kevin wrote:
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.
In the case of a Giga-Pixel matrix/grid style pano, it's quite simple.
But some fish-eye based panos are much less simple.
Even a spherical made from small shots (e.g. 35mm FOV)
is quite complex, since the shots don't for a uniform grid.
BugBear
--
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
