John Willetts
Posts: 49
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Registered: 13 Mar 2008
|
DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 9:13 GMT
|
reply
|
Can anyone provide (John?) a brief summary of the advantages over Flash and techniques of using Pano2VR as a starting point?
Thanks
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
John Houghton
Posts: 2317
Location: Hitchin, United Kingdom
Registered: 17 Jan 2005
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 12:10 GMT
|
reply
|
John, The main advantage of DevalVR is the excellent viewing experience - at least when hardware acceleration is available. If you want a simple fullscreen high quality display, then nothing beats it. Flash is struggling to match it. It needs a tiny download of the plugin - both an advantage and disadvantage. Many people are resistant to downloading anything, however small. It's presently PC only, though a Mac version has been under development for some time. There is no dependency on Pano2VR. It will display a jpeg (or uncompressed tiff) equirectangular, or a QTVR .mov file.
John
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
John Willetts
Posts: 49
Location: Bath, United Kingdom
Registered: 13 Mar 2008
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 12:41 GMT
|
reply
|
Thanks for the info, John. Not counting the quality - which I agree is excellent - from what I see, because of possible downloading resistance, it is more of an 'enthusiasts' plugin and does not have Flash's universality albeit its shortcomings.
John
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
fiero
Posts: 258
Location: La Rioja, Spain
Registered: 6 Jul 2005
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 15:13 GMT
updated: 6 Oct 2008 at 15:14 GMT
|
reply
|
DevalVR is my baby, so I only have good words, anyway, I think the great advantage of DevalVR is to use it as a
substitute in the 30% of Windows where QuickTime is not pre-installed. I mean, to use the two players QT-DevalVR with some detection code. Because 20MB installation of QT is too much for a casual visitor.
Other use is for playing in local exhibitions or when the quality is a requirement (I mean the quality when you move the panorama, because the static image is almost the same in all viewers).
The installed base of this plugin is too small to consider to compare it with other plugins like Flash or QT, only few more than two millions at this moment. But the resistance to install it is smaller every time due to photographers recommendation and the small size www.devalvr.com/paginas/productos/stats.php
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 789
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 15:30 GMT
|
reply
|
fiero
That's almost the same advantage/explanation I used to use when describing the iPIX Plug-In;
Much smaller than the QuickTime Player
Smoother, more intuitive navigation than the iPIX Java Viewer
And less memory demanding than their Java Viewer
I always like how the mouse/pointer became the Zoom In and Out Tool when in the center of the image
DevalVR is a great product
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
Doug Aurand
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
fiero
Posts: 258
Location: La Rioja, Spain
Registered: 6 Jul 2005
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 6 Oct 2008 at 16:36 GMT
|
reply
|
Yes Doug, but I mean to use the plugin with the same data files (MOV files). Only with a small change in the HTML files to configure the "tandem" page.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Doug Aurand
Posts: 789
Location: Albuquerque, NM, United States
Registered: 2 Jan 2008
|
Re: DEVALVR
Posted: 7 Oct 2008 at 0:12 GMT
|
reply
|
fiero
That is a definite benefit, that DevalVR can play the same files as the QT Player.
If a websurfer doesn't have either DevalVR or QT, they can decide which thay want to spend the time installing and either one plays the same file.
Definitely a cool concept.
Later
Doug Aurand
Albuquerque, NM
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
