Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

1123Re: [PanoToolsNG] Smartblend speed

Expand Messages
  • Manfred Kröger
    Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      You're definitely talking about an outdated version of smartblend. Those
      old versions were quite fast but they weren't able to handle large or 16
      bit panos. Try the current version (or anything after 1.20, I think) on
      a larger panorama and you will see that it's not Windows that's
      swapping, it's smartblend! (I've seen my HDD's light flickering the
      whole weekend while smartblend tried to blend a 274Mpx panorama. Memory
      usage was only a few hundred MB out of my 2GB.)

      If you ask me: On LoveFilm's laptop it's probably the 2.5'' drive that's
      slowing the processing down.


      Manfred

      Fulvio Senore wrote:
      >
      > I am still using version 1.1.7 and ram surely improves its performance.
      > When I stitch a pano (15 Mpx images), memory usage goes up to about 1.5
      > GB for one or more very short moments.
      > Now that I have 2GB of ram those are very short moments, when I had 1 GB
      > the program started swapping and those moments were eternal.
      >
      > My opinion is that smartblend only uses the HD to read input images and
      > write the output image. Of course with large images this can take some
      > time. Then smartblend simply allocates memory from Windows when it needs
      > it: if there is not enough memory Windows will start swapping. Some time
      > ago, when I tried to modify enblend 1.x, I discovered that this is not
      > an efficient way to handle a low memory situation. Explicitly swapping
      > to temporary files from the application can be much faster. This is what
      > enblend did: I disabled it and performance dropped.
      >
      > So having a lot of ram is very important for smartblend to run quickly:
      > I have found that it is much faster then enblend 2.x.
      >
      > Fulvio Senore
      >
      > Manfred Kröger ha scritto:
      > > I'm not really sure more RAM will improve smartblend's speed. It seems
      > > to me that in order to process large images all the blending is done on
      > > the hdd. This would explain why smartblend needed 14 GB on my drive
      > > while the processor's and the RAM's usage was very low.
      > >
      > > Manfred
      > >
      > > Michael Asgian wrote:
      > >
      > >> Your hardware resources are kind of to small for what you do. Push
      > >> more RAM if you can, you may have an empty slot... it will help alot,
      > >> and ram is cheap lately.
      > >>
      > >> My problem wih smartblend are crashes... crashes my render machine
      > >> from time to time... that's kind of anoying. especially when I'm
      > >> running batch renderings... Dident try the latest beta yet,
      > >>
      > >> Anyone also experiences crashes? any fix?
      > >>
      > >> Mike
      > >>
      > >> LoveFilm <lovefilm@... <mailto:lovefilm%40yahoo.com>
      > <mailto:lovefilm%40yahoo.com>> wrote: Can
      > >> any one recount their rendering experiences using Smartblend?
      > >>
      > >> It gives great results but the processing time on my PC is outrageous.
      > >> Is this normal?
      > >>
      > >> 31 image pano (three images in the sky intentionally left out)
      > >>
      > >> 8777 x 3072
      > >>
      > >> Processing 12 images per row.
      > >>
      > >> Smartblend reports a 5 hour + processing time to render just the first
      > >> 12 images! And about 18hrs to render all of them at once.
      > >>
      > >> I'm on a Dell laptop - 1.6 mhz, 500mg ram. There is about 3.5 gig
      > >> availbale on my boot drive.
      > >>
      > >> I know this is not an optimal system for this type of work. Does
      > >> anyone know what kind of realistic speed improvements I might expect
      > >> with a higher end configuration?
      > >>
      > >> Also - I think I saw some posts regarding this somewhere. Is there
      > >> any equivalent to Samrtblend for the Mac?
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >> ---------------------------------
      > >> Talk is cheap. Use Yahoo! Messenger to make PC-to-Phone calls. Great
      > >> rates starting at 1¢/min.
      > >>
      > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > >>
      > >>
      > >>
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > > --
      > >
      > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      > >
      >
      >
    • Show all 14 messages in this topic