 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
I have built a new machine for running APP and want to compare its speed against other machines, and its speed on different numbers of images on the same machine. I know next to nothing about benchmarking other than it is very difficult to do because of the huge number of variables involved, especially when different machines are involved. Nevertheless I intend to try because I am a geek. I would also like some reassurance that the money I spent on the new machine was not wasted, but I want to do this mainly because I am a geek.
What I thought people here might be able to tell me is to what extent does the type of image determine run-times?
For example, is it harder for APP to detect panos in say low-contrast images? Does contrast/sharpness/whatever have an effect on blending times? Or how about the field of view? I can make a 1-D pano out of say 20 images, but the FoV depends on the zoom setting, so maybe the trigonometric calculations are different.
Aeris
Offline
Aeriscera wrote:
What I thought people here might be able to tell me is to what extent does the type of image determine run-times?
A brief question where a complete and sensible answer is certainly not possible: too many intervening variables exist.
Elapsed time before you press the Render button and rendering time are to be set aside.
What counts before rendering:
- number of source images
- source images size (MP)
- most Detection and Optimization settings
- RAW / 16 bit TIFF / JPEG
... and much more.
What counts for rendering:
- output size (if 100% corresponds to 10 minutes then 25% often corresponds to less than 1 minute)
- color depth
- used blender
- used interpolator
- number of layers
... and much more.
A comparative study between using Smartblend and using Multiband on different machines (disk system included) for a large spectrum of pano sizes (8bit or 16bit color depth) would be, probably, the most useful and the most appraised one ...but, hopefully, would be obsolete when completed 
Offline
There is at least two other topics on benchmarking with quite a bit of discussion, but I cannot seem to find them now.
The best suggestion IMHO is a separate application, that runs tests with predefined settings on sample image sets, downloadable separately.
Offline
