have super fast connection and fast PC). I don't know if that was done on purpose to keep size down or what but... really only had a small negative effect. The most important thing to me, flat views and pretty pictures was Great!
Douglas,
"Its unlikely there's any "fisheye" in any of the virtual images you've looked at." You actually made me laugh... What? I click the links, I see what I see, no math needed... I'm the consumer. I'm not "zooming" or doing anything. I'm wondering why are you trying to prove to me I am not seeing what I'm seeing... along with other people around me? It's there, right there, on the screen... no math or technical explanation needed. The final product... what the "consumer" sees is what is important... only that final top layer, not what it is, how it got there or what the math is. IPix? sorry, those really do give me a headache. They seemed to sell everyone many years back... but... I'm wondering... why did they go out of business... and truefully... since I'm looking at it from a consumer view... it doesn't matter if I technically know what I'm talking about or not... once again... it only matters what the viewer sees/thinks/feels.
I have been studying VT's pretty hard for the last month. Have many links, read lots of Forums, ect. ect. ect. As I said, I am not bashing the industry! The reason why I want to do it is because the good stuff really is good! and that is what I am looking to do.
Fine... you can think I'm a blowhard or whatever... but I'm just giving my honest opinion of what's in front of my eyes.
Re: Nice Hot Opinionated Thread
Bruce Hemming
Seems like every time that I join a new list or forum there is some guy "who has just started up a real estate tours business" and wants us to tell them how to do it. It doesn't matter that they haven't put in the time developing their skills and they obviously think that there is some secret that we are keeping to ourselves and if we only let that slip then instant success will be sure to follow. The pano community is incredibly generous but any other business group might be less than welcoming to a new rival - obviously this thought never passes through the head of our tyro.
Panorado - re read what Douglas has said and think about it - regardless of what you see you cannot change the laws of physics, what you can change is the way that the viewer shows the content. This is done by the author setting correct default values at the creation stage. If you don't understand that then go away and find out - there are a huge number of resources available. You might also start experimenting with your own work and test different settings.
In your position a little humility would not harm you and might produce a more positive response - act like a troll and get treated like one.
Regards
Re: Nice Hot Opinionated Thread
Panorado
If you've seen so many virtual images with "fisheye", put a link in a posting.
SHOW ME!
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: You missed the entire point
Dennis
I have looked at your galley before....obviously they do not have that warped look...the outside one looks great, inside one is a bit soft for me. No secret I hate IPIX..guess i am biased because of the poor rep they have locally.
You are biased! And you offer no real reasons other than you don't like competition form the local iPIX rep. My competition (another iPIX photographer and CirclePix) is what has made me better at what I do and that made it possible for me to raise my prices with Realtors. The "soft" is a by-product of the compositing process I use with Photomatix Pro and I've heard its a charateristic of the FC-E9 lens, it has nothing to do with iPIX. But your irrational bias tries to blame anything wrong with an iPIX image on iPIX
HOWEVER...if it is a matter of perspective why dont you just fix it in the IPIX viewer ?
You missed the entire point about fisheye/perspective. The reason the interior scenes show "perspective" is becasue there are things near the camera and lines in walls, the floor, the ceiling, etc. that have "perpective" and go to the "vanishing point" I learned about in 5th grade art classes. The human eye sees things with "perspective." That's why a straight road narrows the further away it is from our eye and disappears at a single point at the horizon. That's why a sky scraper looks smaller at the top when looking up from the street level. The perspective in the Patio/Cityview scene is less visible, becasue there are fewer straight lines.
There's nothing to fix in the iPIXViewer. Or QuickTime Player, or PTViewer, etc, etc ,etc. I'll send you an Equirectangualar Projection JPEG file of any scene you want to try in the Pure Player and it will look the same.
I will stand by my feeling that the IPIX viewer is a train wreck and I dislike the viewing experience.
Too bad there's no rational reason for your "dislike" other than the word "iPIX" on the images
You always say your are on the "Darkside" with IPIX .....Come to the light, you could do so much good with your energy and knowledge!
Dennis, you apparently didn't pay attention to what you were reading. I have and use PTGui (not a demo) and am trying out the Demo of RealViz Stitcher Unlimited DS. I'm not a "one trick pony" like you seem to be. My next setup will be a Canon XTi and Sigma 8mm, I've already got the Nodal Ninja 3 rotator. iPIX Interactive Studio can't stitch the source images from this combo so I'll be 2 or 3 sitiching programs, iPIX, PTGui and probably RealViz Stitcher. Although feedback about Panoweaver 5 in the "Two Fisheye Stitching" thread make me more interested in giving their demo more consideration.
You see, my mind is open to other possibilities...unlike yours
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: You missed the entire point
No Doug I did not miss the point.....
"Too bad there's no rational reason for your "dislike" other than the word "iPIX" on the images"
There is a very rational Reason - Everything associated with the IPIX Viewer is Awful, why you continue to waste your time with it is beyond me - it is obsolete and does more harm than good in promoting VR - MY OPINION, AND A DAMN STRONG ONE....AGAIN MY OPINION, from 5 years of feedback and 200-300 tours per year.
"And you offer no real reasons other than you don't like competition form the local iPIX rep"
Doug - Please be real - I come from a corporate sales background, IPIX is NO competition in my market, Visual Tour and Circlepix have far greater penetration in my area - IPIX is almost entirely extinct.
"You missed the entire point about fisheye/perspective"
Perhaps YOU missed the point - I was asking why you cant zoom in or out in the IPIX viewer by default to lessen the effect that panorado describes.
Congrats on completing the 5th grade Art Class - It has served you well.
Dennis M. Carbo
Re: You missed the entire point
Dennis
You keep contradicting yourself with your own statements.
Lets see, Sry, I misunderstood what you were getting at, The "The looking through a Glass marble" thing....ahhhh yes. I get it now...this is what turns off a lot of people an is very noticeable in panos like IPIX. in one post.
Then in the same thread;
I have looked at your galley before....obviously they do not have that warped look...the outside one looks great, inside one is a bit soft for me.
Actually, Aldo pointed out chromatic abberations in the "outside one" that he told me one way to remove. I have to practice more on that. So I don't know about "great", just "good"
And the "great" image couldn't be more iPIX; a traditional iPIX camera/lens/rotator with the Coolpix 5400/FC-E9/iPIX 5400 Rotator, stitched with iPIX Interactive Studio, output as an .ipx file and viewed with the iPIX Java Viewer in the http://www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm link.
Then you go to Everything associated with the IPIX Viewer is Awful.
Which is it? Great, awful, fisheyed, not warped?
I'm really confused at this point.
Why not take a break, breath, take a valium, maybe two.
Oh, and you may want to clean your monitor off after all the spitting and sputtering you've been doing in your rant.
Have nice day Dennis
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
The Force is strong with this one
Hello Again Darth Aurand, :)
Calm down now...I was looking at the images in your IVRPA gallery which is not the IPIX Viewer - they do not look warped, the Viewer link you refer to (http://www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm) Does in fact look and run link crap. Sry - A spade is a spade. Everything associated with the IPIX Viewer is Awful.
I will go take my valium now, and you should study, I hear 6th Grade art class is a real challenge !
Warm and Cheery regards,
Dennis M. Carbo
Re: Here's what I don't get
Dennis
As someone who comes "from a corporate sales background" I'm not sure why its so important to you for me to switch technologies.
I think I mentioned I raised my prices this year.
And it looks like I'll deliver about 150 standard real estate virtual tours, up about 50% from last year, along with the 5 hi-rez RE tours like the one in the link http://www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm at $100+ per scene I've already or am about to do.
Plus, I've got almost no advertising expense.
So if I understand you, I should stop using the technology that's working really well for me, that my customers like, and use a different stitcher, which I don't recall you mentioning.
And how does that make any business sense?
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: Here's what I don't get
Doug,
I could care less what you use..You have apparenty built a nice business in your area - Kudos, Your growth is something to be proud of.
"So if I understand you, I should stop using the technology that's working really well for me, that my customers like, and use a different stitcher, which I don't recall you mentioning."
YES THAT IS WHAT I AM SAYING, It make less business sense to stay with obsolete technology - I dont need to spell out software or stitcher products to you...you are obviously well educated in what is available...use what ever you like. I prefer RealVis Stitcher Unlimited
Or wont that Run on your 486 desktop with Windows 3.1 and 4mb of ram, Floppy drive and 2x CD drive ?
Coming from a corporate sales world I realize technology changes quickly and as a business owner I try to stay as current as possible to offer the best product possible.
Dennis M. Carbo
Re: iPIX Advanced Features
Dennis
You really don't have any first hand experience with iPIX do you?
Obsolete? iPIX has had features for years that other stitching programs still don't have or are just adding.
1. The near-full screen WYSIWYG preview of the stitched image is generated automatically. While RealViz Stitcher does a great job of stitching, I've wasted hours trying to fix the problems that the background preview shows and aren't actually there. I've been participating in the RealViz Stitcher forum and helped some one who switched from iPIX to Stitcher DS to get good results by telling her to ignore what Stitcher was showing her on the screen, just go through the process. iPIX users have had automatic, accurate WYSIWYG previews for a long time
2. iPIX is still the only stitcher that has an output specifically for post-stitching, pre-render editing. In the iPIX Builder it was called the "iPIX Editable Image" that could be imported into Photoshop with an iPIX Plug-In for Photoshop.
With iPIX Interactive Studio and the add-on Format Pack its a Cubic Strip that can be saved as a TIFF with the cubic faces arranged horizontally with the Left Face first, then the Front, Top, Back and Bottom faces turned sideways so the 2 fisheye seam runs horizontally through all of them and last is the Right Face. Not only is it perfect for touching up the seam, but global editing like Contrast, Brightness, etc. Its also perfect for eding out tripods which is much easier with the Cubic Faces. And you can do all the post-stitch editing in one image.
3. Speaking of editing the image, iPIX has been and still is the only stitcher I know of that has basic Brightness/Contrast, Hue/Saturation, Levels and Sharpen/Blur tools built right into the stitching software. They were included in the old iPIX Builder, are still in the Real Estate Wizard (except Levels) and are in the Edit Pack add-on for Interactive Studio along with HDR compositing. That's right, iPIX Interactive Studio has had HDR capabilities 3 years before RealViz added them.
4. RealViz Stitcher just added their "DS" add-on for 2 fisheye stitching about a year ago. It was targeted at iPIX users looking to change software with the iPIX bankruptcy. But I think it will be a huge bonus for RealViz if the production Sunex 185° fisheye lens for dSLR cameras is as good as the prototype some of the IVRPA Conference attendees were trying out. In the RealViz forum there's been a lot of confusion about which lenses can do 2 fisheye stitching and alot of new Stitcher users want the ability. The Sunex lens may be big bonus for iPIX too, since they were the first to bring 2 fisheye stitching to the software market.
Obsolete? In many ways (not all) the competition is still catching up to iPIX.
Although I've already bought and been using PTGui and have been testing RealViz Stitcher Unlimited DS for future use (Sigma 8mm stitching), why would I be in hurry to quit stitching software with so many advanced features?
Oh I forgot, iPIX is crap.
I have to get back to my Radio Shack TRS-80 that uses TRSDOS, 5.25" floppies and Kodak "Brownie" camera. Someday I want to upgrade to an IBM PC Jr and a Kodak Instamatic.
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: iPIX Advanced Features
"Someday I want to upgrade to an IBM PC Jr and a Kodak Instamatic."
Wow - that´s the future, i bet! :-)
best, Klaus
Re: iPIX Advanced Features
And I'll drive around in my "Back to the Future" DeLorean ;)
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Re: iPIX Advanced Features
The one with that Fluxus-Generator or so?
Take care of mam and dad?
Good man! :-)
best, Klaus
Re: Nice Hot Opinionated Thread
Hi Panorado!
"but I'm just giving my honest opinion of what's in front of my eyes."
That´s great! Really! And you may think you´re one of some very rare humans doing so . . . :-) :-)
You´re wrong. There are some other people who are giving their honest opinion of what's in front of their eyes.
But they combine this opinion with an also humble opinion to care for the technique to produce exellent results.
Therefore it is essential to know about what you´re doing in deep.
best, Klaus
Poor Panorado Consumer Vrs. Professionals
Klaus,
I think the professionals on this board are having a hard time stepping back... and looking at a pano from a "normal" persons view. Once again my opinion is being disected into, "FLAT! The first one is cylindrical, the second one is a sphere" and "You should become a bit more familiar with what you're talking about" As I stated, I am looking at Panos from a "laymans" view... a "normal persons" view... why do I (they) have to become more familiar?... I (they) couldn't care less what "Type" it is or become familiar with the intracacies of how to make a Pano... "They" are looking for houses and or checking out a company's site. They look at the pano and say "Wow" or look at it and say "Aaag!" That's it, simple.
Now... this is my opinion, the opinion of my wife and a freind I had over a few days ago. Please... ask some of your freinds... (not in the industry) ...what do they think? Ask them to search through many houses and "pan" through the typical "Fisheye". If they say it doesn't bother them fine... then you have another opinion.
Note: Even if I wasn't thinking of getting in the Business (so then I guess I don't have to know it all), just as a viewer, I do not like the "fisheye" look.
Although I don't think your quite catching my drift on the "fisheye look" and "normal users don't care about anything but the picture they see" Klaus, I thank you very much for your explanations of how you shoot! Now that's good information and I have put it in my notes.
Bruce...
I'm afraid you missed the point right off the bat. Did you read my threads? Or just because I'm a newby expressing my opinion you blast out "some guy...to tell them how to do it." I'm not telling anybody "how to do" anything. My initial post was 1.) I don't like the "fisheye" look (not lense) and 2.) How can this be avoided. Where in the world does it say I'm telling anybody how to do anything.
"The pano community is incredibly generous but any other business group might be less than welcoming to a new rival - obviously this thought never passes through the head of our tyro."
Really?... I am a struggling Indie Producer and belong to many groups... we critisize, throw out opinions, say "this is better" / "this is not" ALL the time. That's how we all learn. I say, "Hey, that video looks too dark!" and they say, "What? Reall? Hmmm... (think it over then reply) I don't think so." This is how things move along... questioning, doubting, opinions and discussions. If every time somebody came out with an opionion and the next guy said, "Some guy jumps in and doesn't have the right to say anything" how would new methods or ideas be born?
"regardless of what you see you cannot change the laws of physics, what you can change is the way that the viewer shows the content."
Ok fine, now that's some info. At least you aknowlege I am seeing somthing! What I am saying is some panos don't have the "fisheye" effect and some do. Now... as I suggested to Klaus above... the average net surfer is just going to "Click and View" I seriously doubt they are going to be playing around with those silly nav buttons many views have or anything. The just want to look at the picture and pan, that's it. So, as you say... YES, it is key the website developer and the viewer created to make the pano just shows up and looks good right from the start. i.e. > Ricardo's from above (although a little choppy I was immpressed... and... nothing popped up to say, "you have to install this and that").
Douglas,
"SHOW ME!"
http://www.charlestonvirtualhomes.com/2625840/tour.htm
http://www.realty360tour.com/mcdonald-andy-raeber/133-mashie/133MashieCr...
http://www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm (although these are better than most Ipix's)
You have a good point though Douglas... if your making money... and business is increasing... why change? Good question... however... just maybe at least listening to other peoples opinion without jumping all over them, quoting old quotes and maybe consider at least what they say. If you don't agree fine, that's no problem. Or, maybe an opinion makes you start to think and just maybe you look into newer or alternative presentations. Although... I don't even know if you can see the "fisheye" look I'm talking about... you keep telling me it's perspective this and that... and maybe you've been doing it so long that's "just the way it is" .... "That's How it is"? That's why a laymans perspective is good...
In conclusion... no math / perspective / method is going to change my opinion when a Pano pops up on my screen. It either looks good to me or not.
I don't know... I don't really want to have an opinion and cause problems if most people are just going to say, "your wrong, you don't know anything" I guess I have to be in the biz for 4 or 5 years and be assimilated into the "Correct" way of thinking...
I just noticed a Klaus reply... and should answer..
Klaus, you said "You're wrong. There are some other people who are giving their honest opinion of what's in front of their eyes. But they combine this opinion with an also humble opinion to care for the technique to produce exellent results."
Klaus... you seem to read only what you want to see. I have said... many times... and have show many examples of panos which I think are great. As I said... are you reading? The reason why I consider this field is because of the great panos I have seen.
Re: Poor Panorado Consumer Vrs. Professionals
First, this thread is in serious danger of descending into a flame war. Could everyone posting please take care to use a calm tone. If you find a post irritating, please take half an hour off before replying!
Second. Panorado - one problem is that you are using the term "fisheye" incorrectly in a field where the correct terms are very important (to the content producers, if not the people looking at the pano).
Almost all pano viewing software shows the end user a rectilinear image (the same as the vast majority of cameras) - straight lines in the scene are straight lines on screen. This does not change whether the lenses used to shoot the panorama were fisheye lenses, rectilinear lenses or even rotating scanning cameras.
What you appear to be calling the "fisheye" look is simply a wider (rectilinear) view than the general public are used to looking at. As has already been explained in the thread, this can be controlled by the person making the panorama file - by setting the default and maximum fields of view of the panorama. I find good starting points are 60-70 degrees for the default view and a maximum of 90-100 degrees for zooming out.
Ian Wood
Landmarks of Britain
Azurevision
Re: Poor Panorado Consumer Vrs. Professionals
Ian & Panorado:
The term I usually use for this pulled back wide look is fishbowl.
Panorado, like Ian says, this fishbowl effect has (almost) nothing to do with the lenses/cameras used to create the imagery -- and much to do with the end viewer/player used to deliver the perspective-corrected panorama.
As far as I know, almost any viewer used (from Java to JavaScript to QuickTime to Flash) will allow you to set the initial Field Of View; where you're seeing the fishbowl effect is within a "virtual tour" where either the developer's really pulled back on (zoomed out) the Field Of View, or where you or the user have "manually" zoomed out the view.
Just as a different example, zoom in-and-out on the panoramas here; If you zoom out as far as I've allowed, you'll notice the fishbowl effect to lesser or greater degree depending on the image -- whether there is more or less in the foreground, etc.
http://www.cheathamlane.net/clients/SFCM/flash/index.html
--
All: Yes, the tone here has gotten a bit on-the-edge... I'll put on my moderator hat if people in the sandbox keep pitching sand. :-)
Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development
Re: Poor Panorado Consumer Vrs. Professionals
Hi Brent!
Maybe it´s a problem of the terms used. Let me try - but my english is a bit limited:
To make a pano - no matter cylindrical or spherical - there are some differnt ways, as we all know.
Let´s concentrate on stitches: to show an interior or a wide space in the open, you NEED to have what?
Right: a wide-angle lens. An extreme w-a perhaps. And you get what? Right: a FLAT projektion.
But this w-a will be not wide enough to see the room completely - but that´s what you need in RES.
So you make a pano.
Making a pano, the camera spins around the lenses NPP in one or multiple rows. Right?
Simplified one can say: the NPP with the spinning camera does the same as a very wide angle - just wider.
With multiple rows it does it wider in ALL directions.
You are standing in the center of a cylinder or a sphere. That in combination with the ability to turn around
inside the sphere or cylinder causes a feeling, that is total unnatural at all. Not because you can turn around but because
you see a very wide angle by doing that. You see geometric distortions which you never see otherwise, when you turn around.
THAT HAPPENS WITH ALL LENSES, you may use shooting a sphere or a cylinder.
As Ian mentioned there are adjustments in the pano, restricting the widest angle to avoid maximal w-a distortions while
turning around in a pano.
You have to decide what you want:
1) a narrower angle with much more moving around or
2) a wider angle with lesser moving around but more w-a distortions.
Most people find it more difficult to navigate in a pano with a narrow angle - you sometimes don´t know "where you are". It´s
irritating. Spinning around with wider angle makes navigation much easier, but produces more w-a distortions outside the center.
You can´t have it all in one . . . :-)
The terminus "flat" usually means "flat" . . a standard picture is flat. "Flat" is a projection. Like in the cinema: the screen is "flat".
A VR-pano CAN`T BE "flat". It is cylindrical or spherical. It can look "flat" only in a center-point of it´s projection, where
all lines can be straight - fisheye or not . . . :-)
best, Klaus
Re: Poor Panorado Consumer Vrs. Professionals
Panorado
This link is to a pair of fisheye shots, combined into one image, from my Nikon Coolpix 5400/Nikon FC-E9 Fisheye Lens Converter. As you can see the straight beams on the ceiling are curved as is the frame of the sliding glass door. This is fisheye. http://ivrpa.org/user/2607
Compare it to the links you provided
http://www.charlestonvirtualhomes.com/2625840/tour.htm
This scene is shot with a "One-Shot" system. That's why you can tilt straight down, but not straight up. Again, all the straight lines are straight, but the perpective is distorted
http://www.realty360tour.com/mcdonald-andy-raeber/133-mashie/133MashieCr...
Again, the image starts zoomed out too far, if you zoom in, the exaggerated perpective goes away. All the straight lines are straight, no fisheye
http://www.do222.com/iPIXIndex.htm
All the straight lines are straight, no fisheye
There are limitiations to virtual images. Usually the bigger the image is displayed, the less noticeable any exaggerated perspective is. And if you zoom really far in, the images all appear completely flat, no perspective at all.
Perhaps you should step up and try to do what we do before you criticize.
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Fisheye's forever!
Guys, calm down... it's OK to have different views of the world, even in 360 degrees.
I completely agree with Ian, stop the nonsense and consider each others view. Professional or consumer preference, it's just that a preference, nothing more. Art is a completely subjective matter. Yes, Art, that's what photography is even when it's done in commercial form. The lens, projection, viewer, etc. does not really matter if the viewer finds value in it.
Panorado, you, your wife and friend(s) don't like a lot of the virtual tours shown for real estate for sale. Your not the first, I know many people that hate VT's. Many in the real estate or builder industry. Part of the reason is, it's a very low end form of photography. The price point in the US is next to nothing for a typical (dominant by volume) virtual tour and stills. You do get what you pay for. The vast majority of it is so poorly done that it's even worse than getting your portrait shot at Walmart. It's just very bad work, both technically and aesthetically. The example Doug provided of the one shot system is a perfect example. It's not bad work because of the one shot system, it's bad because the exposure is so off and nothing has been done in post processing to fix or enhance the image.
As a business opportunity you would probably be better off chasing more indie work verses real estate VT's. By the time you get done with the drive time/expenses, processing, fees for posting to realtor.com and perhaps your local MLS you'll not have much left if you plan to compete anywhere close to local market pricing. It's a high volume low price market in the US and has been for at least 5 years.
But, anyway, forget all that, if you want to be successful in any market with any product, study marketing and business models. I know a few company's that make a great deal of money shooting video of homes. A while back someone on this list thought the VT world was coming to an end since so many homes were being shot with video and posted to youtube. Has not happen yet, but it is a viable market.
So everyone relax and get back to shooting your own work, nothing else really matters :)
Robert
Re: Fisheye's forever!
Panorado
Robert's got a point, maybe you just don't like the way virtual images look and should stick to indie work.
If you don't like the images in the www.PhotoWebUSA.com link that Dennis posted, you're just not going to like VR in general.
PhotoWeb is about as good as it gets.
Douglas Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Thread Winding Down... mabye?
Hello PanoPros, Hope everyone had a good 4th Weekend! (Well... Klaus probably doesn't care).
I want to start off by addmitting and or appologizing about "confusing" some people at the top of the thread by my mis-use of terms as Ian said. I was using "Fisheye" for the "look" I was refering to but some of you thought I was refering to the "Method" or "Fisheye" lense.
Ian,
"in a field where the correct terms are very important"
You did not mention the "correct" term for the "Fisheye" look I was speaking of... Is there one? cheathamlane in the next thread down also uses his own term > "fishbowl". I see many different "terms" people are using on this board so... which is the "correct" term? I... did not know the correct term so just naturally called it the "fisheye" look (because that's what it looks like to me) but I'm sure there are many others... "Looking through a glass marble" / "Fishbowl" / "warped perspective"
"I find good starting points are 60-70 degrees for the default view and a maximum of 90-100 degrees for zooming out."
Thanks for that! that info will be tried and tested!
cheathamlane,
I tried your link... the "loading" percent stayed at 0% but the picture parts did load into my browser cache (Explorer 6)... However, it did not play... stange... I have the very latest Flash. Is it ok for you? I would like to view it though... is everybody else able to view it or is it just me?
Klaus,
Nice explanation! Yes, I see the trade off. I also see how a "Sphere" causes the "Fisheye" ("Fishbowl"?) look. In order to take the pictures... you also need the "Fisheye" lense which causes the look in the first place.
1.) Is there software that can take a "Fisheyle" lense shot and "stretch" it into a rectangular flat shape?
2.) (If 1.) above possible) How about... if the final picture was just one large "Flat" picture (if possible to flatten out a "Fisheye" lense shot) and the user would just pan over the flat image (up/down/left/right)... I wonder if it would lose it's 360 degree "feel"
Douglas,
Truthfully (no sarcasm here) thanks for your information on "Zoom". I still have a right to an opinion though... well, don't want to get into that... I've written my point a couple times above.
Robert,
"it's OK to have different views of the world, even in 360 degrees"
There we Go! Now, I am totally "Ok" if he disagrees with me! But, he can see I have a way of looking at things to.
As I keep studying and learning about the PanoBiz... I can see It's a time consuming job for well... not that great of money. AND, your right... especially the RE biz where Agents are cheap and "Volume" is key... "It's a high volume low price market in the US and has been for at least 5 years." I Do see that... and thanks for confirming (well, your viewpoint).
Beleive me... I have researched the Video Tour Biz... and, I do have a package for that. But, As in the "Wedding" Biz... Photographers are Gods and Video Guys... are... just vid guys. If you think trying to get money from RE Agents for pictures is cheap... try Video! (and... not to be overzealous or anything... but the "Time" factor of shooting the video and editing the video is far greater that stills). So yes... I do have a package... but let me tell ya... I ain't gonna kill myself for little money and LOTS of time without a decent rate... and those are far and few between at this point. AND... personally... I prefer Panos! I don't know if any of you have watched a video "Tour" but... to me... I don't like it. Small field of view, always too long, have to "go" where the cameraman goes, file size HUGE... ect. ect. ect. With Panos, the user (who is most likely skipping through tens of houses a night) can "click" choose a room THEY want, pan around, "click" choose another room pan around and BAM! decide they don't like it, onto the next.... Meanwhile... the video tour house video... is still loading!
Doug, (on the bottom again... ha ha...)
As I did state... a couple times above... and by the links I have given... I DO like Panos... And, I do think they are an excellent tool for presentation... That is why I am so interested in doing them... and trying to get the best image picture possible. No, sorry... I do not like www.PhotoWebUSA.com (although truefully I was not able to watch their "full screen" version as I do not have quicktime. I am referring to their "Smaller" versions... where as you explained they are "zoomed out" therefore "Fishbowly"... "Fisheyeie"... well... just fishy.)
I Still would like some photos... if somebody would be so kind... so I can play with them. Please, do what you have to do to "copyright" them... splash YOUR name or whatever you want right across the picture(s), no problem... I just want to play / practice with the pictures in various softwares to see what I can do.
The pictures I would like are (if Possible RAW files... yes... very big but I can create an FTP folder on my server... but I want to take these RAW's into Photoshop)
1. The "one shot" system/camera (1 picture right?)
2. The "Two Shot" 5400/Nikon FC-E9 or somthing close of (2 pictures)
3. The 4-6 + Nadir shot with a Canon XTi and Sigma 8mm (5-8 images)
I don't think my e-mail will handle the large file sizes of RAW images... so once again, let me know by e-mail and I'll set up a folder for ... anybody to upload (or I can download off someones server if they give me the path/ect. info). Would be greatly appriciated.
Re: Thread Winding Down... mabye? ...never! :-P
(glad to see the tenor of the posts here taking a more constructive turn)
Hey Panorado (if that is your _real_ name ;-) ):
See this page at the 360Precision site for some example images from different camera/lens combinations the D200, plus also some project templates for both PTMac and PTGui stitching programs:
http://www.360precision.com/360/360.cfm
...Scroll to the bottom of the page for the links.
--
I don't have IE6 anymore, having ruined my IE6 install with my IE7 beta install (thanks, MS!). But, all the Flash panos at my site load fine with IE7 and the latest Flash plugin (and did before, anyway, with IE6 and the Flash plugin -- as far as all my testing went).
I have some examples up which you can view side-by-side with my client's actual usage of the images. My examples are Flash-delivered panoramas, with perspective correction. My client's example shows how you can take the flattened projection and just slide it back and forth.
Perspective-correct:
http://www.cheathamlane.net/clients/AETN/flash/
Flattened projection:
http://www.aetv.com/sons-of-hollywood/tour-the-crib.jsp
My client's site makes use of more interactive things, but regrettably the images aren't perspective corrected. I didn't have any input on the interactive things they did.
Cheers,
Patrick Cheatham
--
CheathamLane | spinControl:VR
Berkeley, California
VR Photography
Web, Flash & QuickTime Development
Re: Just say no to Fisheye
Thank you for the link to the great software.
Sorry, Double Post
For the original I "posted" the message but got an error so re-posted... but seems both came out. Admin, please delete one or the other.