I have an old copy of HDR shop v1 on my computer, I'm sure it's the same as your link....the one you linked to, my Norton antivirus, horrified, deleted immediately! ;)
I do remember using this in ancient times, must'vee been when image files were smaller, but this one crashed it. And I do need a high res image because this is the background for my project. My HDR lighting image can live with a little polar distortion, and of course it's much smaller. Which brings me to another question -- doesn't all that dynamic range conversion, internally to HDR shop, degrade or change the low dynamic range image? Moot of course if it crashes, but it does have the conversion I need. Dang it. I can't find anything else that does. Thanks, Nancy On Aug 1, 2013, at 5:34 PM, Stephen Davidson <[email protected]> wrote: > perhaps you missed one of my earlier postings... > > Here is a free download (pc application) > of a tool (HDRshop version 1) that can convert between the different > environment map formats. > http://ict.debevec.org/~debevec/HDRShop/download/ > > > here is documentation for all versions. > http://gl.ict.usc.edu/HDRShop/documentation/HDRShop_v3_man.pdf > > Only version 1 is free, but that is all you need for format conversion. > > > On Thu, Aug 1, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>> >>> >>> > > > > -- > > Best Regards, > Stephen P. Davidson > (954) 552-7956 > [email protected] > > Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic > > > - Arthur C. Clarke > >
