On Jan 17, 6:13 am, paul womack <[email protected]> wrote: > Bruno Postle wrote: > > On Sun 16-Jan-2011 at 06:10 -0800, kevin wrote: > > >> For a real increase in speed with enblend it'd need to be designed so > >> that the problem it's solving can be broken into pieces that don't > >> require all the information of the entire image. That way when those > >> pieces are worked on by remote machines it wouldn't require all the > >> remote machines to have a large amount of main memory. > > In any case, if it is required to send all images to all remote machines, > this may (of itself) cause an I/O bottle neck. > > BugBear
Correct, if it's going to always require all the remote machines to have all the images, then it's a losing battle. But if there is some way to break the problem up so that a remote machine is only working on a certain area of the final image and only needs the information just in that area, that might speed things up. I'll have to give a shot at what Bruno said, that the blending can be broken into stages and see if that makes any difference. -- 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
