Controlling photofield file size. Confused.

Can someone please explain how the size of the imported panorama relates to the size of the photofield produced.

IBIS Burns Field.
Panoramic image size - 8160x3060 pixels.
DDS size 6 images of size 2.73Mb
Photofield G3X roughly 16Mb

Model Park
Panoramic image size - 8156x5437 pixels.
DDS size 6 images of size 10.92Mb
Photofield G3X roughly 65.7Mb

Model Park Half Resolution
Panoramic image size - 4078x2718 pixels.
DDS size 6 images of size 2.73Mb
Photofield G3X roughly 16Mb

I hate the half resolution version. It loses its crispness. However if I want to upload to the swap pages that's what has to go up.

What is the correct ratio of width:height for an import pano? I thought it was 3:2. Yet I got better results with Burns field which is set up for the wrong dimensions. Why the HUGE blowout in size? I just don't get it. Any help would be appreciated.

By the way I did have one bit of encouragement today. One of the guys at the local club who owned AFP has just bought G3 so he can use fly at his own home field. That must mean I have _something_ right (though obviously it's the whole product not just my amateur photofield). Anyway he was anxious to get his hands on a copy of the field so that was flattering. I just hope he's not disappointed in the long run.

The correct ratio for a panorama is 2:1.
360 degrees width by 180 degrees height
The optimum size for a panorama is 8092pixels x 4046pixels.

Inky, that should actually be 8192x4096 I believe... I hope Japhet or others will also jump in here to provide more specific recommendations, but I also thought that using pano image sizes in multiples of 1024 was somehow a factor. As I understand it G3 now uses 16384x8192 for its own native panoramas.

Sammy, initial resolution, color depth, JPG vs Bitmapped image format, and degree of compression all combine to affect the final file size of the panorama image. In my experience working in JPG and experimenting with varying degrees of compression will likely give you a workable compromise between file size and quality ...

I have now downloaded your pano and you are clearly making progress!! More care/experience with PhotoShop blending, feathering, smudging, etc., can improve the transitions in areas of copy and paste ground/sky.

I believe you still have some vertical "stretch" distortion in this panorama. Compare your stitched pano with my Autostitch version from a previous post but stitched from the same set of images... https://forums.realflight.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6487

When working with a single row of images such as this you might also consider rotating the camera to portrait orientation before shooting the original images therefore capturing a greater vertical frame of view...

Bucko

Bucko,

Thanks for the feedback.

The pano was actually shot in portrait. Regarding smudging/transitions etc. I consider that fine detail. Getting the image size wrong probably affected the quality and size more than anything else.

Anyway I don't look forward to repositioning all my collision objects but I might try a ratio of 2:1 and see if that improves things.

Mind you I think the rating of 2 the field received is downright harsh. I will probably fix it but this will probably also be my last piece of work for G3 that I share on the boards.

inky00 said:

The correct ratio for a panorama is 2:1.
360 degrees width by 180 degrees height
The optimum size for a panorama is 8092pixels x 4046pixels.

Click to expand...

Inky, thanks for the help. I don't know where I got 3:2 from but that's obviously my critical mistake.

The texture resolution is determined by looking at both the width and height of the source image. Each side of the photofield cube must be at least 1/4 as wide and 1/2 as tall as the source to preserve data. The cube face dimensions must also be powers of 2, so 1024, 2048 and 4096 are the most common dimensions.

In code this looks like:
int textureWidth = max(sourceWidth / 4, sourceHeight / 2);
textureWidth = DLGetNextPowerOf2(textureWidth);

Panoramic image size - 8160x3060 pixels.
DDS size 6 images of size 2.73Mb

Panoramic image size - 8156x5437 pixels.
DDS size 6 images of size 10.92Mb

Click to expand...

The reason it jumped up in size is because of the height. 3060/2 = 1515, which rounds up to 2048. 5437/2 = 2718 which rounds up to 4096. If you want to get the most resolution per MB out of your source, make sure it falls on a power of 2 (which is why 8192x4096 is recommended).

Japhet, thanks for your insights into this... My experience has been that image crispness suffers if the pano image has to be adjusted to fit the 'preferred' dimensions, therefore it is best to set the stitcher program pano output to precisely 8192x4096, or to go for maximum size and then reduce the final image size in PhotoShop once all other manipulations have been made, and to then save the final pano image as JPG.

Sammy isn't your image below shot in landscape mode? This is one from the set that was posted in your series of component images on Putfile... This sure seems to be identical to the set of images used in your new pano although perhaps somewhat reduced in size?

Don't let those bozo's and their idiotic ratings discourage you from making and posting your pano images. Unlike your critics you have discovered first hand that this is sometimes much more difficult than it first appears. But you are doing great, just keep at it and you will have some sceneries that will be unique. Also all of your experience with this is cumulative, it DOES get much easier as you gain in skill!

Bucko

Bucko,

Thanks for the encouragement. It's much appreciated. However I'm very confused. The image you attached isn't one of mine, nor is it of one of my fields.

My only two fields to date are IBIS Burns Field and The Model Park in Sydney. I shot IBIS in landscape with an olympus C-770 and the model park in portrait with a Nikon D70 DSLR.

I realise my fields are far from perfect but if they are consistently the lowest rated fields on the site I'll save myself the embarassment of submitting them here. I know others who do appreciate them (and even one guy who flies at the field that went out and bought the sim so he could use it). Sorry if that sounds harsh or childish but personally I'd only rate a field a 2 if it was so bad it was literally unflyable so it's a slap in the face. I see the rating went up to a 5. Still not what I think is fair, but closer to the 6-7 I'd expect.

if they are consistently the lowest rated fields on the site

Click to expand...

check your PMs

I'd just like to publicly thank Japhet Stevens for being extremely positive and helpful above and beyond what I've come to expect here. The exceptional help he's provided has gone some considerable way towards restoring my flagging faith in KE.

Sammy,

My apologies, I had gotten what I thought of as 'your field' confused with that of another bloke!! Chalk it up as another Senior Moment!!

Bucko

Bucko said:

Sammy,

My apologies, I had gotten what I thought of as 'your field' confused with that of another bloke!! Chalk it up as another Senior Moment!!

Bucko

Click to expand...

That's cool Bucko. I appreciate your effort trying to help me in any case. I've uploaded a new version of the field after reimporting the pano and repositioning everything as best I could. I'm done with the field for now I think, though I may add some static aircraft at some point.