Optimum size for equi rectangular

[eladnova]

Hi guys

What do you consider the optimal equi rectangular size for your 360s?

I have a few different lenses and setups here and they produce three different final sizes.

14608 x 7304 (Micro 43 using a Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm f/3.5 Lens)
10674 x 5337 (Micro 43 using a Meike 6.5mm)
8528 x 4264 (Nikon D600 using a Sigma 8mm lens)

My largest image requires the most work as the Panasonic fisheye is a fullframe fisheye (6 horizontal + 1 nadir + 1 zenith OR 6 horizontal at 15 degree up pitch and then 6 horizontal at 15 degree down pitch)
The second largest requires less shooting as I can do 4 horizontal shots
The smallest requires just 3 horizontal shots

So I’m constantly undecided as to wether I want less time on site and less post production Vs a large (better image) or wether I want to end up with the best quality image :-/

Normally I’d always aim for the highest quality finished image but I’ve started to do a few tours and Google Streetview tours where the recommended distance between each image is recommended as

indoor 360 photos within two small steps of each other (1 m / 3 ft).
outdoor 360 photos within five steps of each other (3 m / 10 ft).

In any reasonably sized space, that requires me to shoot and move, shoot and move shoot and move etc
It’s very unlikely that I’d have the time (or budget) to produce a medium sized tour with the work involved in my largest equi.

Any thoughts? Whats your preferred final equi size and whats your process and gear to achieve this?

[Keith Martin]

I’m not a fan of that kind of tour; it pushes photographers away from producing high-end creative work and into churning out ‘waypoint’ snapshot panos. Of course, if that’s bringing in the money… :)

You need to make your own choice about how much work you’re prepared to put in and what resolution is actually required for whatever you’re aiming to produce and how it is to be delivered.

Keith Martin
PanoramaPhotographer.com and ExifFixer.com

[Author]

Posts