NYCreate
Posts: 496
Location: North Yorkshire & Northern England, United Kingdom
Registered: 21 Aug 2005
|
'Virtual' tour V 'Panoramic' tour....
Posted: 15 Apr 2007 at 23:19 GMT
|
|
This might be a bit controversial for some and I apologise in advance if I upset anyone....
Just something that is really getting my back up at the minute....
basically I would like to see anything other than cubic or spherical 'virtual' images/tours, be classed as 'panoramic' images/tours...
I know the terms 'pano' and 'virtual tour' are quite generic etc but I have come across quite a few clients who have been misled when it comes to their 'virtual tour'.
These tours aren't often 'virtual' in my book, as they are just cylindrical 'panoramic' images, or even sometimes just 'flat panoramas that just 'slide across the screen.
As anyone with a £50 digital camera and free with camera software can produce 'panoramas' these days, I feel our market is loosing its niche, and by people classing 'panoramas' as virtual tours, Real virtual tours (using spherical/cubic images) are loosing credibility.
I had one client get very upset when I offered him a virtual tour and he said we already have one mate... then I preceded to show him a 'real' virtual tour (what I would class as a real tour anyway)He was very angry with the previous so called 'virtual tour' he had paid quite a lot of money for... I of course got the job to do a real 'virtual tour' for the client, and I think he is looking at getting some money back from the previous company for misleading him..
Anyway I want this to be an open and 'constructive' discussion. And I in no way want to put anybodies work down, I would just like to see some sort of classification between 'panoramics' and 'virtual' imagery / tours etc..
And yes we produce both.. 'virtual images for virtual tours, and panoramas for print and panorama tours!
Regards.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
eagle
Posts: 80
Location: Kona, Hawaii,
Registered: 16 Jan 2006
|
Re: 'Virtual' tour V 'Panoramic' tour....
Posted: 16 Apr 2007 at 1:25 GMT
|
|
Hi rudders,
I agree. I've also come across a number of folks who think that virtual tours are simply a slideshow of pictures. Frustrating.
Thanks,
eagle
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Ken Warner
Posts: 821
Location: Mammoth Lakes, United States
Registered: 14 Aug 2004
|
Re: 'Virtual' tour V 'Panoramic' tour....
Posted: 16 Apr 2007 at 1:53 GMT
|
|
For what my opinion is worth -- I'd have to agree that there is a great difference between a virtual, immersive sensory experience and a panorama -- cylindrical or otherwise.
Not that a panorama can't be very useful as an interface to particular kinds of information -- like a real estate tour of a house. A viewer can get a pretty good idea of what a house is like if the tour is an intelligent group of panoramas linked in an intuitive fasion.
As for VR or virtual reality -- the future here is some sort of head gear with three axis, motion detection accelerometers that shift the perspective of sound and images in space according to changes in head position so that the experiencee sees and hears a still or stationary world outside of his/her own movements.
Currently, there is not much real difference between a cylindrical and a spherical image. They both end up being a flat view in a limited window with no real transendent experience. You still know you are looking at a video screen.
When VR reaches maturity, the experience will be transendent so that you can forget that you are really looking at a synthetic image.
So yes there is a difference, but in my humble opinion, not much difference currently between a spherical and cylindrical image and neither qualify for real VR.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
James Rigg
[Panoguide]
Posts: 322
Location: London, United Kingdom
Registered: 1 Jun 2003
|
Re: 'Virtual' tour V 'Panoramic' tour....
Posted: 16 Apr 2007 at 9:47 GMT
|
|
I was thinking about this recently when starting to going through the "how to" pages of panoguide and updating them.
Personally I think a virtual tour is made up of panoramic images that are linked together to allow you to virtually explore a location. It could equally be an object with interactive elements added to it.
Now that's a very broad definition of a virtual tour which I know not everyone will like. But then I think it's quite possible to put together a set of spherical panoramas with hotspots on doorways etc into a "virtual tour" but do it badly. IMHO, the most impressive virtual tours involve not just good photography and not just hotspots linking between panoramas, but good graphic design. If the client wants a virtual tour for a website (if I am not much mistaken, that is generally the intended medium?), then they're really after more than merely photography but a certain amount of web design.
The level of finesse or professionalism demanded by one client (and the price they are prepared to pay) may differ dramatically from another client. But they may both expect a "virtual tour".
Just my thoughts. Good topic for discussion rudders!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
back to threads list |
this thread is closed