Would you mind sharing the more hardware info for 16 core setup?

100drets of gigapixel...

256 minimum
6x3T Raid0... I would tripple this... 3raidcontroller with 6x3T each
For sorce inages, destination images and one for temp dir.

Georg

Hi Brian
Prefere Quad channel RAM with a low timing (latency). With a QPI of 8 GT/s you have "only" a bandwith of 32GBytes/s (theoretically, in the best case)
The X9DAi need very expensive ECC DRx4 RDIMM's when using more than 128 GB.
So the 16x8GB setup will be the more economically solution.
Read the note 1) at the bottom of the RAM site in the manual (only 1GB, 2GB, 4GB DRAM's are validated)
See also the tested memory configurations on http://www.supermicro.com/products/moth … /x9dai.cfm
The Corsair AX1200 will definitely not be able to power this system at higher loads. Then you need two of this PSU's


What kind of work you are planning ? For video editing in full HD mode, 64 GB is more than enough.

APG is optimized to deal with really big panoramas (more than 20 GPixel) with less RAM. I'm creating 23 GPixel with 8 GB RAM in less than 2 hours (on a old intel x38 system).
If you like to create panoramas with hundreds of GPixel, you need to shot several thousands of single images with a super tele-lens (minimal 600-1000mm).
There is a critical time limit to do so. If you need more than 2 hours for shooting, the light conditions will change massively most of time.
But most robotic pano heads need several seconds for each image.

And at the end, how to publish such panoramas ? You can print it several hundert meters large
Or fill a separate server with only one panorama with one TByte of data

Last edited by lumelix (2012-04-07 11:58:48)

gkaefer wrote:

100drets of gigapixel...

256 minimum
6x3T Raid0... I would tripple this... 3raidcontroller with 6x3T each
For sorce inages, destination images and one for temp dir.

Georg

By the way, do you actually recommend that I have 54TB of storage space available in the system?

Brian Iannone wrote:

Thank you all for your replies. I have the storage system under control; I'm using a few other 6-18TB arrays each with hardware RAID controllers, but I was posting what I have just internally in this system. I apologize for not mentioning that previously.

Each of my RAID 0 arrays have read and write speeds in the 600 Mps to 1 Gbps range. Would you all think that those speeds would be sufficient enough when dealing with images this large?

Regarding the RAM, I suppose I will go with 256GB instead of 128GB of only slightly faster memory.

Thank you all very much for your advice.

Hey!

Sounds great! But did you think about having a very big image means a very big single file! Most RAIDs and SSDs have their main-speed with many small files - but not with ONE very big single file of 40GB for example! Opening that .psb file in Photoshop takes a while - and saving it takes another while . . . Some (!) filters need another while additionally . .

I´m also thinking about new hardware - but it´s definitely not my interest to go into "hundreds of gigapixels" . .

best and good luck, Klaus

Coming from a corporate IT, this setup could host a core of an enterprise back end system for hundreds of concurrent users, powering an organization with millions $ in revenue:)

klausesser wrote:

Hey!

Sounds great! But did you think about having a very big image means a very big single file! Most RAIDs and SSDs have their main-speed with many small files - but not with ONE very big single file of 40GB for example! Opening that .psb file in Photoshop takes a while - and saving it takes another while . . . Some (!) filters need another while additionally . .

I´m also thinking about new hardware - but it´s definitely not my interest to go into "hundreds of gigapixels" . .

best and good luck, Klaus

I understand that the single final file will be very large; I am prepared to manage a single file up to 2TB in size. Although, I do have a question. I've heard that the maximum resolution for a PSB file is 300Kx300K pixels. What would you recommend I do if I'm assembling a file in AutoPano that I expect to surpass that size?

gkaefer wrote:

well ;-)
I think yes, if you try to keep the storages clean - I mean only holding images of the actual project. if project is finished move them to archive.
also depending on your workflow. if you must hold one set orig raws, 1-5 sets of developed raws, one set tifs and than playing with rendering results ... ;-)
I think yes to answer but finally you can fill any disksize...
Georg

Okay, I see. Do you have a general size estimate of the total storage space each 100 gigapixel image would require, including source images, temporary storage and destination images? (For example, 5TB/100GP, 10TB/200GB, etc.) I'd just like to have a 'guideline' I can follow while assembling my disk arrays so that I can predict the amount of hard drive space I'll need.

Brian - you say "hundreds-of-gigapixels", so I think it's safe to assume that you're talking about a minimum of 200GP, yes?

And I'm also assuming we're talking about "real" sizing here, and not some of the nonsense that's been created in the past?

OK. First off. Putting the computer hardware to one side for a moment, would you mind sharing how you're planning on shooting the images themselves?

The highest pixel-density DSLR out there right now is I believe the Sony A77. Forget the Nikon D800 - that's got a lower pixel density than even the Canon 7D, so if what you're after is shooting huge panos for the sake of shooting huge panos, the Sony is the logical choice.

Sony are releasing a 500mm f/4 lens this month. Slap that on an A77, shoot a full spherical panorama, and you'd be looking at something in the region of 300 gigapixels. That's of course assuming you can come up with a rig that can spin the thing through 180 degrees on the Y-axis (the lens is 37cm long).

Number of shots would be in the region of 22,000. Regardless of what pano head you use, that lens is going to take a good few seconds to settle, and you'll want the mirror up. So lets assume 5 seconds per shot. That's 30 hours of shooting.

well. if money is no problem... why not. otherwise no single sportscar would be sold, no rolex would be sold ever etc...
and if finally wont do such x hundrets panos, well maybe he come to the idea he could/must use focus stacking for his below hundret pano... or he wanna create bracketing or hdrs...
and also not so far this year kolors koloreyes will be released and so maybe he comes to the idea to create some 15min. 5gigapixel pano videos...
so enough space for dreams

PS: time: none of the 1xx gigapixelpanos I saw was shot in one run... see also descriptions in kolors blog... they waited months to "catch" the fitting days to shoot the pano

Georg

Last edited by gkaefer (2012-04-13 15:56:53)

Hi Gerald
I like to push the limits too ! But for a rookie in pano shooting, I recommend to start small. Not with a pano of "hundreds of Gigapixel".
This may not go well, and then he loses the joy of it and threw the money out the window. That's what I mean.

gddxb wrote:

Brian - you say "hundreds-of-gigapixels", so I think it's safe to assume that you're talking about a minimum of 200GP, yes?

And I'm also assuming we're talking about "real" sizing here, and not some of the nonsense that's been created in the past?

OK. First off. Putting the computer hardware to one side for a moment, would you mind sharing how you're planning on shooting the images themselves?

The highest pixel-density DSLR out there right now is I believe the Sony A77. Forget the Nikon D800 - that's got a lower pixel density than even the Canon 7D, so if what you're after is shooting huge panos for the sake of shooting huge panos, the Sony is the logical choice.

Sony are releasing a 500mm f/4 lens this month. Slap that on an A77, shoot a full spherical panorama, and you'd be looking at something in the region of 300 gigapixels. That's of course assuming you can come up with a rig that can spin the thing through 180 degrees on the Y-axis (the lens is 37cm long).

Number of shots would be in the region of 22,000. Regardless of what pano head you use, that lens is going to take a good few seconds to settle, and you'll want the mirror up. So lets assume 5 seconds per shot. That's 30 hours of shooting.

still confounds me this type of purist pursuit of perfect gigapixels. Nothing wrong with it at all - just i dont understand, y'know why. I'd prefer to err on the side of making some pretty, but bloody big.

I agree with that analysis and am too wondering what kind of shooting rig Brian has in mind, as well as the practical application of a 300GP image???

gddxb wrote:

Brian - you say "hundreds-of-gigapixels", so I think it's safe to assume that you're talking about a minimum of 200GP, yes?

And I'm also assuming we're talking about "real" sizing here, and not some of the nonsense that's been created in the past?

OK. First off. Putting the computer hardware to one side for a moment, would you mind sharing how you're planning on shooting the images themselves?

The highest pixel-density DSLR out there right now is I believe the Sony A77. Forget the Nikon D800 - that's got a lower pixel density than even the Canon 7D, so if what you're after is shooting huge panos for the sake of shooting huge panos, the Sony is the logical choice.

Sony are releasing a 500mm f/4 lens this month. Slap that on an A77, shoot a full spherical panorama, and you'd be looking at something in the region of 300 gigapixels. That's of course assuming you can come up with a rig that can spin the thing through 180 degrees on the Y-axis (the lens is 37cm long).

Number of shots would be in the region of 22,000. Regardless of what pano head you use, that lens is going to take a good few seconds to settle, and you'll want the mirror up. So lets assume 5 seconds per shot. That's 30 hours of shooting.