aokaf wrote:I have a mac pro 8 cores desktop, 6 GB ram and no GPU
dealing with a small g-pano takes about 72 hours
my GM has money and he is a good guy, he wants to improve my work
if I buy more ram (like 32 GB) and a GPU (like the one with apple.com 1600$) and change to 1 TB solid state HD
will it ease my pain ?
I don't want my GM to know one day that I took it with no profesionality.
5D MKII, Sigma 8mm, NN R1 + monopod manfrotto , manfrotto 303 + carbon tripod 045cxpro4, epic gigapan pro, mac pro 8 cores, apple cenima display 30", macbook pro 17" quad , CS5 standard,, ptgui, easypano, kolor, gardengnome
HansKeesom wrote:If you want to speed up the processing you might consider adding a SSD big enough to hold all the files of one of your project. Copy all photos to this SSD before you start working on them. Depending on the speed of the HDD you were using this will speed up things more or less.
KreAture wrote:I think your suggestion lacks a very important factor Hans, which is the fov.
It really only applies to 360 tours and you do not account for your ammount of overlap.
I've tested a bit with different input ammounts and so far they seem to dictate the scratch/memory needs more precisely than the actual focal lengths.
I do small sections at 900mm and they render in just 26 mins delivering 1.5 Gpix. The actual ammount of input data seems to be transformed to 32bit form first, which has to be held in ram+scratch. Then as the rendeirng progresses data is clipped and later stacked/blended and fed back to the scratch. It appears the clipping actually reduces memory usage again. The blending needs to read data from a LOT of files (or memory blocks if held in mem) pr thread in order to blend, especially when stacking.
I wonder if Kolor can chime in here... It appears that the layers are made before stacking, or that stacking happens together with blending. Would it not be faster to do the stacking individually before blending? Maby not due to the anti-ghost processing?
Anyways, if people can test my "<input image rez> * 4 * <input image count> = scratch" idea by noting how large their scratch gets as warping finishes it would be helpfull.
HansKeesom wrote:hi UK Pano,
I did not suggest putting everything on one drive but it is an option, feel free to use it.
However I never understood the idea of having a SSD as your C:\-drive. You computer will problably start up very quickly but after that it seems like an expensive way to store files you not often use.
Having seperate SSD-s for source, temp and even page-files is likely a faster option but we are problably talking about the difference between very fast and very fast.
Adding a SSD to a current system is likely to be an easy and not too expensive way to increase the throughput. I did so with and i7 6 GB system, added a 60 GB SSD and enjoyed it ever since.
UK Pano wrote:........
Does makes sense to have a HDD rather than SSD for the C:\ rather than a shiny new SSD that isn't going to be used as much. So for source, temp and (possibly) page file, look at a couple of separate SSD's as an option, one large covering source and temp and a smaller for page-file / overflow?
Look forward to hearing your (and anyone else's) thoughts
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests