Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Is Flash the future?
|
Re: Is Flash the future?
Posted: 11 hours ago
|
go to thread
|
The next generation of Java will fix the long standing memory limit problem along with adding new features like quick start.
You can get more information and a beta version of the Release Candidate here:
jdk6.dev.java.net/6u10ea.html
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Adobe set to test new Flash Player
|
Re: Adobe set to test new Flash Player
Posted: 15 May 2008 at 16:10 GMT
|
go to thread
|
That question was the first thing that came to my mind. As a Java programmer, I worry about that. That's the one advantage Java has over Flash -- no ziggies.
But I know it's only a matter of time before Flash is the absolute best for panos. It's Adobe after all...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Adobe set to test new Flash Player
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Raynox DCR-FE 180 PRO ??
|
Re: Raynox DCR-FE 180 PRO ??
Posted: 14 May 2008 at 3:43 GMT
|
go to thread
|
|
FC-E8 is what they sell. Don't see many FC-E9's on eBay and I look a lot -- I think an FC-E9 just sold for over $400 bucks so you probably should buy them yourself and make a couple of bucks.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Raynox DCR-FE 180 PRO ??
|
Re: Raynox DCR-FE 180 PRO ??
Posted: 13 May 2008 at 15:12 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Jo and Tom said: Andrew,
thanks for that. Just thought I would ask as I had just missed out on the FC-E8/9 lenses last night on E-bay.
Tom
There's a constant supply of both those lens' on eBay. Don't worry that you are going to miss one and bid high. There's always more. And if you can always get one for $229. RitzCamera sells them for $229 so you can always get one if you want to pay that price.
Me -- I'm waiting for a less than $100 lens. I've seen some auctions where the idiot pays more for a used one than a new one.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Question about el cheapo Raynox fisheyes...
|
Question about el cheapo Raynox fisheyes...
Posted: 8 May 2008 at 16:13 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Raynox makes a couple of cheapo fisheye converter lenses --
HD-3032PRO and HD-3031PRO
I doubt anyone here has used one of these but it couldn't hurt to ask.
Any opinions? I'm just looking for something cheap and there's a feeding frenzy on eBay for fisheye lenses right now.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Galleries
Thread:
An important part of ours being
|
Re: An important part of ours being
Posted: 8 May 2008 at 16:04 GMT
|
go to thread
|
...comfy looking soft seat I see -- for those frozen mornings.
But where were you standing for the nadir?
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
looking for online home for spherical panos
|
Re: looking for online home for spherical panos
Posted: 5 May 2008 at 14:06 GMT
|
go to thread
|
|
I see a blank page -- I just downloaded the Macromedia Shockwave Player and I just see a blank page in Firefox 2 on Windows 2000 SP4.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Tips & Tricks
Thread:
Colorcode-3D Anaglyph Stereoscopic Gigapixel Sperical HDR Panoramic Panoramas 3D Stereo 360 180 VR
|
Re: Colorcode-3D Anaglyph Stereoscopic Gigapixel Sperical HDR Panoramic Panoramas 3D Stereo 360 180
Posted: 3 May 2008 at 19:50 GMT
|
go to thread
|
I don't get it. It an anaglyph... So what's the big deal.
They aren't even good anaglyphs...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Building a triple rig?
|
Re: Building a triple rig?
Posted: 28 Mar 2008 at 18:00 GMT
|
go to thread
|
This is just a wild idea that has been floating around in my head for a while.
Configure 4 cameras in a tetrahedron. 3 around tilted down 30 degrees and one straight up. Use the same control idea and use the cheapest compact camera that has remote controls for a prototype. Maybe some old Nikon 5400's or something like that.
Plenty of overlap and you get to use the sweet spot of the fisheye -- if there is one -- another imaginary idea....
Disclaimer: I have no idea what I'm talking about.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
ptviewer limitation
|
Re: ptviewer limitation
Posted: 27 Mar 2008 at 15:24 GMT
|
go to thread
|
|
It looks to my tired old eyes that PurePlayer is rendering the pano with even less resolution than the 200% version (4000x2000). Not only that, but the arch of the window has a distortion on the left vertical...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
ptviewer limitation
|
Re: ptviewer limitation
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 at 18:44 GMT
|
go to thread
|
How does the Dynamic progressive loading work? Either the image is in memory or it isn't. A Java applet can't write to disk unless permissions are given in the policy file.
I was wondering why large images look blurry in PurePlayer. So it's because they are downsampled.
So where does the image go when it is being dynamically loaded? Unless the image is explicitly tiled -- and I don't think JPEG can do that -- how does that work?
Where is this documented? I'd like to read about it.
atomicmak -- have you set the memory parameters like I suggested? Are you using IE7 or Firefox? What happens in Firefox with the memory parameters set for more memory?
Just curious....
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
ptviewer limitation
|
Re: ptviewer limitation
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 at 17:23 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Doug Aurand said: [stuff deleted]
But I don't think most commercial customers want their website covered up with a virtual image. ICEPortal.com, a producer, host and distributer of hotel virtual tours, mentioned to me that some of their distribution partners like Travelocity didn't like the Full-Screen product for that reason. ICE has since renamed the large images "Super-Size" using 700x350 pixel images like they do in this link www.iceportal.com/brochures/ice/Brochure.aspx?did...;brochureid=ICE471
I think VR Photographers have gotten the idea that becasue a Full Screen tour has to be the best image they can produce, that its what the customers want. When in most cases its like trying to sell Ferraris to people who need a commuter car
Albuquerque, NM
This is exactly my thinking and the reason I'm shooting for small, easy to use viewers that integrate well into a web page. I want my viewer to be completely unnoticeable. I want it to disappear and leave only the panorama as the focus of the users attention.
For example: I've seen Flash presentations that take over the whole screen and prevent me from doing anything else because they cover the whole screen and then proceed to show me fancy fades and slow moving special effects. I guess they eventually get around to showing a panorama but I'm usually long gone by then. I hate being loomed over...
I can get the information contained in a panorama from a 640x480 or 800x600 window. And I don't need an "...internet experience..." to do so. 
Small, fast and unobtrusive -- if I can make whoever views an image in my viewers completely forget that there was a viewer involved in what he saw -- then I've succeeded.
Ken
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
ptviewer limitation
|
Re: ptviewer limitation
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 at 13:41 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Why Java had such a severe memory limitation is a mystery to me and a lot of other people. Some of the geniuses at SUN must have had a reason.
I think the memory limitation was an attempt to be a good software citizen on the computers of the '90s which had slow processors and limited memory. Remember, 5 years ago, 512meg was a substantial amount of memory. And the memory limitation just sort of persisted through lack of attention.
For a while, a few years ago, SUN was reducing staff and funds for Java development. I think they had the notion that SUN was a hardware company, not a software company.
You know how big organizations get factions competing for attention and money.
While Scott McNealy was CEO at SUN, Java was not given the resources or attention it needed to keep up with the times.
Now that he has been replaced at SUN as CEO, Java has gotten a lot more attention and some of the improvements in the works look very promising. The new plugin for example. Also, I think that SUN is also trying to establish better relations with Microsoft. Something that McNealy refused to do.
I keep hoping for the day when Microsoft decides to ship Java with it's OS's.
As for Apple. They are harder to figure out than either SUN or Microsoft. From what I hear about Quicktime, it is not getting the attention it needs. But I really don't know much about Apple or QT. Apple does it's own version of Java which always seems to lag behind SUN's version for some reason.
And Vista and IE7 are just a mess that nobody want's to deal with. They are a lot of discussions on SUN's developer forums about the problems people have with IE7 and particularly with IE7 on Vista. Why stuff like that happens is yet another mystery.
There was a survey that I saw and 70% of the respondents said that they didn't want to upgrade from XP to Vista. That's a lot of people who normally would jump all over the latest OS from MS.
But still, as a Java programmer, I see potential in Java that I don't see anywhere else. After all, there is a way to fix memory problems on most computers -- except for Vista and IE7 -- and then there is always Firefox.
But Smooth's point is valid. There are a lot of people who can not be expected to do even the most simple system configuration.
But I have faith...
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
ptviewer limitation
|
Re: ptviewer limitation
Posted: 26 Mar 2008 at 12:03 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Smooth said: Fighting Java is a pain in the rear end.
Thanks for fixing my spelling mistake also
Indeed. Been doing that for 10 years now. But I remain a true believer in Java. Things are going to turn around. Java will rise again 
Fixing mistakes is something that Java has taught me well. So see -- there is payback for the true believer.
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Prev
