In terms to performance, more RAM may help speed things up. If your system has a nice about of RAM, you can control how much is available to Photoshop in the Performance preferences.
Other than that, Photoshop has a lot of processes to go through when merging images. Depending on the of the images you're working with, it may take a few minutes to go through.
What is it not doing for you? Can you be specific about the size (in pixels) and number of images you're trying to stitch?
All the panos I've stitched, and I've done some big ones, have come out virtually perfect. I'm always amazed at how well Photomerge works. To be fair, I did try one so large once (with PS CS5) that it just hung up and never finished.
Note that I have a fairly powerful workstation - Howard's advice is right on. Even with 16 GB of RAM and a huge amount of disk space, some of my panos have really taxed the system... At one point I had a 200 GB Photoshop scratch file!!
I not sure if you can do it piecemeal like that, because Photoshop is correcting for spherical distortion shot be shot. I've not done any multi row panos with CS6 yet, but the ones I have worked perfectly and seamlessly. It's difficult to judge how long it takes because I'm using a NLE system with ix cores and lots of RAM, but eight times 21Mb merged in about 20 seconds for me.
Edit: Sorry Doug, I didn't read the whole thread and throught you were the OP, my apology, but the advise is still valid.
Hi Trevor. Dennis,
First off, I do what Doug.S recommends often with large and complex pano's. I may stitch rows in a different program, then take them into photoshop and stitch the rows together and I get excellent stitch/merge - if I don't, it is usually because I have not followed proceedures. But I would recommend do it in parts, if it is really complex.
However, having said that. PS will stitch almost any single layered pano's,( vs multilayered as in bracket/HDR pano's which it can't do), or at least i do not know how to do.
So that brings us to your image set and perhaps, they are not shot with enough overlap? ..... This is where a dedicated panoramic stitcher program is recommended, where you can add control points manually or it may be able to do it automatic.
It sounds like you are using a Canon 5D Mk II camera, which shouldn't present that many issues for a decent system. You describe your system as NLE, None Linear Editing, with IX cores (9?) and lots of ram..... ??? whats lots of ram? 4, 16 or +96GB ?? could you be a little more specific, please. It makes it a lot easier to assist
Also, please clarify the above "I've not done any multi row panos with CS6 yet, but the ones I have worked perfectly and seamlessly",
I haven't done any....., but those I have worked perfectly and seamlessly. that doen't make any sense! You either have or you haven't made any multirow panos?!
So, if you are still really stuck , and I hope I am not breaking protocol here, by naming a few other programs, if so please accept my apology, but just trying to help you - PTGui, Autopano or the free Hugin....there are many more but these do all work on the platforms that Photostop is available for. Together these are a good set of programs to have with Photoshop in your Pano-kit.
I hope this is of some help to you - let me know if you need any further assistance
Message was edited by: tived
We need more information.
Number of images,
Camera and lens shot with, and if it was shot handheld, or using a Panoramic head, or even a panoramic robot
Some information about your computer, apart from shinny silver or white box with glossy screen . but more importantly what CPU, amount of RAM/memory, number of harddrives and if these are mechanical or SSD based.
but depending on your system config, Photoshop can handle hundreds of images in a pano, again depending your system it may take some time
All the best
First off let me say that photomerge works better than most programs I have tried especially when it comes to blending and I'm not complaining about photomerge. This request if you will should be viewed along the line of one wanting the next step, wanting a little bit more from the Adobe program. To distill my interest into a few words and to give what may be an extreme example lets say I want to process 500 or more 20mp images into a pano. ( APG can't seem to get the blending right in the skies ) and I have looked at other programs. What can the Adobe folks do with photoshop looking towards the future if anything to make that happen. To give Adobe credit I have processed 264 images seamlessly into a pano with no problems. It takes most of the night but it does it. I have been unable to go beyond that apparent threshold.
The camera in question is the Canon 1Ds MKIII at it's native resolution with a 24-105 shot at 105mm. ( Although I have just switched to the Pentax 645D that should make things interesting. :-} The images in question will be for multirow panos, shot on the latest RRS Pano rig wich is very stable and rigid. With lens support, on a carbon fiber triopod treated for vibration with the appropriate feet based on the terrain. Shot with mirror lock up with a 2 second delay, with a wireless remote etc... etc... The overlap from image to image is perfect the images stitch together just fine.
As far as the equipment I have a six core 3.33 Mac pro with 32gb of memory. It's plenty powerfull to accomplish what I want. The mac is optimized for working with large files and the memory use within photoshop preferences is set to give the best peformance based on hundreds of hours of use and testing and plenty of dedicated room for scratch files. And please let's not have some one cap off about why would I possibly want to do so many images :-} I simply do, we are all different with individual tastes and interests.
I have processed 264 images seamlessly into a pano with no problems. It takes most of the night but it does it. I have been unable to go beyond that apparent threshold.
As far as the equipment I have a six core 3.33 Mac pro with 32gb of memory. It's plenty powerfull to accomplish what I want....plenty of dedicated room for scratch files
How much do you think is "plenty"?
Based on the GARGANTUAN scratch files I've seen when processing rather fewer images than you're describing, I'd say the scratch file use is somewhat inefficient, and that it would take several terabytes at least of free space on the scratch drive to support the stitching you're doing.
How much of your scratch space was used at the peak of stitching 264 images?