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

PTGui Pro 7.5 Mac closed on saving!

Expand Messages
  • marlanit
    Hi Joost, as suggested by Roger I launched PTGui through Terminal typing the ulimit command, then enter, and then open PTGui in the same window dragging the
    Message 1 of 4 , Jan 4, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Joost,

      as suggested by Roger I launched
      PTGui through Terminal typing the ulimit command, then enter, and then
      open PTGui in the same window dragging the PTGui icon after "open ".
      Got it right?
      I do added the second Roger's suggestion outputting as "individual
      layers only"...

      You can see here:
      <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/message/15982>

      Just some question:
      You're suggesting a usb/firewire disk as a solution for temp files but
      isn't this solution pretty much the same as the networked RAID disk
      solution, with the disadvantage of less space then the RAID, which has
      Terabytes available?

      By the way, I just want to remember the setup for this second try:
      iMac 20", intel Core2Duo 2Ghz, 1.5GB Ram, Mac OS X 10.4
      PTgui Pro 7.5 into the internal HD, Original Images and Temp Files on
      the RAID.
      If I forgot useful information, please tell me...


      To come back to the second try...PTGui closed because, I guess, not
      enough space on the HD...outputting as individual layers only takes
      more than 100GB space, than the HD filled up...on the third try I'd go
      this way:

      same setup with the only difference to output in the Raid, which has
      terabytes free... :-)
      Or, what would it be your suggested setup, and/or file position, for
      the third try?

      At this point, do you think that outputting again as "blended panorama
      only", always through Terminal, would change some thing or will I get
      another error?
      Thanks very much for your support.

      PS: PTgui needs a speed up in importing and managing huge file. No
      less than 10X...I tried importing 100MB files and 500MB files: its a
      great amount of time before to start and so navigating between tabs,
      even more changing image in the "Control Point" Tab...hope to see
      improvements soon... :-)

      Best Regards
      Marco Lanciani
    • Keith Martin
      ... If your networked RAID is a NAS device - network-attached storage - then I d say that s both the bottleneck and a possible cause of the problem. NAS is not
      Message 2 of 4 , Jan 4, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        Sometime around 4/1/08 (at 18:55 +0000) marlanit said:

        >You're suggesting a usb/firewire disk as a solution for temp files but
        >isn't this solution pretty much the same as the networked RAID disk
        >solution, with the disadvantage of less space then the RAID, which has
        >Terabytes available?

        If your networked RAID is a NAS device - network-attached storage -
        then I'd say that's both the bottleneck and a possible cause of the
        problem.

        NAS is not at all the same as directly attached storage. You'll be
        connecting to that using SMB, a Windows-oriented network sharing
        protocol, whereas USB or FireWire-connected disks will be regular,
        local storage volumes. There is a big difference in what this allows.
        For one thing, Leopard's Time Machine doesn't work with NAS.

        For Macs, use FireWire in preference to USB if you have a choice. I
        know USB 2.0 is rated at 420mbits/sec whereas reguar FireWire is
        rated at 400mbits/sec - but because the data transport methods are so
        different, FireWire still definitely outstrips USB in speed tests and
        real-world use. And that's without other USB devices in the mix to
        slow things down.

        If you literally ran out of scratch space then you've got a bigger
        problem to deal with. If terabytes really aren't enough... I don't
        know!

        k
      • Eric O'Brien
        Indeed, there are some unanswered (unasked?) questions here about that networked RAID. Where does it physically exist? Inside another Mac, shared by
        Message 3 of 4 , Jan 6, 2008
        • 0 Attachment
          Indeed, there are some unanswered (unasked?) questions here about
          that "networked RAID."

          Where does it physically exist? Inside another Mac, shared by
          Personal File Sharing? On a/In a Macintosh Server? A Windows
          workstation? A Windows Server? A Linux Server? A free-standing NAS
          (as Keith Martin mentioned)? A SAN ("Storage Area Network")?

          How fast it this "network?" 10/100 ethernet over CAT5 wiring?
          Gigabit ethernet? Fibre Channel? iSCSI??

          By what protocol are you communicating with the RAID volume? afp?
          nfs? smb/cifis? something else??


          Just guessing here, but a reason you may earlier have encountered the
          "Too many open files in system" message could be because the Mac OS
          can't actually determine "how many files are open" in your network
          situation.


          You mentioned at one point that your project was "48" "117MB" images.

          FYI, I *routinely* process PTGui projects that contain 30 ~80MB
          source images (and I'm not unusual in doing this, at all). Mind you,
          these are 3 sets of 10 bracketed images, so this may not be relevant
          to what you're doing. Opening and manipulating things is a bit
          sluggish, but I'm working on a 1.5 GHz G4 with 1.5MB of RAM.


          MY guess is that the place you are running out of memory is during
          OUTput.

          So: you are trying to output, at "full size" a 6 x 8 (or is it 6 x
          16?) mosaic from 5412 x 7212 source images, right?

          Are the source images oriented in Portrait or Landscape orientation?
          (That is, which is the horizontal dimension: 5412 or 7212 ?)

          Regarding "6 x 8" or "6 x 16" -- which is the horizontal value?

          Or, never mind all that... to avoid having to get out my calculator:
          what is your final desired dimension for this mosaic? (5412 * 6?
          7212 * 6? by... ??)

          - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
          Elsewhere, your thought that an external disk connected directly to a
          computer is "pretty much the same as a networked RAID" is FABULOUSLY
          off the mark, in my opinion. There are *numerous* factors that may
          come into play (see my earlier paragraphs) when dealing with
          "networked storage devices."

          Any storage device you can connect to may LOOK very similar as
          presented on the Macintosh desktop, or (generally) SEEM to behave
          very much the same way when interacting with them from the Macintosh
          Finder, but the picture you get from the Finder is only a small
          portion of "What's Really Going On."

          That is: you mustn't take what you see there as "the whole
          story." [This is not special to the Macintosh either! It is
          probably just the same for "Windows Desktop" or "Windows Explorer" --
          is that term still used in Vista? --]

          It is unfortunate you are working with an iMac for this project,
          because "expanding" it will be difficult. If the machine were
          bigger, you could just run out to the local... well, in the U.S., I'd
          probably go to a local office supply 'super store' ;) buy a very
          large hard drive, get back home and just plug it in.

          Point of interest regarding hard drive cable lengths: the maximum
          length of a SATA cable is now ONE meter. So, it is now technically
          possible to have a hard drive enclosure that is OUTSIDE of your main
          computer box, but still DIRECTLY CONNECTED to the SATA bus. This
          would of course be faster than a Firewire or USB2 connection. I
          rather doubt that iMacs have a "spare" ATA bus you could just plug
          such an external drive into. :(

          eo


          On Jan 4, 2008, at 10:55 AM, marlanit wrote:

          > Hi Joost,
          >
          > as suggested by Roger I launched
          > PTGui through Terminal typing the ulimit command, then enter, and then
          > open PTGui in the same window dragging the PTGui icon after "open ".
          > Got it right?
          > I do added the second Roger's suggestion outputting as "individual
          > layers only"...
          >
          > You can see here:
          > <http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/PanoToolsNG/message/15982>
          >
          > Just some question:
          > You're suggesting a usb/firewire disk as a solution for temp files but
          > isn't this solution pretty much the same as the networked RAID disk
          > solution, with the disadvantage of less space then the RAID, which has
          > Terabytes available?
          >
          > By the way, I just want to remember the setup for this second try:
          > iMac 20", intel Core2Duo 2Ghz, 1.5GB Ram, Mac OS X 10.4
          > PTgui Pro 7.5 into the internal HD, Original Images and Temp Files on
          > the RAID.
          > If I forgot useful information, please tell me...
          >
          >
          > To come back to the second try...PTGui closed because, I guess, not
          > enough space on the HD...outputting as individual layers only takes
          > more than 100GB space, than the HD filled up...on the third try I'd go
          > this way:
          >
          > same setup with the only difference to output in the Raid, which has
          > terabytes free... :-)
          > Or, what would it be your suggested setup, and/or file position, for
          > the third try?
          >
          > At this point, do you think that outputting again as "blended panorama
          > only", always through Terminal, would change some thing or will I get
          > another error?
          > Thanks very much for your support.
          >
          > PS: PTgui needs a speed up in importing and managing huge file. No
          > less than 10X...I tried importing 100MB files and 500MB files: its a
          > great amount of time before to start and so navigating between tabs,
          > even more changing image in the "Control Point" Tab...hope to see
          > improvements soon... :-)
          >
          > Best Regards
          > Marco Lanciani
          >
        • marlanit
          ... Hi Eric, I m not a network or raid expert; so I can t answer your technical questions. I m working to this project for a photographer and am working on his
          Message 4 of 4 , Jan 6, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Eric O'Brien <ericob@...> wrote:
            >
            > Indeed, there are some unanswered (unasked?) questions here about
            > that "networked RAID."


            Hi Eric,
            I'm not a network or raid expert; so I can't answer your technical
            questions.

            I'm working to this project for a photographer and am working on his
            Mac...I just can say what I know: copying a group of files from the
            raid to the internal HD took 10 or 15 seconds for 650MB. Does this
            tell you something?


            > MY guess is that the place you are running out of memory is during
            > OUTput.


            I think so...


            >
            > So: you are trying to output, at "full size"


            Definitely, full size is what the photographer want.


            > a 6 x 8 (or is it 6 x
            > 16?) mosaic from 5412 x 7212 source images, right?
            >
            > Are the source images oriented in Portrait or Landscape orientation?
            > (That is, which is the horizontal dimension: 5412 or 7212 ?)


            7212, so landscape orientation...I wasn't there during the shooting.
            This is just the situation I found.


            > Or, never mind all that... to avoid having to get out my calculator:
            > what is your final desired dimension for this mosaic? (5412 * 6?
            > 7212 * 6? by... ??)


            The photograper's final, full mosaic, desired dimansion is 5412*6
            pixel vertical and 7212*24 horizontal...they are 24 tiles and each
            tile is 2x3, 2 columns 3 rows, just one tile is 2x4 and don't ask me
            why... :-) so there is a total of 146 images! It's very huge! Final
            output is almost 150000x30000 pixel.

            Eric, thanks for your reply,
            Marco Lanciani
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.