Try running enblend with -a -l 20. I got a nice 3x speed up compared to defaults.
On Jul 28, 2:07 am, Nicolas Pelletier <[email protected]> wrote: > Curious to get a speed comparison from other people... specially those who > generated giant panorama. > For these 2 examples, this is only the stitch part. The control point and > all is already done. The output is all 3 exposures layers, and the enfused > final. > > Running 30 images in 8 bit,15 mpix each, generating the largest 360*180 > possible (around 18000*9000) could run within an hour or two. > > Now I'm running 120 images in 16 bits,again 15mpix each and outputting a > 25000*12500. It has been running over 24 hours and counting... > > As a reference, I run a 64 bit 3.0ghz quad core on vista, and am (still) > running the 32 bit hugin RC4 with updated APSC. > > Oh, and added -m2000 on enblend and enfuse to be sure they use all the > memory they can. IO seems to be a problem in the end, but to help, I'm > running from an external drive in raid. > > Are these reasonable values? any other options to speed up the process? > > thanks, > > nick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
