The lowdown on iPIX

DJAurand wrote:

snip

Why in the world would I want to use somebody elses software that would
drastically limit my output choices??????

One reason might be because the iPix images are so low resolution, you
cannot zoom into the image to any great degree. A lot of iPix images
I've seen have had very poor joins between the two fisheye imagfes - if
I were the customer I would have asked for my money back, or not paid in
the1st place!

With other systems you can create a very high resolution 'master' image
which can be used to print wide panoramic images on paper or high res
full screen images for interactive use.

"DJAurand" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bart
Stripped down to the essence, iPIX has successfully defended
their patent.

Is that not correct?

As long as your customers (and you) are willing to pay iPIX out of the
bottom line, good luck.

You can argue details and side issues, but they won, its settled,
move on.

I (and maybe some of your competition) have. HDR immersive imaging,
besides other alternatives to iPIX, seems to be becoming the
fashion... (http://www.hdrsoft.com/index.html,
http://webuser.fh-furtwangen.de/~dersch/,
http://www.idruna.com/photogenicshdr.html,
http://www.spheron.de/spheron/public/en/home/home.php,
http://home.vrway.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/VRWay.woa,
http://www.nicophoto.com/panoramas/p...crib.inc.php-l,
etc., etc.).

Bart

"DJAurand" writes:
Stripped down to the essence, iPIX has successfully defended their
patent.

Is that not correct?

Of course it's incorrect. The essence is they are scum, no matter what
the court decided. Courts only decide whether something is legal, not
whether it's reprehensible. There are lots of scumbags who do things that
are reprehensible but legal.

You can argue details and side issues, but they won, its settled, move on.

More nonsense, you said yourself that they weren't profitible. For
them (though maybe not the rest of us), profitibility is the only real
issue, and everything else including court decisions are side issues.
I am glad to hear they are unprofitible and I hope they will be out of
business soon. That is when it will be time to move on.

I don't understand why you are so enthused about them anyway. I
understand you make lots of money shooting real estate pictures using
their software, so it's reasonable to say you use their stuff out of
business necessity. I myself use Microsoft Windows at work, out of a
similar type of business necessity. Microsoft are scum and I use
their stuff because I have to. If I were a real estate photographer,
maybe I'd be saying the same thing about iPix. But you don't find me
going on pro-Microsoft campaigns in newsgroups and you similarly won't
find me on pro-iPix campaigns.

"DJAurand" writes:
Stripped down to the essence, iPIX has successfully defended their
patent.

Is that not correct?

Of course it's incorrect. The essence is they are scum, no matter what
the court decided. Courts only decide whether something is legal, not
whether it's reprehensible. There are lots of scumbags who do things that
are reprehensible but legal.

You can argue details and side issues, but they won, its settled, move on.

More nonsense, you said yourself that they weren't profitible. For
them (though maybe not the rest of us), profitibility is the only real
issue, and everything else including court decisions are side issues.
I am glad to hear they are unprofitible and I hope they will be out of
business soon. That is when it will be time to move on.

I don't understand why you are so enthused about them anyway. I
understand you make lots of money shooting real estate pictures using
their software, so it's reasonable to say you use their stuff out of
business necessity. I myself use Microsoft Windows at work, out of a
similar type of business necessity. Microsoft are scum and I use
their stuff because I have to. If I were a real estate photographer,
maybe I'd be saying the same thing about iPix. But you don't find me
going on pro-Microsoft campaigns in newsgroups and you similarly won't
find me on pro-iPix campaigns.

DJAurand wrote:

Then why does iPIX continue to be the technology of choice for so many
major Real Estate and Corporate Hotel websites?

I've expanded from Real Estate Tours to Hotel Tours and in a year and a
half I did 9 hotels in 4 states; a Hilton, a Sheraton, a Wyndham, two
Radissons, a Marriott and three independent hotels/resorts. Over 60 Images
at $150 each

How many tours did you provide to a major hotel or real estate website in
the last year and a half

Why is this bragging relevant to rec.photo.digital?

DJAurand wrote:

Then why does iPIX continue to be the technology of choice for so many
major Real Estate and Corporate Hotel websites?

I've expanded from Real Estate Tours to Hotel Tours and in a year and a
half I did 9 hotels in 4 states; a Hilton, a Sheraton, a Wyndham, two
Radissons, a Marriott and three independent hotels/resorts. Over 60 Images
at $150 each

How many tours did you provide to a major hotel or real estate website in
the last year and a half

Why is this bragging relevant to rec.photo.digital?

DJAurand wrote:

Then why does iPIX continue to be the technology of choice for so many
major Real Estate and Corporate Hotel websites?

I've expanded from Real Estate Tours to Hotel Tours and in a year and a
half I did 9 hotels in 4 states; a Hilton, a Sheraton, a Wyndham, two
Radissons, a Marriott and three independent hotels/resorts. Over 60 Images
at $150 each

How many tours did you provide to a major hotel or real estate website in
the last year and a half

Why is this bragging relevant to rec.photo.digital?

Keith
You're right, some of the images produced are very poor. I've looked
back on some of my old work and am a little embarrassed.

A lot simply depends on the photographer. I think iPIX used to have far
to many people out there using their product. They expanded too fast

As I understand they are in the process of removing some of the members
of their iPIX Deveopers Network who no longer meet new standards.

Doug

Keith
You're right, some of the images produced are very poor. I've looked
back on some of my old work and am a little embarrassed.

A lot simply depends on the photographer. I think iPIX used to have far
to many people out there using their product. They expanded too fast

As I understand they are in the process of removing some of the members
of their iPIX Deveopers Network who no longer meet new standards.

Doug

Paul
Sorry, I didn't mean to boast. I was responding to Keith's comment that
follows;

This is ******** - most real VR photographers would not touch iPix with

a barge pole - the quality is simply not there - as well as their
predatory / rip-off the photographer attitide. This subject has been
done to death in many other forums.

Doug Aurand