Calculating "Disk Space" for a gigapixel panorama  

Share your tips and tricks here or get help with any Autopano Pro / Giga problem!
No bug reports (of any kind) in this forum!
User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

by klausesser » Tue Jul 31, 2012 4:48 pm

Zurich.Gigapixel wrote:
klausesser wrote:very easy - look at Paris 26 Gigapixel: zooming in to 100% doesn´t show any artefacts. That must be the goal: absolutely "clean" @"true"100%. Not more, not less.

Well that's very subjective, to say the least...

Image-quality can be judged visually and measured scientifically. But it can be simple also: view an image 1:1.

best, Klaus
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2210
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Info

by HansKeesom » Sat Aug 04, 2012 5:41 pm

Hi,

I received a set of 5850 jpegs from a friend which were 11 MP. Tried tried to load and detect. Things came far but not to the end of detection phase. Things went wrong while doing the "Correction lens distortion".

5850 * 11 * 4 = 257400 = 251 gb : 16 = 15.7

So it seems the 1: 16 ration is already dangerzone.

I will try to disable the "correction lens distortion" and let you know how things go.
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. Price: 25 euro or less, no cure no pay. If you want to concentrate on your business let me do the stitching for you. Free TB of Dropbox space when you have more then 250 euro business a year.

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:20 pm

HansKeesom wrote:So it seems the 1: 16 ration is already dangerzone.

Hi Hans

I will share some experience with you:
Last week I rendered an image that I thought it would be impossible to do, but it worked.
Here are the specs:

1'083 Pictures * 36.2 MP * 4 = 153 GB Temp Space
153 GB Temp Space / 4 GB RAM = ratio 1:38

I used my notebook:
Win7 64Bit
Pentium T4300 2.1 GHz
Crucial M4 128 GB + 2TB WD
4 GB RAM

It took nearly 26 hours to render it.
And using my internet connection to upload it to gigapan.org it would have taken 10 days...

There has to be some other factors than just the "temp space" to "RAM" ratio...

Good luck with your 5850 pictures!

Regards
Miguel

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Wed Aug 08, 2012 6:26 pm

HansKeesom wrote:Tried tried to load and detect. Things came far but not to the end of detection phase. Things went wrong while doing the "Correction lens distortion".

I hope you used a .xml file to import it into autopano, or at least the shooting was done in a pattern that is possible to import using the "Gigapan Importer". I could imagine that if you dind't used such an import variant (papzwizard or gigapan) that autopano will have some trouble recognising the order of the images.

Regards
Miguel

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2210
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Info

by HansKeesom » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:11 pm

Yes they were shot in pattern. I did get through the detection phase but the result is not good enough....yet. So can't tell you yet whether the ratio used is workable
Last edited by HansKeesom on Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. Price: 25 euro or less, no cure no pay. If you want to concentrate on your business let me do the stitching for you. Free TB of Dropbox space when you have more then 250 euro business a year.

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2210
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Info

by HansKeesom » Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:26 pm

Zurich.Gigapixel wrote:
HansKeesom wrote:So it seems the 1: 16 ration is already dangerzone.

Hi Hans

I will share some experience with you:
Last week I rendered an image that I thought it would be impossible to do, but it worked.
Here are the specs:

1'083 Pictures * 36.2 MP * 4 = 153 GB Temp Space
153 GB Temp Space / 4 GB RAM = ratio 1:38

I used my notebook:
Win7 64Bit
Pentium T4300 2.1 GHz
Crucial M4 128 GB + 2TB WD
4 GB RAM

It took nearly 26 hours to render it.
And using my internet connection to upload it to gigapan.org it would have taken 10 days...

There has to be some other factors than just the "temp space" to "RAM" ratio...

Good luck with your 5850 pictures!

Regards
Miguel

The ratio ram: tempspace is indeed only one factor. It indicates whether decent speed can be achieved.
Autopano will use the temp-directory more intensively when the ram : tempspace ratio is worse. If you have a nice big SSD then you can still get away with a lot. Preferable your SSD is bigger then the calculated temp-space. If it is not autopano will take your second tempspace directory and start swapping from there.
It is all explained in the message I refered to.

Of course, I am curious to hear whether you are able to process more then 1083 photos.
Last edited by HansKeesom on Wed Aug 08, 2012 7:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. Price: 25 euro or less, no cure no pay. If you want to concentrate on your business let me do the stitching for you. Free TB of Dropbox space when you have more then 250 euro business a year.

no avatar
lumelix
Member
 
Posts: 528
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2010 5:51 pm
Location: Switzerland
Info

by lumelix » Thu Aug 09, 2012 10:14 am

Hi Hans
5850 images, aren't this supertele images at more than 600mm focal lenght?
So in this case, you can probably deactivate the lens distortion feature ?
Regards
Martin

no avatar
HansKeesom
Member
 
Posts: 2210
Likes: 1 post
Liked in: 2 posts
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 8:53 pm
Info

by HansKeesom » Thu Aug 09, 2012 4:12 pm

Hi Martin,

Thanks for that tip, I am normally not working with these lengths.
Regards, Hans Keesom
I stitch and render for other photographers. Price: 25 euro or less, no cure no pay. If you want to concentrate on your business let me do the stitching for you. Free TB of Dropbox space when you have more then 250 euro business a year.

no avatar
gddxb
Member
 
Posts: 219
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:07 am
Info

by gddxb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:41 pm

I don't see the stitching side of this to be the biggest problem. It's actually going to be taking half-way decent quality photos in the first place.

Zurich.Gigapixel wrote:Lens: 600mm + 2xTC

There's your biggest problem right there.

Firstly, I'm assuming you'll be using the Nikkor 600mm f/4? 2xTC on it means your maximum aperture will be f/8. Which you won't be using, because the hyperfocal distance for that would be 6 kilometers.

So. Stop down a bit to get more depth of field I presume?

f/16 maybe? OK. Now we've got a hyperfocal distance of 3km. Perhaps that's acceptable? Everything from 1.5 kilometers to infinity should be in focus, yes?

Except, you're shooting with a D800 to get loads of pixels.

Problem. The high pixel density of the sensor means the effects of diffraction are going to totally destroy your effective resolution much earlier than they would do on a lower resolution sensor.

Next problem.

You're stopping down to get more depth of field, but this of course means you'll be needing longer shutter speeds to expose correctly. Yes, the D800 is great at high ISO, but you are going to have to go very high in order to use a fast enough shutter speed to compensate for the long lens. Sunny f/16 rule. Assuming it's a nice bright sunny day, your shutter speed will be the reciprocal of your ISO. And that shutter speed will need to be at least 1/1600th of a second with a 1200mm focal length. Ideally, you actually want at least double the focal length as your shutter speed for the D800.

Assuming all that works out nicely, you've then got to consider how long it will take you to shoot the 10,000 images. I've had some heavy kit on the VR Drive 2, and realistically you are going to be extremely challenged to shoot at a faster rate than one shot every 6 seconds when using a 1200mm lens. You need to allow that kind of time for the rig to move and settle for each shot. 60,000 seconds.

What really intrigues me though, is why are you using a D800 for this?
Last edited by gddxb on Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
gddxb
Member
 
Posts: 219
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:07 am
Info

by gddxb » Sat Aug 11, 2012 6:57 pm

Just some musings on this subject in general.

If someone really is interested in going for a world record sized panorama, then you really should be considering two things.

1. Shoot a full 360x180 spherical. The advantages of shooting one of these is that you are maximising your field of view, and hence, minimizing the focal length necessary to shoot the highest possible number of pixels for the output panorama. Sounds obvious, but it solves multiple problems in one fell swoop.

2. Use the right kit. Shoot your full spherical with a Phase One IQ180 medium format digital back mounted on a Phase One DF or AF camera, using the Mamiya 300mm f/2.8 lens along with the 2x teleconverter.

Shoot at f/11 for depth of field. Hyperfocal distance is just 700 meters. Everything from 350m to infinity in focus. No diffraction problems.

That set-up would cover a full spherical with a little over 5,000 shots. Higher number of pixels per shot, lower pixel density, lower focal length, so you can shoot faster. Realistically, you could shoot the whole thing between 7 in the morning and 1 in the afternoon.

And you'd have a panorama in the region of 250GP to show for your efforts.

Tempting. Isn't it.
Last edited by gddxb on Sat Aug 11, 2012 7:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:50 pm

Hi gddxb,

thanks for your thoughts on the whole topic.
As I'm in my holidays right now I will just respond to one aspect you wrote about.

- Using a medium format camera to make a world record.

gddxb wrote:Tempting. Isn't it.

I thought about this once... And yes it SOUNDS very tempting :D
My conclusion was that medium format cameras just won't work for that, or if we put it in another way:
A normal DSLR will work much better.
The reason is the following:

Medium Format will never (at least today) deliver the amount of pixels per optical degree as a DSLR.

Example:

Phase One IQ180
300mm (the longest focal length you can get for that as far as I know) + 2xTC = 600mm

Will deliver 2015px per optical degree (horizontal) at y=0° altitude.

Nikon D800
600mm (without any TC)
Will deliver 3211px per optical degree (horizontal) at y=0° altitude.

gddxb wrote:Tempting. Isn't it.

Not anymore...


btw:
gddxb wrote:Shoot a full 360x180 spherical

If you're shooting an landscape panorama, you would have about 50% sky, that's not the idea of a gigapixel panorama.
If you're shooting indoors even using the equipment you talked about at f/11 you would need to have 350m distance to every wall.
Last edited by Zurich.Gigapixel on Sun Aug 12, 2012 9:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
klausesser
Member
 
Posts: 8836
Likes: 5 posts
Liked in: 64 posts
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 12:18 am
Location: Duesseldorf, Germany
Info

by klausesser » Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:02 pm

Zurich.Gigapixel wrote:Medium Format will never (at least today) deliver the amount of pixels per optical degree as a DSLR.

Depends on which back you use. Think about 60/80MPx . . . :-)

Besides: you forget the overall-size of each image. You just have to take less images to get the same result.

That works with panos also. I did it. In fact that´s the best way for gigapixels - but even as rent it´s rather expensive.
And handling/processing the files really is hard stuff . . . :cool:

best, Klaus
Simplicity is the keynote of all true elegance. Coco Chanel

no avatar
gddxb
Member
 
Posts: 219
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:07 am
Info

by gddxb » Mon Aug 13, 2012 12:26 am

Hi Z-GP -

The comparison is meaningless if you can't actually capture a decent set of images in the first place.

Bottom line is that I'm confident that I could shoot a very high quality set of images to produce a 250GP pano in around 6 hours. I don't believe that's possible with any other system.

FWIW, I have a camera that I can mount the IQ180 on that takes Canon lenses, and so no real issue there.

Rgds,

Gerald.

/edit
OK. Woken up here now, so going into a little more detail into points you raise.

In reverse order...
If you're shooting indoors even using the equipment you talked about at f/11 you would need to have 350m distance to every wall.

No. Everything will be in focus from 350m to infinity if you set the focus on the lens to the hyperfocal distance. This is what you typically would want if you were shooting outdoors. It's rare to need to keep infinity in focus if you're shooting indoors. Clearly, if you were shooting an indoor pano, you'd set the focus distance a lot nearer.

If you're shooting an landscape panorama, you would have about 50% sky, that's not the idea of a gigapixel panorama.

Tell me then - what is the idea of a gigapixel panorama? Yes - if you shoot a full 360, then unless you're in a canyon (natural or otherwise), then you will have about 50% sky. I thought much like this when I first started out, but I soon came to realise that shooting a full 360 has significant advantages.

Firstly, there's not really any debate about the size of the output panorama - they're all created from equirectangular images (on which the size is based), and they're all projected the same way.

Secondly, you don't run the risk of generating a totally spurious projection of your panorama due to the fact that it is not symmetrical above and below the horizon. This was the problem with the Shanghai panorama. The reason why the size is so false, is because in order to maintain a projection where verticals stay vertical, the panorama has been massively stretched. It's the same with trying to correct images shot when a lens is pitched up to capture a tall building in a single shot. To get the building edges straight, you have two choices - stretch the top part of the image (interpolating pixels), or shrink the bottom part of the image (throwing away resolution.

In fact, you should always be looking to make your panorama symmetrical above and below the horizon if you want to create a panorama which truly represents the resolution in the original shots. Obviously there are many reasons why people may choose not to do this. But if an accurate representation of the size of the pano is what you are interested in (and of course - you should be if you are going for a record, because otherwise you will get ripped to shreds on your claims), then shoot symmetrically. You will always therefore have around 50% of the pano as sky.

Thirdly, shooting a 360x180 of course actually enables you to capture a much larger area of the view that people will find interesting. Yes. You have 50% of boring sky, but the other 50% is a larger field of view of your scene.

Finally, when it comes to presenting the image online, a spherical pano is FAR better when it comes to end-user interaction.

300mm (the longest focal length you can get for that as far as I know) + 2xTC = 600mm

A little more detail on this.

Firstly, no. It's not. Mamiya did a couple of 500mm lenses. Additionally, you are not limited to the 645 lenses when shooting with one of these backs, because it can be put on many different cameras. One of these cameras is the Hartblei HCam, which can be specified with a Canon mount. Once you have the Canon mount, there are adapters easily available to put pretty much any lens on the thing. Pentax 6x7 lenses are available up to 800mm. And of course, that Canon mount can take lenses up to 1200mm and with teleconverters on as well.

BUT, as I tried to highlight in my earlier post, it is focal length that is actually you biggest enemy here. The longer the focal length, the lower your depth of field, the further away your hyperfocal point, the larger aperture you need, the more diffraction will destroy your resolution, the faster shutter speed you need, the heavier the rig, the longer it will take to settle in each position, the slower you can shoot, the more problems you'll have with changing light, etc etc.

Medium Format will never (at least today) deliver the amount of pixels per optical degree as a DSLR.

Yes. This is perfectly true. Because MF typically has larger pixels than 35mm DSLR. And that's really all it comes down to when (theoretically) trying to come up with a set of kit to shoot a huge gigapixel. The smaller the pixels, the more gigapixels you will get for a given focal length.

Shoot the 360x180 I'm suggesting with a 600mm lens on the Nikon D800, and you'll of course get a larger image than you would with the IQ180. Roughly 25% larger. Why? Because the diagonal of the pixel on the IQ180 is 25% bigger than that on the D800. Shoot with the A77 though, and you'll end up with a pano roughly 85% larger.

- Using a medium format camera to make a world record.
gddxb wrote:

Tempting. Isn't it.

I thought about this once... And yes it SOUNDS very tempting
My conclusion was that medium format cameras just won't work for that

With respect, your conclusion is wrong. As I said - I could shoot the required images in 6 hours. And I'd have less than half the number of images to stitch than anyone shooting with even a D800. And computing power is cheap. A dual 16-core Opteron workstation with 256GB of RAM can be had for $6500. Chuck on some 1TB RAID'd Velociraptors and you're good to go.

I do genuinely wish the best of luck to you in your endevour, but if you set out with the idea of breaking the world record simply by using a longer focal length lens than the last guy, then I think you're going to have significant problems generating an image that you can be proud of.
Last edited by gddxb on Mon Aug 13, 2012 9:07 am, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Mon Aug 13, 2012 7:47 pm

Hi gddxb

thanks for your input again, I really appreciate constructive comments.
As I said earlier on, I'm on my holidays right now and due to that I will take a closer look at everything you pointed out and respond later on, specially that part about medium format...

Regards

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:37 pm

Hi gddxb

gddxb wrote:No. Everything will be in focus from 350m to infinity if you set the focus on the lens to the hyperfocal distance. This is what you typically would want if you were shooting outdoors. It's rare to need to keep infinity in focus if you're shooting indoors. Clearly, if you were shooting an indoor pano, you'd set the focus distance a lot nearer.

:D I didn't thought about that for a moment, you're right. I was temporarily stupid, my fault.

gddxb wrote:Tell me then - what is the idea of a gigapixel panorama? Yes - if you shoot a full 360, then unless you're in a canyon (natural or otherwise), then you will have about 50% sky.

I hope you understand what I'm trying to say:
The 50 % sky in a gigapixel panorama is totally ok and like you said it helps "keeping the image balanced".
The point I'm trying to make is that a high resolution blue sky does not contribute to the "detail richness" that makes a gigapixel panorama fun to explore.
The sky should be there, yes it looks nice! But I don't see any sense in making the sky also in "high resolution".
If someone really wants alot of sky in a gigapixel panorama they should make it like the guys from "360cities.net" did it in their London Gigapixel Panorama.
(At least I think they just put a lower resolution sky on top of their high resolution city panorama.. if not, please correct me! I will start a thread about this later...)
EDIT: Thread is here: http://www.kolor.com/forum/t15592-adding-fake-sky-to-a-gigapixel-panorama

gddxb wrote:Firstly, there's not really any debate about the size of the output panorama - they're all created from equirectangular images (on which the size is based), and they're all projected the same way.

I think there is an debate about the size of the output panorama.
(I remember a lot of people being confused about the size of the Shanghai picture)
But I will open a new thread about this. And post a suggestion on how we could count pixels more accurately even if they are interpolated or streched.
EDIT: Thread is here: http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=103574#p103574

gddxb wrote:
300mm (the longest focal length you can get for that as far as I know) + 2xTC = 600mm

A little more detail on this.

Firstly, no. It's not. Mamiya did a couple of 500mm lenses. ...

Didn't know about that, sounds interesting. I have to read more about that stuff.
But for now I can't change my whole equipment anyway :D You know what I mean? :D

gddxb wrote:BUT, as I tried to highlight in my earlier post, it is focal length that is actually you biggest enemy here. The longer the focal length, the lower your depth of field, the further away your hyperfocal point, the larger aperture you need, the more diffraction will destroy your resolution, the faster shutter speed you need, the heavier the rig, the longer it will take to settle in each position, the slower you can shoot, the more problems you'll have with changing light, etc etc.

Well that's some of the problems we think we have solved by now... But it's clearly a trade-off!

gddxb wrote:I do genuinely wish the best of luck to you in your endevour

Thank you very much!
Last edited by Zurich.Gigapixel on Tue Aug 21, 2012 6:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

no avatar
gddxb
Member
 
Posts: 219
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:07 am
Info

by gddxb » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:20 pm

Just two comments.

If you are serious about claiming any kind of record, then anything other than shooting the sky at the same resolution as the "interesting" parts of the image is cheating, pure and simple.

With regards the debate re the size of the panorama, I was referring specifically to comparing a 360x180 to another 360x180. I'm pretty sure that due to the way the equirectangular image is created and then warped, there is no chance of a "confusion", as there was with the Shanghai pano.

no avatar
Zurich.Gigapixel
Member
 
Topic author
Posts: 36
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Sun Jul 01, 2012 6:49 pm
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Info

by Zurich.Gigapixel » Tue Aug 21, 2012 7:34 pm

gddxb wrote:I was referring specifically to comparing a 360x180 to another 360x180.

In that case there is no way for confusion. I guess you're absolutely right about that.

gddxb wrote:If you are serious about claiming any kind of record, then anything other than shooting the sky at the same resolution as the "interesting" parts of the image is cheating, pure and simple.

It's clearly cheating if you take the 100% output size of autopano for the real size in those cases.

And that's way I came up with a new method on how to estimate the size of an gigapixel panorama which has not to be the same size above and under the "horizon".

I wrote everything here:
http://www.kolor.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=103574#p103574

I would like to hear your thoughts on this if you can take your time to read it. :)
I'll appreciate it.

no avatar
gddxb
Member
 
Posts: 219
Likes: 0 post
Liked in: 0 post
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2010 4:07 am
Info

by gddxb » Tue Aug 21, 2012 8:08 pm

Not got a huge amount of time right now, but from scanning the post, you're saying to calculate it based on the surface area in pixels of the proportion of a sphere captured given the focal length, angular field of view, and size of pixel on the sensor, yes?

Makes sense.

For my next major pano, I was thinking of not actually sharing the size of it. Am having second thoughts on that now though thanks to you.

Hahaha :)

Previous

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron