xml panorama project format

Bruno Postle bruno@postle.net
Fri, 26 Apr 2002 09:36:41 +0100


On Thu 25-Apr-2002 at 04:29:01 -0700, Ianiv Schweber wrote:
> 
> More comments about the xml format:
> 
> -We should change the root element name to something like "panorama"

That's right, panorama makes more sense, I don't know why I used xpt.

> -Why do we need an image in the output element?

Because there may need to be room for multiple output images per project
(later on, if somebody wants to implement it).

For example, if someone wants to extract an image, edit it and reinsert
it into the input set (like pteditor), then it would help if the output
data format mirrored the input format.

Another example.  ptsticher doesn't support roll, pitch and yaw for
output images, but this would be quite simple to add at the wrapper
level at some point - Then the output image-type looks even more like
the input images.

>  The contents are not consistent: type and fov have a value element
>  and all the others just specify the value.

Yeah, this does look a bit weird.  It has the same structure as the
input format, where everything that can be optimized or referenced has
another level of <value>, <optimize> & <ref> elements.  Perhaps _all_
image attributes should have a <value> element, even though it would be
superfluous in most cases?

>  I think it should look like:
> 
>  <output>
>    <type>Rectilinear</type>
>    <fov>100</fov>
>    <width>2400</width>
>    <height>1200</height>
>    <feather>20</feather>
>    <format>PNG</format>
>    <gamma>1</gamma>
>    <interpolator>Poly16</interpolator>
>    <qulity>90</quality>
>  </output>

Of course, it could be I'm trying to make this too extensible.

Another thing I realised, is that the set of control points doesn't just
relate to the set of input images.  The type of output panorama
determines what the control points actually do when optimized - t2
points are useless in spherical output panoramas and t1 points would be
useless in fisheye outputs.

So more-than-one output panorama is not as simple as it seemed at first.

-- 
Bruno