Dear David, regarding your comment "albeit it took approximately 5 hours to render", I expect you can speed up the calculation with more RAM. After upgrade my machine from 512MB to 2GB RAM the process was very quick compared to the less RAM configuration, especially enblend benefits from lot of free memory. My panos are commonly 14000x7000px built from about 32 pictures in eqirectangular projection. The enblend step needs about 1.5 to 1.7GB RAM to run quickly, otherwise enblend goes to disk with slows down the process.
Guido > > On 07.06.2009, at 18:45, Harry van der Wolf wrote: > >> >> >> 2009/6/5 David Haberthür <[email protected]> >> >> >> >> i could help with providing a test-case, the panorama i shot last >> saturday evening [1] contains +100 images and +7000 control points >> generated with pan-o-matic. i'm still struggling with stitching it >> with full resolution, somehow i chokes at the fusing-step when trying >> to stitch it in sizes bigger than 10000px wide, now i've stitched it >> in "only" 2694 x 635 px (os x, with harrys newest svn-builld). >> >> Hi Habi, >> >> Nice pano. >> You are saying that it chokes on 10000px wide (10000 by ?). >> What error message do you get? >> >> Harry > > Dear all. > I'm happy to say that with hugin 0.8.0-RC5 I no longer have the > problem with this panorama it stitched fine (with a size of > 17806x4346, albeit it took approximately 5 hours to render :) > Thanks for all the effort of all involved people! > Habi > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group. A list of frequently asked questions is available at: http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/hugin-ptx -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
