 |
|
|
|
|
|
 |
| ||||||||
 |
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||
|
|
| 
| User list | Rules | You are not logged in.
We have a project that will use stitch multiple images from scanners. At highest resolution the scanner can generate more than 4GB of data (8.5 x 11", 3200 dpi, 16bit is about 1gigapixels or 6GB data at 16 bits per channel. My question is: what is the best format to use to feed this data into Autopano? There are only a few file formats that can hold this: png, psb and maybe some other. We're generating the data ourselves and (within reason) can produce whatever works well for Autopano.
Any suggestions?
Offline
Hum. This will require more than just accurately choosing the input format. In input, the reading sub-system is definitively not optimized for giant image. In fact, the hardware to do that will require that at least 2 full size input images can fit into memory ( we need to create control point on the global image, so we'll need that). That's really huge in your case. I wonder if it's possible.
Offline
I have a lot of hardware for the project. The host machine is running Windows Server 2008 with 16 AMD Shanghai cores, 96GB ram and 1TB of ssd that reads and writes about 1GB/sec. Does that help?
Offline
Yes ! With such an hardware, it should work 
So, the remaining question is the input format : according to your figure, we'll have 27200 x 35200 images as input.
That's 7 GB in memory for one image in 16 bits version.
Offline
What a powerfull hardware! I would love to see APP running on it...
Offline
/me falls off Earth
Offline
Any suggestions on image format? My hardware is looking for something to do!
Offline
I've never worked with such sizes, so no idea on the format other than TIFF, however I have a side question.
What kind of scanner(s) do you use? Do you scan hard copies (slides, photos, etc) or we're talking about scanning back of a digital camera? If it is the former, are you sure you (or the scanner, or the media) can actually "fill" this resolution and bit depth?
I'm asking from a standpoint of a person that scanned some 12-15000 6x6 slides, on a Dimage Multi Scan Pro. There is a point at which the original cannot offer more detail and cranking the resolution just gives "microscopic" detail, like the film grain, etc... Also, the bits don't matter as much, as most film material I've worked with has pretty low dynamic range...
Offline
The file format is for sure adobe PSB, but we'll have to unlock the reading of them because we prevented to parse such format in the browse folder.
So I have to add a new option in app to allow reading of psd / psb in input.
Offline
What if he renames the psd files with .tif extension, so they appear in the browser? Will APP load them as psd, or as tif?
Offline
I'm using an Epson 750 flatbed scanner. Bo, you're right about higher resolution just adding more bits but not more detail, beyond a certain point. I need to do some more testing but chose 3200dpi instead of the claimed 4800dp the scanner will produce. We're setting up our scanner lab and will be able to run good tests at that point. The source material has genuine detail at this level and below -- perhaps not that critical but still there. For example, there are 10 micron fibers in the item.
If we could find a scanner that could handle higher detail we'd use it. The development of flatbed scanners seems to be largely stalled. We considered using a digital camera and macro lens but we have to scan a very large area (2.5 x 3.5m) and that creates its own set of challenges, not to mention 15,000 or more images that would need to be stitched.
Alexandre, it seems that png will support images 2^32 per side. See http://www.libpng.org/pub/png/spec/iso/ … ject.html, section 11.2.2. I don't have a preference for format other than using the one that is more easily handled. I suspect that many common tools might choke on the large png files. Photoshop seems to be limited to 30k or so, for example. Then again most common tools can't do anything with psb.
Offline
Assuming that you are doing some kind of repro work, lighting methods will give you more option to get better details vs a flatbed scanner.
Though shooting 2.5m x 3.5m images will have its own set of issues, but APP can handle it well. I successfully stitched 3mt shot of a fabric design shot @ 1:1 magnification long time ago with APP. I was just testing the detection ability of APP at that time.
Offline
Let's try PNG. If your scanner can create PNG which such size, we should be able to handle them.
Offline
