Thanks to both Nicholas and Stephen again, that explains a lot more and sounds like a great idea.... So you can only use this Pano2VR for the transform back and forth? I visited their website -- they have a watermark on the free version. Apparently it costs $93 -- that's pretty steep for my uses, considering I don't need all their other functionality. Doesn't photoshop or some other tool do this conversion? I just signed on to Adobe Creative Cloud...they ought to have something in all that software that would do this, you'd think?
On Aug 1, 2013, at 2:57 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > I have use both sphere and cross (or cube) mapping for reflections. > Both work fine, and have advantages and disadvantages, depending on the > specific situation. > The fact that an environment is a "cube" is not an issue. > It is simply a different way to map the environment. > The fact that it is a cube is not apparent in the resulting > rendered image. I understand your concern, but it > looks just fine. It is just easier to paint out the polar "pinches" > in this format. Nicholas is correct in that you can just > turn the change the format of the environment map and > you loose nothing. > > make both a equirectangular and cube format environment map > and choose what works best for you. I think you will see there is no > difference, except when painting out the pole pinches. > > > On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: >> Thanks, Stephen and Nicholas for the information on cubical projection. >> Frankly, I'm partial to spheres... I've always found them better as >> background environments -- cubes never seem right, the edges tend to be >> apparent. especially because this is a scene in a 360 space and i don't want >> to have to avoid the camera looking at the edges of the cube. But I also >> don't want to have to avoid the poles of a sphere. But I've never tried the >> cubical projection in Softimage, is it better somehow? You're right, >> Nicholas, it would be easier to paint out the distortion in PS. But I don't >> want to do all that work on creating a cubical projection and have it not >> read well in the render. >> >> Have you used it effectively when you need 360 degree correctness? >> >> Thanks! >> >> On Jul 29, 2013, at 4:39 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Exactly. Then use the cross version (Pano2VR creates a horizontal cross) >>> setting Softimage's environmental mapping to horizontal cross. >>> Is this not working for you, now? >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:54 PM, Nicholas Breslow >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> The basic workflow I’ve used for this in the past is to convert the >>>> equirectangular panorama to a cubical projection. Then you can paint out >>>> the nadir (poles) on the top/bottom of the cube in PS/other to get rid of >>>> the distortion. You can use Pano2vr >>>> http://gardengnomesoftware.com/pano2vr.php for the conversion. After >>>> convert it back to equirectangular. Very similar to the Polar method >>>> mentioned before. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hope that is what you were going for – just glanced and thought I would >>>> share this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Nicholas Breslow >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> From: [email protected] >>>> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs >>>> Sent: Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM >>>> To: [email protected] >>>> Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for this info, Stephen, but I really need the spherical environment >>>> for a seamless space experience. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Now that I've got the implicit projection working, it does a better job >>>> rendering the image at the poles, but still not good enough. Guess ill >>>> have to drag a sphere into Mari and try painting out the distortion. That >>>> plugin you linked me to gives some cool vortex effects at the poles, maybe >>>> ill find a use for that! But I still wonder why it's working for your >>>> images and not mine. Maybe it's in the type of image and what is happening >>>> visually near the bottom and top of the image. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 1:19 AM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is a nice article on creating cubic environment maps from stitched >>>> panoramic photos, using Blender. >>>> >>>> very clever: >>>> >>>> http://www.aerotwist.com/tutorials/create-your-own-environment-maps/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 9:42 PM, Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Stephen, this plugin really didn't work for me. It way overdid some kind >>>> of smearing, spiraling algorithm. Looks a lot worse than the original. I >>>> wonder what he's thinking, or what went wrong here... Any ideas? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks for the link, however. I was really stoked when I thought it was >>>> going to solve this problem. Maybe something in Softimage mapping is >>>> trying to solve this and doesn't quite do it, so this plugin >>>> overcompensates? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I still think implicit mapping would help, as the help files indicate, if >>>> I could get any image to show up on the sphere. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Thanks again, >>>> >>>> Nancy >>>> >>>> >>>> On Jul 27, 2013, at 8:18 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If you have Photoshop, here is a link to something called spherical >>>> mapping corrector: >>>> >>>> http://www.richardrosenman.com/software/downloads/ >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> No 64 bit support, I believe. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> here is the install and use docs: >>>> >>>> Spherical Mapping Corrector - v1.4, © 2008 Richard Rosenman Advertising & >>>> Design. Release date: 03/15/03, Updated 09/28/08. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> INSTALLATION: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Simply unzip "spheremap.zip" and copy "spheremap.8bf" to your >>>> "\Photoshop\Plug-Ins\" folder, or whichever plugin folder your host >>>> program uses. Load your program, open an image, go to the plugins menu and >>>> select the plugin. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> DESCRIPTION: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This filter produces texture map correction for spherical mapping. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> When projecting a rectangular texture onto a sphere using traditional >>>> spherical mapping coordinates, distortion ('pinching') occurs at the poles >>>> where the texture must come to a point. Given the different topology of a >>>> plane and a sphere, it is impossible to avoid this, or any kind of >>>> distortion. However, by properly distorting the texture map, it is >>>> possible to minimize and even compensate for the polar distortion. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Special thanks to Paul Bourke for allowing his algorithm to be ported to >>>> this plugin. For more information, please visit Mr. Bourke's site at >>>> http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/~pbourke/. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Sub-Sampling: Specifies what type of pixel sub-sampling to use. (Nearest >>>> Neighbor being fastest, Bicubic being best. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Greetings, >>>> >>>> I'm using the old-style environment spheres with an HDR image wrapped to >>>> light the scene, but invisible to rendering, and a beauty image visible to >>>> the render. The problem is the very visible distortion near the poles of >>>> the sphere. I need 360 degree visual acceptability. I am using a >>>> background which I've made seamless in both directions, a 2:1 rectangle. >>>> It seems this worked in renders at one point years ago in another >>>> software. Perhaps even XSI....I don't recall. >>>> >>>> I'm also trying to substitute this arrangement by using both an >>>> environment (using the HDRI), and 'Spherical Mapping' (using the beauty >>>> image), in the Pass Shaders. But I'm getting very strange results, so not >>>> sure if this is the way to go. Also, it's difficult to line them up >>>> properly so that the light in the HDRI is coming from the same place as >>>> the equivalent visible areas in the beauty image -- which of course one >>>> can do easily in the wrapped spheres. But in the pass shaders, they don't >>>> seem to use the same rotation systems... >>>> >>>> Any advice on getting an undistorted, seamless image going here? With >>>> proper orientations? >>>> >>>> Thanks, >>>> Nancy >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Stephen P. Davidson >>>> (954) 552-7956 >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >>>> >>>> >>>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> Stephen P. Davidson >>>> (954) 552-7956 >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >>>> >>>> >>>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> Stephen P. Davidson >>> (954) 552-7956 >>> [email protected] >>> >>> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic >>> >>> >>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > Stephen P. Davidson > (954) 552-7956 > [email protected] > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > > > - Arthur C. Clarke > >
