Skip navigation
Noel Carboni 23,455 posts
Dec 23, 2006
Currently Being Moderated

What Resources It Takes to Stitch 75678 x 4576 Pixel Panorama

Feb 2, 2012 2:04 PM

Just did a Photomerge of 25 shots...

 

Note that over 100 GB (yes, you read that right, GIGAbytes) of scratch disk was required, not to mention easily filling my 16 GB RAM.

 

BigPanoResources.jpg

 

-Noel

 
Replies
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 4:40 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Goodness.  What sort of job need so many pixels?  The bigest image size I have ever done was for one of those revolving signs at Nelson Airport, and that was only 1.5Gb on the computer

     

    http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3515/4018990152_ffe69899d0_z.jpg?zz=1

     

    Unless you absolutely need a 21 foot wide print at 300dpi, then wouldn't it be better to downsize the files before merging them?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 2, 2012 7:06 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    John Doogan is an Adobe Ambasador in New Zealand, and I attended a one day seminar he ran in the early days of CS4.  During this he stitched a three row, by four (or five, I can't remember) photomerge on an Apple laptop in real time, and it did not seem to take any time at all!   IIRC this was with Canon 1DsMK2 files.   I can't hot link the image, but this is it.   I was pretty impressed.  That was either 12 or 15 16Mb files on a tiny laptop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 12:33 AM   in reply to Trevor Dennis

    Trevor, maybe did John Doogan wisely (for a presentation) choose to make a panorama with 8 bit files... 16 bits ones are huge when layered...

    Noel, I guess that on a non-test operation, you would do a CAF side by side, or with areas of similar colors, rather than on the whole file?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 1:10 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    One of the things I took away from that John Doogan seminar was that he told us he never opened RAW files as 16bit unless he had a problem with 8bit - like banding in subtle tonal gradients in skies etc.   That changed my attitude - the guy is an Adobe Ambassador after all, and this was back in the days I was using 32bit Windows XP with Gb RAM installed but not accessible.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 3:22 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    This is not directly comparable, because I started with resampling an existing flat psd up to 75678 x 4576. Then I punched five 1000 x 1000 px holes in it, and called up content aware fill. Didn't have to say much; it knew what it had to do.

     

    After 8 minutes, there was a faint smell of burning plastic.

     

    After 10 minutes, the computer case started to take on a deep amber hue. Very nice color BTW.

     

    After 14 minutes the desk started to melt, so I had to prop the thing up with some empty metal trays that I have been collecting blown lightbulbs in. What a mess that was.

     

    Now it's 18 minutes, and I'm not quite sure what to do next. Is there an "abort" button somewhere? Can this thing be remote controlled? Because I really think I should leave the building soon...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 3:26 AM   in reply to twenty_one

     

    (actually I killed it in Task Manager after 24 minutes. It was clearly stuck around the 80% mark. But it was fun trying...)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 7:32 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Last year, I completed a project for the board room of a new corprate building. The architect wanted a 60' wall covered with a hi-res panorama image of a landscape. Trim size: 60' x 8'. (Yes, that's sixty feet wide!!) Because it's an indoor piece, we had to use enough output resolution for it to be viewed up close - 12" away. After some testing, final decision was to create the file at 150ppi resulting in the final file dimension of: 108,000 pixels x 14,400 px.

     

    The image was a stitched panorama of 81 files from a Canon 5Dmkii - 3 rows of 27 images each. Camera was mounted on a Really Right Stuff pano rig. RAW files were processed in Camera Raw and output as Level 10 JPEGs.

     

    Photoshop was absolutely not up to the task of stitching that many images together. I used AutoPanoPro. The actual rendering of the file took about an hour, but came out almost perfectly. There were a few (less than five) stitching errors to correct by hand in Photoshop. Layered file in PS was about 65Gb. Flattened file that was sent for output was about 6Gb. Output was done by a nicely color managed billboard company.

     

    Hardware setup is simple:

    MacPro 3.1 (8-core 2.8GHz)

    16Gb RAM

    300Gb dedicated scratch disk

     

    It was a wild project. Client is tickled pink.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 9:02 AM   in reply to Rick McCleary

    Rick, were the files 8 or 16 bits? And how much RAM was allocated to Ps?

    Was it printed in one piece? on what printer? Trough a RIP, I guess?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 9:04 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, please do not look here: http://macperformanceguide.com/blog/2012/20120122_2-diglloydHuge-MacPr o.html (I think that the WIF on 16 Gig memory sticks is very low)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 9:25 AM   in reply to Pierre Courtejoie

    8 or 16 bits?

    8 bits.

    And how much RAM was allocated to Ps?

    80% (11Gb). This seems to be critical, i.e., not allocating too much to PS - that would starve the OS.

    Was it printed in one piece? on what printer? Trough a RIP, I guess?

    Not sure what brand - I think Epson. In any case, it was a 60" ink jet. Printed on outdoor vinyl by a company that outputs large graphics for 40' trucks and 45' billboards. Definitely through a RIP.

     

    FYI - Here's a short video that gives you an idea of what the piece looks like:

    http://vimeo.com/33180956

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 10:50 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    I was teasing you, not on the Mac platform at all, but on the amount of memory he has... I hope he creates panoramas everyday to justify the expense...

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 10:55 AM   in reply to Rick McCleary

    Rick, I don't remember... some plug-ins are using Photoshop's memory, others not (Camera Raw?), So I don't know how much memory should have been allocated in your case. (even if you got it working through a dedicated program)

    If they run outside of memory, how much RAM can they use... could plug-ins allocate more than 4gigs if they run outside of Ps's memory?

    Chris Cox, could you state if that is correct?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 11:11 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Noel, such a luxury system needs to be breaked in. Send it to me, so that I'll be able to make sure it works correctly. Thourought tests, no more than 6 months, ok?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Pierre Courtejoie
    7,038 posts
    Jan 11, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 3, 2012 1:27 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Deal

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 3:17 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    is there a calculation method to determine the size of a scratch disc, if you would have for example a

    300dpi rgb-image, 10.000 x 10.000 pixels and 10 to 50 layers (also in 16bit) with 6 history steps?

     

    i am currently working with a external dedicated scratch disc for photoshop cs6, USB3.0, 512 GB SSD, always empty, (390MB/sec read, 300MB/sec write)

    and i ask myself if a 250GB SSD would do it, too..

     

    thanks

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 7:30 PM   in reply to psb

    I would think you would be best off to make the ssd your primary Photoshop scratch disk and add your external disk as a second scratch disk in case the ssd fills.  Myself I keep All my images on an external USB3 disk use my ssd as Photoshop first scratch disk and my internal hard as it second scratch disk.  The files Photoshop writes to scratch disk are temp files when you close Photoshop they are deleted.  SSD scratch disk are best for there is no head seeking and rotational latency. Though users make disk raid 0 using SSD I do not know if there is any performance gain for with SSD there are no arms heads and rotating platters.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 27, 2013 8:14 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    I do not know when or what Photoshop writes to scratch disk space. I have 40GB of ram on my machine and Photoshop it configured so it can use something like 38GB of ram.

     

    I have observed when running Photoshop Ram usage at like 6 GB  where 4GB was in use before Photoshop started and at the same time have seen Photoshop scratch files in excess of 6GB with 32GB of RAM available for use of which Photoshop is allowed to us 30GB of that. Also when Photoshop does allocate RAM it will not return it for use till Photoshop end execution.  Photoshop manages the ram it allocates.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 12:05 AM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    thanks for this noel: "To more or less directly answer your question, psb, multiply height x width x data depth x 3 or 4 (RGB or RGB plus transparency) x layers x history steps."

     

    the number i get in my calc. is "864.000.000.000"

     

    i agree. i see the read/write light blinking of my scratch disc ssd (external), but the ram is not filled at all. (only 30% filled)

    efficency is at 100% all the time. so noel is right, it seems to just prepare. more in depth details could only give photoshop developers,

    i would be very interested in those deep technical aspects.

     

    @ jjmack: i have a pcie-ssd in my imac, which runs at 750/500 MB/sec read/write, i decided to use this internal ssd as my boot volume and work volume, where my few photoshop working files are temporarily and not as scratch disc, as i read, you could better use seperate discs for each purpose, like noel does. the external usb3 ssd 512GB is currently my only scratch disc (always empty of course), and i am constantly watching the istatmenus, if cs6 writes or reads onto the scratch disc.

     

    @noel: very interesting you did a 4 x raid0 with ssd´s over thunderbolt. i imagined same way, but the "pegasus j4" is too pricey in the moment for me. (regarding the 4 ssds at least)

    may i ask, of what purpose is your internal ssd in your mac (or pc?) when you use the ssd raid0 array for all important purposes regarding photoshop?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • JJMack
    5,977 posts
    Jan 9, 2006
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 11:00 AM   in reply to psb

    Nole use raid 0 he has one logical drive where data is striped across several ssd. He has one huge boot disk and everything goes there except backup.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Trevor Dennis
    5,829 posts
    May 24, 2010
    Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 28, 2013 3:06 PM   in reply to Noel Carboni

    Some of the raid controllers guys like Harm on the Prem Pro Hardware forum use, cost more than some folk pay for a decent computer, so it is reasuring to hear you are doing it OK with such an affordable card.  It is also reasuring that you are apparently getting that performance without too much noise.  Even with MSI Afterburner doing its best to keep the fans under control, my big system box is definitely not quiet!  :-(

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)