proj-imim:
FWD: Re: PTVJ Psize Test
Helmut Dersch 2000-May-20 11:55:52
Message-ID: <#removed#>
Reply-To: "Robert Breuer" <#removed#>
From: "Robert Breuer" <#removed#>
To: "Gummy Bear" <#removed#>
Cc: "Immersive Imaging" <#removed#>
References: <#removed#>
Subject: Re: PTVJ Psize Test
Date: Sat, 20 May 2000 07:22:11 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
boundary="----=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFC22C.1D40D180"
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2014.211
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2014.211
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_002D_01BFC22C.1D40D180
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="Windows-1252"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hello Gummy,
I have a ISDN dial-up connection, a Pentium III 450 MHz and Internet =
Explorer 5:
http://mrgummybear.tripod.com/ptvj/psize.html 15 seconds (Loading Image =
... until pano is displayed)
http://mrgummybear.tripod.com/ptvj/nopsize.html 13 seconds (Loading =
Image ... until pano is displayed)
The loading time is measured by hand so I would say the loading time for =
both is the same.
Regards,
Robert Breuer
#removed#
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Gummy Bear=20
To: Immersive Imaging=20
Sent: Friday, May 19, 2000 5:20 PM
Subject: PTVJ Psize Test
Hello,
I would like to verify the slow download I'm getting on
Windows IE 5 with PTVJ 0.9 with and without the psize
parameter set in the HTML.
Is there anyone on a windows machine with a *dial-up*
connection that can test these URL's with IE 5?
The first page has the psize set correctly in the HTML:
http://mrgummybear.tripod.com/ptvj/psize.html
This is typically taking 25-30 seconds to load on 56K modem.
The second page is exactly the same but has the psize removed:
http://mrgummybear.tripod.com/ptvj/nopsize.html
This is typically taking 50-55 seconds to load on 56K modem.
I start my count from the time I see "Loading Image..." in the applet.
BTW, the maxarray param is set at 2,000,000 pixels which
should be more than enough for this 640,000 pixel pano.
Thanks,
Gummy