Op 25-Apr-24 om 9:00 schreef 'Kay F. Jahnke' via hugin and other free
panoramic software:
Nice to hear you're happy with the image quality! I suppose the size
issue has sorted itself out with specifying the compression?
indeed, the compression setting solved that.
try this:
lux --fullscreen=no --window_width=320 --window_height=200 --stitch=yes
*.pto
sweet
Looks like lux is coming out quite well. I see that the call to exiftool
eats up a lot of time. This comes as no surprise, because AFAICT
exiftool doesn't simply modify the metadata in the image but makes a copy.
yes, i was suprised too that exiftool takes up a significant amount of
time, but i still like to have the original time taken in the images. so
that stays.
When part of the work can be delegated to the GPU, that's usually the
fastest way to go. lux is completely CPU-based. If you want to push your
system to the limit, it may even be possible to have lux and
nona/enblend run in parallel: lux will push the CPU to the limit, and
nona/enblend can access the GPU where they can. You can tell lux to use
only a specific number of threads for rendering, so if you have four
cores, you could use --snapshot_threads=3 to leave one core free to
handle the CPU load of the other processes and have lux render with
three threads.
only nona uses the gpu for a bit, so there is really little gain to be
had from moving to the gpu..the reason i do it is because it appears to
help syncronise scripts when running more than one and like i wrote,
creates a bit extra headroon on the cpu. but with a single instance
there is hardly any difference in time needed to complete.
i am thinking about taking a closer look at what light conditions were
best for enblend or lux so i could potentially use both depending on
what image, but that would entail manual sorting the images beforehand.
so i don't think i will use them next to each other in the end, i have
to make a choice.
Thanks for sharing your insights! Depending on the precise nature of
your stitches, you may be able to slash processing time with lux. What
you get is the defaults, but lux is very configurable.
considering my setup, lux wouldn't slash my time, in fact it would be a
bit slower since i normally run 3 scripts simultanious.
and i wouldn't have to create all those extra pto files.
however, if i have just one group of images to render, lux beats it
hands down.
so i'm going to focus on those images with troubling light conditions
and see if i can find a winner there, because for me how it looks is
more important than speed....up until a certain point, that is.
--
A list of frequently asked questions is available at:
http://wiki.panotools.org/Hugin_FAQ
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "hugin and other free panoramic software" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/hugin-ptx/fec6fcb4-d795-47a8-ac73-809fbd5f7064%40gmail.com.
