Renan,

please explain the line "Output size can not be larger than 524288 pixels."

in docu displayed screenshot 16 Gb Ram detected / 10 Gb ram free
my PC: 8 Gb Ram detected / 4 Gb ram free
Hendriks PS: 96 Gb Ram detected / 90 Gb ram free

but in all cases: "Output size can not be larger than 524288 pixels."
the number of pictures per line differ / thats logic I can follow...

is this 524288 pixel defining one image of a row, one row of images, one pano of containing images or one pano of overlapping images (each image is overlapping with about 4 images...) or is this pixel count the output size of the pano (any other pissible?)

EDIT: do I interpret the memory wiki page correct: the 524288 pixels is the maximum width in one row of the pano?

why is this pixel count constant on so different memory equiped computers?

AND thanks for adding the memory wiki page!!!

thanks,
Georg

Last edited by gkaefer (2012-07-05 19:10:18)

renan wrote:

Yes, output size limitation is the maximal width of the final panorama. It's not based on free memory but on cache division size (one line must fit in one memory division).

It's not necessary to adjust the cache division if you don't have rendering issues.
It can help for giga panoramas (set a big cache division for being able to load one line) or big local overlaps cases with small free memory (set a small cache division to increase the number of individual memory blocs)

many thanks for answer,

so when 524288 is max width of the pano than the limit of the final rendered full spherical panorama for Computers with 8 - 96 GB deteced RAM is
524288 x 262144 pixels = 128 Gigapixels (if counting with 1024 Megapixel = 1 Gigapixel)

depending on the free memory the number of images per row are limited before its getting slow
and the number of overlapping images per row should be about 65% - 75% (of the images per row count from one line above) so that antighost feature will still work.

Liebe Gruesse,
Georg

Last edited by gkaefer (2012-07-05 19:25:34)

lumelix wrote:

Hi Georg

524288 x 262144, that is for 2:1 ratio 360º spherical, but for cylindrical or planar you can have a other ratio and more pixels.
When you set the cache division to 32 MB, you get a max size of 2'097'152 Pixels.
With a ratio of 1:1 you can do a pano with 4'000 Gigapixels (4 Tera-Pixel)!
Now let's go, guys! Who is first?

ok: motherboard:
Gigabyte GA-7PESH1 / GA-7PESH2 Dual Socket LGA2011 Motherboard
full equiped with 16 RDIMMS with total of 512GB RAM
and equipped with two Intel Xeon E5-2470, 8x 2.3 Ghz so 16 real and 32 virtual cores
2 or better 4 of worlds first 4GB Graphic Card with 240 CUDA Cores on each card ;-)
15000 WAT power supply or so...

http://geizhals.at/745883
http://www.gigabyte.com/products/produc … id=4157#ov
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product_qu … 00_us.html

price... not so important because in 2 months onyl for -40% available ;-))

Georg

tived wrote:

George,

Wouldn't this card be faster http://www.geforce.com/hardware/desktop … ifications , with 3072 Cuda cores?

The problem isn't the computer, but how you will be shooting the pano, fast enough!

Don't forget to add Areca 1882xi 24-channel SAS/SATA raid controller, or a couple of them, with enterprise grade SSD's or some of the large LSI PCIe SSD cards

You got to win lotto before can afford one of these, and own a power station :-)

Henrik

really dont know - some figures are much better - and price is only 1/3 from the quadro? dont know where the technical beenfit could be to spend a lot more money...

ps: if you take the motherboard and do only spend them one CPU and if you use 16x4GB /8x8GB Ram modules and one of the lower geforce cards than the system could come into affordable spheres and still having really good power ;-)

Georg

Also must workstation and server based boards will insist on ecc ram

Hi Martin,

You can use Windows 7 Pro for 2 CPU based boards, but if you move to 4 or more CPU's you will need a Server OS.

I currently use the EVGA SR-2 dual Processor board, with windows 7 Pro x64, but i have heard some say that Windows Server has better memory management when using larger amounts of RAM. But I am finding it fine at the moment with 96GB.

My biggest hassel is my storage system, i have a drive that keeps popping out of the array (obviously needs to be replaced!) but on that note, if you are going to build, don't go cheap on the hard drives, if you are planning on setting up a larger RAID array, then definately go for Enterprise grade drives. SSD's seem to fair better in the middle price range.

To shoot the 4 terrapixel image, you would need an array of camera's to cover larger areas, but again, there probably isn't a camera-lens combination to even condemplate such a setup.

If you were going to look for a dual socket board, I would pick the EVGA SR-2 again, as its the only such board, that can overclock the XEON processors. You can buy relatively cheap to low end CPU's (2Ghz+) and overclock them to 4Ghz. Currently and you can have about 96GB RAM max at the moment, I am not sure if you can use 16GB sticks, in theory you should be able to as the chipset supports it.
It supports 7 PCIe 16x slots, so you will have plenty of room to add more graphics cards or raid controllers to it.

As this board has just been replaced by the new SR-X, but so far no one has had any luck overclocking it due to that INTEL has locked the CPUs

When i replace my ram, I should be able to bring my 2.6Ghz CPU's back up to 4.2GHZ


Henrik

lumelix wrote:

Hi Georg and Henrik
I would prefere too the GTX690 - much faster than any QuadroFX and much cheaper.
But the GTX690 have two GPUs, so the comparison is not entirely fair. The cost of the
QuadroFX-modells are too high for the performance. But it is the functionality for professional 3D and 4D.

A server board with two Xeon CPUs is nice, but you need a server operating system like Windows Server.
And this can cause compatibility problems with the software, and with the drivers of the GPUs.
In this case, the system performance will collapse, and the high price is not worth it.

A good choice can be a enthusiast PC-board with good overclocing capabilities.
And a relative cheaper CPU like the Intel Core i7 3930K C2.
You can use normal Windows OS and drivers and OC the six cores up to 5 GHz (6x5=30 GHz vs. 16x2.3=36.8 GHz)

But my call for 4 terapixel was not too serious!
You need a 200 MPixel midformat camera (not that multi shot Hasselblad stuff), a 800 mm tele (135) with 2x converter (does not exist in mid format)
and a head that can take > 20'000 images in a few hours, means every second one image!

Hi Martin,

the best thing to do is to get on to the EVGA's forum http://www.evga.com/forums/tt.aspx?forumid=64 there is a wealth of information and more people with alot more knowledge then i have. Currently with my 96GB (12x8GB) Kingstons ram, i am not able to OC with these, i was however, when I only had 48 (as in 6x8GB). with the 48GB I was running my X5650 2.66Ghz @ 4.2Ghz.

However, there are guys using Crucials RAM , and they have no problem OC's they CPU's

I have to say that the OC has been very stable for the year when I had 48GB and I was really pleased with getting better performance then some of the guys who had bought the X5680 CPUs @3.33Ghz, which were able to get their machines to 4.5Ghz, but that was a 2x the cost, so for me the X5650 represents good value for money even at $1k per CPU.

As for harddrives, I am currently using 8x Seagate SV35 7200rpm, and I should at least have bought Western Digital Black caviar, I was really silly. 
I used to have the Samsung F1's too, causing me a lot grief in RAID-0 but at stand alone they are fine.

Some here may argue that their overclocked single processor can do some thing faster then these dual processor beasts, but what i can say is that I have no regrets, apart from having some issues with my storage, the system is otherwise very stable and I can through many large projects at it without it sinking into its knees. This is running both AutopanoGiga, PTGui, Photoshop, Bridge and EnfusionGUI, along with all the usual stuff, and it just plots along, and yes, I have maxed out all 96GB of ram :-)

All the best

Henrik

I'm going to build me a new computer in august/september and are researching the waters. I want a 2xCPU and lot of headroom for RAM.
Per now I think Asus Z9PE-D16 answeres my wishes, with up to 512GB RAM. The mobo itself isn't that expensive, $500, but the CPU's and RAM will be :-|
http://www.asus.com/Server_Workstation/ … ifications
There is a lot I don't need, like "Quad Port Intel Ethernet Controller" and I have seen some hitches like "finding a powersupply to fit the 24+8+8 pin board".
Until autumn I will do some more research.

leifs

The specs of the Gigabyte and Asus boards are (suspiciously) similar. Maybe it's because they use the same BIOS, Intel® C602-A.
I've got a 16-port LSI MegaRAID SAS 9260-16i controller so RAID on the mobo is not an issue.
I would rather have some SATA3 6Gb/s ports, but both have only two.

leifs

Hi Georg,

Just looking at my task manager again
total          98231   100%
Cached      78710  80.12%
Available   86585  88.14%
Free            8026   8.17%
Used          11300  11.5%

at the time of looking I do have 94 processes, 11% of Physical Memory being used, in the Memory window it says 11.3GB in use...

I think that the memory available is proportional, but not in a linear fashion. It will have something to do with the Memory dump, the amount of memory tied up with device drivers etc... Like in my system there is the Dual processors, 1 GPU, 2x RAID controllers... plus all the fruit onboard, with several controllers, audio... 7x PCIe's and this again may change from chipset to chipset....

Solution, add more ram :-)

Henrik