Nick, I checked this out and loaded the actions into PS, but it only does equirectangular to angular fisheye and back. And lots of cube to cross combinations. But nothing that would get you from a panorama to a cross. Unless I missed something?
Thanks, Nancy On Aug 1, 2013, at 3:26 PM, Nicholas Breslow <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Nancy, > > Check out Andrew Hazelden’s Blog here: > http://www.andrewhazelden.com/blog/2012/11/domemaster-photoshop-actions-pack/ > > The Domemaster Photoshop Actions Pack should do what you need. His site is > interesting – worth a look through. > > PS – Disclaimer: I’ve only used Pano2VR as a license was purchased for me but > the actions ~should~ work nicely. Let me know if they don’t. > > -Nick > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nancy Jacobs > Sent: Thursday, August 1, 2013 3:17 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Environment sphere issues > > 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 >
