Image-stitching and virtual tour solutions My account Updates
It is currently Thu Oct 23, 2014 10:57 pm

All times are UTC + 1 hour




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Feb 16, 2012 9:10 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
Hi there,

APG always crashes when I try to render my 360° gigapixel.
This is the error message: http://temp.in.futureweb.at/autopano/360/crash.jpg

How can I convince APG to render this pic?

Thank you
Andreas

_________________
Gigapixel Panos from Austria: gpix.at


Last edited by Hellkeeper on Tue May 13, 2014 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:05 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:57 pm
Posts: 341
You exceed current APG limitation (about 500 000 pixel for the width).
But it's just because default memory settings have this limitation. Algorithms are able to render this panorama. We will found a way to remove this limitation in RC3.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:09 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
so even an upgrade to 32GB RAM would not solve this problem immediately?
Would be great if you could incorporate a solution in RC3 for this - can't wait to see the pano rendering! ;-)

Andreas

_________________
Gigapixel Panos from Austria: gpix.at


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Feb 17, 2012 10:51 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2009 1:57 pm
Posts: 341
Unfortunately memory upgrade will not remove this limitation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:17 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
Hey there,

just tried to render a Gpix with a Size of 592.453 x 86.010 Pixel and encountered the same problem as described above. With Version APG 64 3.5.1

As I already was able to render Images up to much bigger sizes (>900.000 Pixel) in Version 3.x - is this Limitation back in Version 3.5.x?!?

Andreas Schnederle-Wagner


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2014 6:29 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2137
Hellkeeper wrote:
Hey there,

just tried to render a Gpix with a Size of 592.453 x 86.010 Pixel and encountered the same problem as described above. With Version APG 64 3.5.1

As I already was able to render Images up to much bigger sizes (>900.000 Pixel) in Version 3.x - is this Limitation back in Version 3.5.x?!?

Andreas Schnederle-Wagner


so let's save in old format and render in 3.0.8. right? As the farmer said : when things don't go the way they should, have them go the way they will.......


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 9:35 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Posts: 5901
Location: Francin, France
Hellkeeper wrote:
just tried to render a Gpix with a Size of 592.453 x 86.010 Pixel and encountered the same problem as described above. With Version APG 64 3.5.1
As I already was able to render Images up to much bigger sizes (>900.000 Pixel) in Version 3.x - is this Limitation back in Version 3.5.x?!?


In rendering engine, nothing changed between 3.0.8 and 3.5.1. The detection / optimization engines has changed, not the rendering.
To be able to render gigapixels, you need to care about the cache size in general setting. This influence a lot the maximum size of the panorama or the number of overlapping images allowed by antighost.
Go to general setting, see the value there and play with it, it will inform you about the max size and max antighost doable with your computer.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 10:03 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
Hi AlexandreJ,
that's weird ... I tried it with "Auto" and all possible Cache Settings ... mhhh
But now as you say ... I can remember setting the Cache Size in old Version direct in the registry because of some Problems I had ... (cacheBlocSize) - guess I will set it in 3.5 registry location the same I have it for 3.x
Andreas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:05 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Posts: 5901
Location: Francin, France
No, we don't share registry between versions
- 3.1.2 has the same registry as any 3.1.X version
- 3.1 doesn't share the registry of 3.2.X, 3.3.x, etc


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 1:20 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
AlexandreJ wrote:
No, we don't share registry between versions
- 3.1.2 has the same registry as any 3.1.X version
- 3.1 doesn't share the registry of 3.2.X, 3.3.x, etc


That's why I wrote I will try to adjust this Reg setting the same I had in 3.x ;-)

But I just saw that I have 3.x set to AUTO too ... maybe the reg change was lost earlier ... mhhh
Just tried to open the Pano in 3.x to see if it renders there - but 3.x refuses to open 3.5 Files - any way to safe the Project File in 3.x compatible Format?

Andreas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 2:30 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2007 2:12 pm
Posts: 14039
Location: Isleham, Cambridgeshire, UK.
Hellkeeper wrote:
AlexandreJ wrote:
No, we don't share registry between versions
- 3.1.2 has the same registry as any 3.1.X version
- 3.1 doesn't share the registry of 3.2.X, 3.3.x, etc


That's why I wrote I will try to adjust this Reg setting the same I had in 3.x ;-)

But I just saw that I have 3.x set to AUTO too ... maybe the reg change was lost earlier ... mhhh
Just tried to open the Pano in 3.x to see if it renders there - but 3.x refuses to open 3.5 Files - any way to safe the Project File in 3.x compatible Format?

Andreas


You can save in the old .pano format:


Attachments:
1-apg351-oldformat.jpg
1-apg351-oldformat.jpg [ 134.88 KiB | Viewed 612 times ]
Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 3:19 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
mediavets wrote:
You can save in the old .pano format:



Have been blind ... thx ... will try with 3.x ;-)

Andreas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 13, 2014 7:52 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2137
Hellkeeper wrote:
mediavets wrote:
You can save in the old .pano format:



Have been blind ... thx ... will try with 3.x ;-)

Andreas


I have good hopes.....let us know how you went.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 9:24 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
Well - won't render too ...
I just don't get is - as I already rendered a 900.000px width Gigapixel in 3.0.8 ... why does this give me such Problems?
I have to reduce with to 499.999 and it works ... but not full size?!?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 12:46 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Posts: 5901
Location: Francin, France
We don't have such internal limit.
Can you screenshot your general settings ?
http://www.autopano.net/wiki-en/action/ ... _-_General


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 14, 2014 2:10 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
*weird*
I tried it with several settings ...

http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/overview.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/1.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/2.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/4.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/8.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/16.jpg
http://in.futureweb.at/temp/kolor/32.jpg


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 12:34 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2137
feel free to forward the whole panorama so I can try on a 64 GB machine for you to see if it renders.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 1:55 pm 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Posts: 5901
Location: Francin, France
So it seems that on your hardware, you need a cache block size of 16MB to be able to render that panorama of 900K in width.
But the drawback is that a single line in the panorama should not contains more than 1000 images => means that in gigapan shooting style, you should not have more than 500 columns ( on the zone where two rows are covering each other, you'll have 1000 images even with 500 columns ).

One solution, switch to ISO cutting for antighost that doesn't have these limitations, but it is not as good as the other one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 3:00 pm 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
@HansKeesom - thx for the offer - but it's not "that" important - we only lose some 10k of resolution ... hehe (and it would be quite some GB to transfer ...)
@Alexandrej - alright - I will try with 16MB - maybe I got more luck this time ... (need to check how many Columns I got)

But should "AUTO" not automatically choose the right setting?

Andreas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 15, 2014 8:32 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2137
I have a 200 GB dropbox ;-) How about you ;-)

But sure, if it is only about 10K it is not worth to try


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:13 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
alright - it will render if I set it to 16MB ... mmhhhh (maybe I missed 16MB with my tests?!?)
But why won't set AUTO the "correct value" of 16MB? What's the purpose of AUTO if it won't select the right settings? ;-)

Andreas


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:23 am 
Offline
Administrator
User avatar

Joined: Mon Nov 14, 2005 4:56 pm
Posts: 5901
Location: Francin, France
Auto is selecting 8MB as your computer fits more with 8MB ( a little low in RAM for antighost ).
---
Note: we studied the fact of selecting the mode according to panorama you want to render just before making the rendering.
It was complicated and implied to have a separate executable just for the rendering. So this executable can launch itself with different settings at each rendering.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 10:32 am 
Offline
Member
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2010 10:32 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Austria
alright - if we put in some more memory AUTO would select 16MB?
Would be very cool if AUTO adjust itself according to the image that is going to be rendered - but as you wrote - not that easy as it seems :)

But as it is working with 16MB I'm fine!! ;-)

Thank you


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 16, 2014 6:35 pm 
Offline
Member

Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Posts: 2137
AlexandreJ wrote:
......... to have a separate executable just for the rendering. So this executable can launch itself with different settings at each rendering.



YES, finally. We can give it a lower priority in the taskmanager and have it run in the background. Makes my day!

Please spawn the rendering process with LOW priority!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 24 posts ] 

All times are UTC + 1 hour


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group