Problem using Mac Enblend & pblend
- This was cross posted on the Kekus forum, but I'm
desperate for a solution.
I'm having a problem running Enblend 2.1 through
pBlend. I'm using Xblend 2.1 as the front end.
I am unable to stitch more than 5 or 6 images together
and get the following error messages in the console:
enblend: error opening output file "pblend_00.tiff":
Unable to open file 'pblend_00.tiff'.
This occurs for each image, before terminating at the
(subsequent images give same error with a different
Unable to open file 'pblend_04.tiff'.
My file and directory paths are pretty straight
forward, with no spaces or apostrophes in them. I am
running a G5 dual 1.8 processor with 2 gigs of RAM.
And while I currently only have about 8 - 10 gigs free
space on the boot drive, the individual tiff files I'm
feeding to Enblend are no more than 3 mgs each (I'm
testing this on small files, but did have luck
stitching larger 30mg LZW compressed files yesterday).
All this was working fine yesterday. And if I don't
use pblend, Enblend (both versions 1.3 & 2.1) works
But I would like to be able to take advantage of the
latest features in Enblend 2.1 and still have the use
of both processors during rendering.
The only major new thing added to my system before
pblend stoped working was the Mono framework, in an
unsuccessful attempt to get autopano-sift to work with
Any help appreciated, as I'm a bit new to using these
tools for panorama creation.
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
- --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, Peter Got <lovefilm@...> wrote:
>Why do you not use the last version of Enblend
> This was cross posted on the Kekus forum, but I'm
> desperate for a solution.
> I'm having a problem running Enblend 2.1 through
> pBlend. I'm using Xblend 2.1 as the front end.
I have not seen 2.1 for download since last year.
2.5 is the version you can download at PTMac
> Why do you not use the last version of EnblendHi Hans - My mistake - I am using Enblend 2.5. I got confused and
> I have not seen 2.1 for download since last year.
> 2.5 is the version you can download at PTMac
wrote the release number for Xblend. What ever the release numbers,
however, I am having some issues using these programs. More often than
not, my renders are terminated with messages in the Xbend consol
informing me enblend was not able to write out a temp file.
Other problems include the render terminating after only 5 or 6 images
As I'm new to these programs it looks like I still have some
investigating to do.
BTY - you gave me some good shooting advice some months back on the
QuickTime VR list.
Here are some of the fruits of those tips:
NY Roof Top (Across from the World Wide Plaza)
Mountain View - Appalachian Trail, Warwick NY:
- --- In PanoToolsNG@yahoogroups.com, "LoveFilm" <lovefilm@...> wrote:
>Sounds like memory problems. Or not enough place for the temp files.
> > Why do you not use the last version of Enblend
> > I have not seen 2.1 for download since last year.
> > 2.5 is the version you can download at PTMac
> > http://kekus.com/download/
> > Hans
> Hi Hans - My mistake - I am using Enblend 2.5. I got confused and
> wrote the release number for Xblend. What ever the release numbers,
> however, I am having some issues using these programs. More often than
> not, my renders are terminated with messages in the Xbend consol
> informing me enblend was not able to write out a temp file.
> Other problems include the render terminating after only 5 or 6 images
> are loaded.
Regarding pBlend I never got that to work properly. Remember that pBlend use the
startdisc for temporary files NOT your disc/partition where your source images are.
For multirow it is much faster to blend each row separatelly and then blend the rows 1 by
1. To reduce the sizes of the files from Nona you should use LZW. You have to set the flag
for this by hand in the scriptfile from PTMac.
As I have a dualcore Mac 2.0 Enblend 1.3 works much faster and better but unfortunatelly
you need to use 16bit. This means the max resolution you can use is around 14000x7000
Enblend 1.3 is just unuseable for 8bit as it generates very bad colors in large flat areas.
I would really appreciate if some people would like to look at Enblend 1.3 and solve that
problem. Platro could not find a solution
Read more about that in this thread at PTMac
> Sounds like memory problems. Or not enough place for the temp files.I have 2 gigs of memory, and about 10 - 18 gig available disk space
on the boot drive. Do I need much more than that to work more
smoothly? (Guess its time to start backing up and offloading some files).
> Regarding pBlend I never got that to work properly.It worked great for me right after I installed it - now it stops after
a few images (regardless of image size).
> 1. To reduce the sizes of the files from Nona you should use LZW.You have to set the flag for this by hand in the scriptfile from PTMac.
I have not fully explored the Nona stitcher yet. I am actually
generating my scripts through PTgui on the PC - then using terminal on
the Mac to out put files via PTmender. Using LZW compression, the
files are very manageable - about 13 - 20 mgg. I don't think file
size is my issue here
Why, you might ask, am I not just using PTgui for my entire work flow.
Well, I was till just recently. But one pano needed morph control
points, and that required the rendering via PTstitcher and Enblend -
which seems to be taking way too long on my PC's meager resources.
>better but unfortunatelly you need to use 16bit. This means the max
> As I have a dualcore Mac 2.0 Enblend 1.3 works much faster and
resolution you can use is around 14000x7000
This all fits comfortably into the way I have been working - 16bit
images with panoram size of 8777 x 3072. So I guess I'm fine sticking
with Enblend 1.3 - which seems to work ok.
The only problem - and I have really only been testing this on one
panoram so far (which has been difficult to stitch) - is that Enblend
on Mac seems to produce a lot more ghosting than on the PC
(unfortunately, it takes me nearly 5 - 7 hours to render on my PC,
which currenlty only has 500 mg ram.)
I did try blending all three rows separately and this was quick and
produced better results than when blending all three rows together.
However, the results still were not as good as those achieved on the
QUESTION: When implementing this row independent blending strategy,
how is it best to construct the final pano. Do you blend all three
rows at once, or do you blend 2 rows, and then the final row in a
- Hi Peter
I posted a reply on the Kekus board. If you can post (As a file
attachment) the complete console output, I'll have a look what went wrong.
It sounds like your issue isn't an enblend problem, but somewhere in
As Hans wrote, pblend puts the temporary files in whatever directory
is the current directory ('pwd') when it is started. From
PTMac/XBlend, this is your startup drive. If you start it at the
command line, it is your current directory. Make sure you have space &
privelege for that directory.
If you can, start it directly from the commandline and look at the
>QUESTION - are the Mac versions 2.1 and the PC version 2.5 of EnblendThe Mac enblend 1.3+ is drasticly diverged from Andrew Mihal's
>equivalent, or is the PC version simply further along in development?
original, mostly in heavy speed improvements (Multithreading, Altivec,
1.3+ has some quality issues, but it's fast. It doesn't work with
cropped TIFFs, and a lot of other shortcommings addressed by 2.x.
For quality, use 2.x.
The 2.x versions are essentially identical on all platforms, just
recompiled. (1.2-mac == 1.2-pc)
If I do any further work, it will be on Andrew Mihal's common code
base, not a Mac-only branch.
> It sounds like your issue isn't an enblend problem, but somewhere inRob - I too posted answer to Kekus form. Hans and your suggestions
> your setup/environment.
did solve my problem. Enblend 2.5 now works properly with Xblend
after changing my Root directory from read only to read and write
> The 2.x versions are essentially identical on all platforms, justRegarding the differences I was seeing on rendered out put from PC and
> recompiled. (1.2-mac == 1.2-pc)
Mac. This was due to my own mistake. The scripts I ported over to
the Mac were actually from a slightly earlier version of one of my
files, whose control points were not as well optimized. So I was not
comparing rendered output from the same scripts!