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 <illus...@mip.net> 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 <magic...@bellsouth.net>
> 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 <illus...@mip.net> 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 <magic...@bellsouth.net>
>> 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 <illus...@mip.net> 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 <magic...@bellsouth.net>
>>> 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 <
>>> n...@nicholasbreslow.com> 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:* softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com [mailto:
>>>> softimage-boun...@listproc.autodesk.com] *On Behalf Of *Nancy Jacobs
>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, July 28, 2013 6:25 PM
>>>> *To:* softimage@listproc.autodesk.com
>>>> *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 <magic...@bellsouth.net>
>>>> 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 <illus...@mip.net> 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 <magic...@bellsouth.net>
>>>> 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 <illus...@mip.net> 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>*
>>>> *    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com****
>>>>
>>>> *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**
>>>> *    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com****
>>>>
>>>> *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
>>> *    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
>>>
>>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic*
>>>
>>>
>>>      - Arthur C. Clarke
>>>
>>> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> *  Stephen P. Davidson**
>>        **(954) 552-7956
>> *    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
>>
>> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic*
>>
>>
>>    - Arthur C. Clarke
>>
>> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards,
> *  Stephen P. Davidson**
>        **(954) 552-7956
> *    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com
>
> *Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic*
>
>
>    - Arthur C. Clarke
>
> <http://www.3danimationmagic.com>
>
>


-- 

Best Regards,
*  Stephen P. Davidson**
       **(954) 552-7956
*    sdavid...@3danimationmagic.com

*Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic*


 - Arthur C. Clarke

<http://www.3danimationmagic.com>

Reply via email to