I'm running HDRshop ver 1.0 on WIndows 7 64 bit with no issues. I don't see any degrading and I've used it with some 4K HDR files with no issues at all.
No virus warnings, either. I'm using Panda Cloud for antivirus. Maybe I should do a virus scan, as I just downloaded it to test the link. On Fri, Aug 2, 2013 at 2:43 AM, Nancy Jacobs <[email protected]> wrote: > 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* <%28954%29%20552-7956>* >>>> * [email protected]**** >>>> >>>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic** >>>> *** >>>> >>>> >>>> - Arthur C. Clarke**** >>>> >>>> [image: cid:] <http://www.3danimationmagic.com/>**** >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> ** ** >>>> >>>> -- **** >>>> >>>> Best Regards, >>>> * Stephen P. Davidson** ** >>>> **(954) 552-7956** >>>> * [email protected]**** >>>> >>>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic** >>>> *** >>>> >>>> >>>> - Arthur C. Clarke**** >>>> >>>> [image: >>>> http://www.3danimationmagic.com/3Danimation_magic_logo_sign.jpg]<http://www.3danimationmagic.com/> >>>> **** >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> Best Regards, >>> * Stephen P. Davidson** >>> **(954) 552-7956 >>> * [email protected] >>> >>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* >>> >>> >>> - Arthur C. Clarke >>> >>> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com> >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> >> Best Regards, >> * Stephen P. Davidson** >> **(954) 552-7956 >> * [email protected] >> >> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* >> >> >> - Arthur C. Clarke >> >> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com> >> >> > > > -- > > Best Regards, > * Stephen P. Davidson** > **(954) 552-7956 > * [email protected] > > *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* > > > - Arthur C. Clarke > > <http://www.3danimationmagic.com> > > -- Best Regards, * Stephen P. Davidson** **(954) 552-7956 * [email protected] *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic* - Arthur C. Clarke <http://www.3danimationmagic.com>
