Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
First Flash 11 panorama engine on display
|
Re: First Flash 11 panorama engine on display
Posted: 14 Nov 2011 at 0:25 GMT
updated: 14 Nov 2011 at 0:25 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Hi Trausti,
In my office I only see a black screen with all browsers (tested IE, Ghrome, Firefox), with Flash 11 installed. The graphic card is 2 years old, 256MB vram.
In my home, I can see the pano, but only 2 FPS and 55% of CPU usage. Maybe the problem here is my "old" graphic card ATI Radeon X1600 with 128MB of VRAM. Maybe Flash disables the hardware accelerated mode when the graphic card does not have sufficient features.
I have Windows XP in both computers.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Galleries
Thread:
Before and after
|
Re: Before and after
Posted: 1 Dec 2010 at 19:04 GMT
updated: 1 Dec 2010 at 19:05 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Smooth said: Well crash is probably not correct. It takes over the browser and there is no way of closing it unless I Alt+F4 which equates to the same thing. I have downloaded the latest version of DevalVR Plug-in and still get the same result. If anybody knows of a fix I'd be happy to hear about it.
Regards, Smooth 
Hi Smooth,
I don't see any problem in my Opera. Anyway, the best solution for this is to uninstall DevalVR from your Opera. This way you will see the multi-plugin pages with QT or Flash authomatically.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Any HTML5 panos out there?
|
Re: Any HTML5 panos out there?
Posted: 19 Sep 2010 at 20:32 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Hans Nyberg said: The standard 10.1 uses Hardware acceleration on Mac if the Graphic Card supports it.
Hans
All Graphic Cards support 3D Hardware Acceleration since more than 10 years. MacOSX uses OpenGL and all graphics cards around the world support at least OpenGL 1.2 (released in 1998). I don't know why, but Adobe is sleeping...
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Any HTML5 panos out there?
|
Re: Any HTML5 panos out there?
Posted: 19 Sep 2010 at 13:29 GMT
|
go to thread
|
erik leeman said: Hi Ken,
I posted links to a bunch of them intended for Ipad and larger screens on the Pano2VR forum:
gardengnomesoftware.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t...
The HTML pages themselves are VERY basic, it's just about the image quality, not the interface (yet).
Erik
Very good performance! These HTML5 pages can be measure with www.fraps.com , I see 46 FPS and few CPU usage, so, Safari is using hardware acceleration to show the images. Very good.
I see a near future with rich contents in all browsers without plugins...
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Galleries
Thread:
Fun with Leonardo da Vinci
|
|
Forum:
Galleries
Thread:
Germany 4, Argentina 0
|
Re: Germany 4, Argentina 0
Posted: 6 Jul 2010 at 23:49 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Be careful tomorrow, after Spain 4 - Germany 0 , maybe somebody could break the camera
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Flash really a resource hog??? tours eat 90-100% CPU power
|
Re: Flash really a resource hog??? tours eat 90-100% CPU power
Posted: 12 Jun 2010 at 12:42 GMT
updated: 12 Jun 2010 at 12:45 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Ranjan Pano said: I am noticing a change over since the years virtual tours migrated from quicktime/java now to flash, but surprisingly ALL flash tour I play on my computer hogs the CPU to 90-100% almost freezing the computer. I checked up with FF/google chrome & IE, all behave the same.
The specs are as follows, not a slow computer by any means.
Intel C2D 1.86Ghz
8gb DDR2 ram
Nvidia 7600GT card latest nvidia driver
20 inch LCD
1Mbps broadband connection
Its not just my tours but any tour on the web & I find done in flash hogs the cpu, since adobe has taken over this is more noticeable in flash 9-10 (adobe loves to be resource hog)
Quicktime tours of the same image takes up 30-50% CPU within the same browser...
QuickTime and Flash are software renderers, this is, all the work to paint any 3D polygon in the screen is made by the CPU. QuickTime only uses one CPU core to make the work, for this reason it uses not more than 50%. Flash use a multi-core process to make the work faster, and for this reason it uses 90-100% of CPU.
None of these viewers use GPU (at least in the latest official version). You can compare with a hardware accelerated viewer to see the difference, for example FreePV or DevalVR.
If you want to test, open a cubic MOV file with DevalVR, disable the option "Advanced options->Synchronized rendering" (all Flash viewers has this option disabled). Now, if you rotate the panorama, you can see the CPU comsumption is from 0% to 9% and the framerate is 146 FPS (you can see the FPS with www.fraps.com )
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
JPEG quality vs. Cube Face Size?
|
Re: JPEG quality vs. Cube Face Size?
Posted: 8 Jun 2010 at 21:01 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Increase face size and decrease jpeg quality up to 50%.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Spherical video panoramas
|
Re: Spherical video panoramas
Posted: 31 May 2010 at 7:58 GMT
|
go to thread
|
The default config are UV filters. I only will test this polarized filters in very sunny days, with the camera below the sun.
I'm working now in the software to matching/blending, so, I will test soon how this works.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Spherical video panoramas
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Spherical video panoramas
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Why to resize?
|
Re: Why to resize?
Posted: 24 Feb 2010 at 22:32 GMT
updated: 24 Feb 2010 at 22:34 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Yes, for me it's better to load the 11724x5862 image, and you can have the 8000x4000 in mind to create the cubefaces (maybe 8000/PI this is 2546x2546). So, Pano2VR must convert the 11724x5864 equirect into 2546x2546, if you use the best interpolator the quality will be better, because only one conversion/resizing.
regards!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
Why to resize?
|
Re: Why to resize?
Posted: 24 Feb 2010 at 22:13 GMT
updated: 24 Feb 2010 at 22:14 GMT
|
go to thread
|
Jpeg codec is very good to compress gradient colours, and not very good with abrupt contour and contrasted colors. If the final size is smaller when you resize the image before loading it into Pano2VR, this is because you lost details in your resizing.
For me, fewer modifications is better to keep the original quality, so, why to resize the image?
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Commercial Announce
Thread:
DevalVR Packer
|
Re: DevalVR Packer-3dstereo-panorama
Posted: 3 Feb 2010 at 12:40 GMT
|
go to thread
|
I uploaded a new version of this example www.devalvr.com/panos/Mansion_Panorama.exe
Now, the screensaver is "Kaspersky friendly"
I will add this feature to install screensavers automatically as an option in the packer to easy use.
Thank you very much for the test!
|
|
alert moderator
|
|
Forum:
Q & A
Thread:
360º Videos
|
|
Prev
