My Autopano Pro forum

hankkarl · 2008-10-30 19:05:05

Would it make sense for APP to support HD View SL? The code is public. Its advantage is that it works on intel Macs and PCs, IE, firefox and safari browsers.

Disadvantages-all it does is display a 360x180 (or less) pano. None of the other good HDView stuff.

See http://www.codeplex.com/HDViewSL and http://research.microsoft.com/ivm/HDViewSL/

Last edited by hankkarl (2008-10-30 19:06:07)

AlexandreJ · 2008-10-31 08:34:43

Yes, it does make sense. In fact, it's fairly easy with the gigatiler to add that support : the tiles are the same as hdview, we just need to generate a webpage with the code for HDVIEW sl

hankkarl · 2008-10-31 18:16:44

Even better, but more aggressive--generate a webpage that
1. looks for HDview and uses it if it is there.
2. if HDview is not there, use HDview SL (HDView is much better than HDView SL)
3. if neither are present, ask user to download one or the other

optionally, give a button to add HDView if HDView SL is found.

gerardm · 2008-10-31 19:29:30

Hdview and Hdview SL will eventually be similar. There is a photoshop plugin that exports the data and makes the page. HDview silverlight has twice the levels of tiles for zooming and loads much faster. The yosemsite site has pushed past 132GB of bandwidth after 3 days. The most popular viewer for the main image is the zoomify at 70% of traffic. The HDview SL has 5% of traffic. HDview is at 2%.

Flash 10 now retains the color space of images. This is why Hdview, besides the wrapping projection, holds an edge.

Last edited by gerardm (2008-10-31 23:54:31)

hankkarl · 2008-11-01 14:45:09

Please read the discussion at http://forums.microsoft.com/msr/showpos … ;siteid=37

About where HDview SL and HDview are going.

There is a very good reason to output two sets of images, and that is the tone adjustment. HDView SL may be limited to 8 bits

gerardm · 2008-11-01 18:36:23

At one point I had 16 bit HDview of Glacier Point @ 75% compression on the Yosemite site. It was 47GB of Data and the experience was slow. It's even slow on a local RAID.

Last edited by gerardm (2008-11-01 18:36:52)

hankkarl · 2008-11-01 23:36:46

Hi Gerard,

Was this the old HDView?. The 47 GB of data shouldn't affect things unless you have a slow server or internet connection. AFIK, HDView just downloads the tiles it needs (and may predicatively download more, but the picture's up by that time.)

The new (V.3.x) uses the graphics card to doo the tone-mapping, so the slowness is (I hope) removed from your PC and moved to the server/internet connection.

This became blindingly obvious to me becasue my main PC doesn't support the pixelshader stuff they need (V.2), and the kids PC doesn't have any pixelshader at all. So I can't see how well tone mapping works in the current HDView. (But I need to get a new PC sometime).

Last edited by hankkarl (2008-11-01 23:39:38)

gerardm · 2008-11-02 00:22:18

It's using v.3 of HDview. I'm just posting the data that I have. I hope it will benefit others. Yes. maybe the server is slow. My RAIDs are not. All this is beta. That's what is exciting. It easy to imagine how technology can make things better. Weather it works or not has to be tested to make it better. A 17gp picture is going to behave differently than a 50k 32 bit hdr pano. BTW: I have been participating with all parties in terms of giving them versions of the 17gp image to test and continue to work with: Alexandre, Matt at MSR, and Eric from xRez.

hankkarl · 2008-11-02 21:33:51

OK, many betas are slow because they have a bunch of debug stuff built in. And there are a lot of links in the chain, each of which can limit things.

As time goes on, we'll see more and more powerful graphics cards and processors, and better network speeds. IMO, the graphics cards and processors will not get more powerful becasue of clock speeds, they will get more cores and better instruction sets (e.g. SSE4 is better than SSE3, ... and it all beats MMX).

So right now we have an infant (or possibly a toddler) called HDView. In a few years, we can expect a lot more out of it, and in those same few years, more and more people will learn of, and appreciate hi-res panos.

We're on the bleeding edge (or at least close to it) and have to expect some tradeoffs. So do we sacrifice quality for speed, or speed for quality? Or will some new refinements or technology render all this a moot point?

gerardm · 2008-11-07 05:30:04

The Yosemite site was down for 24 hours. The reason was due to cpu load and memory usage. The server was going to crash. I had to double check a few dozen files for corruption. The files were fine. We've served 613 GB of Data. So to answer your question, the tiling applications efficiency for now. More and more users are choosing Hdview SL and HD view.

hankkarl · 2008-11-07 19:33:57

WOW! you must have some big pipes (fast internet connections) to be able to bring your server to its knees!

BrianLR · 2008-11-22 16:50:34

gerardm wrote:
The Yosemite site was down for 24 hours. The reason was due to cpu load and memory usage. The server was going to crash. I had to double check a few dozen files for corruption. The files were fine. We've served 613 GB of Data. So to answer your question, the tiling applications efficiency for now. More and more users are choosing Hdview SL and HD view.

I see that you have now disabled the 'View in Zoomify' option, is this to limit the number of hits on the site or for other reasons? Do you anticipated restoring Zoomify in the future?

gerardm · 2008-11-22 19:27:55

The hosting company locked the zoomify folders due to the traffic on the server. I can't even delete them. The server went down twice. I will eventually move the site, but I need to finance it first.

My Autopano Pro forum

Announcement

#1 2008-10-30 19:05:05

HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#2 2008-10-31 08:34:43

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#3 2008-10-31 18:16:44

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#4 2008-10-31 19:29:30

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#5 2008-11-01 14:45:09

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#6 2008-11-01 18:36:23

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#7 2008-11-01 23:36:46

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#8 2008-11-02 00:22:18

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#9 2008-11-02 21:33:51

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#10 2008-11-07 05:30:04

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#11 2008-11-07 19:33:57

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

#12 2008-11-22 16:50:34

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

gerardm wrote:

#13 2008-11-22 19:27:55

Re: HD View SL (Silverlight Deep Zoom)

Board footer