While most of your problem is going to be system resources, I doubt that any one at Adobe ever thought of stitching that many images together at one time. Probably the way you have been going is still the best option. Thought with CS4 you may get better end results. I doubt that it can handle that many images at once. I doubt that Photoshop could handle that many images at once. I don’t think you could have enough computer to handle that many images at once. Good luck.
Robert
I have found that trying to stitch even 20 images in CS3 taxes resources enough to get the "Photoshop needs to Close" message.
Try PTGui.
"What hardware would you recommend for maximum photo merge performance (PC only)?"
Heh….More. And something with "massively parallel" in its description.
🙂 XD
Sorry. That’s all I got. 😉
wrote in message
Yes, I do so, for seafloor mapping. My biggest one so far consisted of 15.000 images. Unfortunaletly, I can’t do them in one step, I need to produce submosaics of up to 250 images and then stitch them together manually after rendering.
Since I reach limits, some exchange of thoughts concerning "extrem photomerging" would be great. Has anyone of you similar experience with photomerge compositions that big?
What hardware would you recommend for maximum photo merge performance (PC only)?
Regards,
Gerhard
Gerhard,
Not an easy question to answer. What is your budget and what are the Photoshop’s limitations?
Going from there is a matter of finding the hardware to fit. Memory is the biggest issue, then GPU performance and CPU architecture. Multi-core is nice for programs designed to use those capabilities but you need memory and processing speed. Staying away from unrealistic systems that cost big bucks, I would be looking at a (true) server class motherboard with all the trimmings.
Price range will vary from around $7K USD (low-end system) to $25K for a top line system. Of course you can always spend more….or less depending on what is important to you.
Look at the Dell site and use their system configurator. If a server is over the top, then a good gaming system with 4 to 8 Gb of memory and video cards (GPU’s) and some fast hard drives will still set you back an easy $5K or better.
Bob S.
Hi,
that’s of course dependend on the image resolution you use. I downsize my seafloor images of course before I use them. Typical sizes are 640×480, 72 or 90 dpi. Still good enough to spot cm-details on a large area.
Thanks for your answers so far,
G
"I doubt that any one at Adobe ever thought of stitching that many images together at one time."
I agree, the expected user for Adobe uses max. 20 images or so, for large scale panoramas of houses, mountains and such.
That might be the reason also, that they "improved" the photomerge function in CS3 in a way to reduce options for manual image placement. I know, it is still possible if you choose "Interactive Layout" but only after PS tries to place the images before. And with seafloor images with lots of "background" and minimal features, the result is simply crap and ends in a chaotic stack of images in wild order. And since the only help I have is the image name and the linear placement in the image tray in CS2, I can’t use CS3 for initial stitching.
In CS2, if you uncheck the "Attempt…" option, it simply puts the images in the tray from where I can grab them in the order they were shot on the seabed. and look for overlapping features.
Does CS4 allow this again, like in CS2? Maybe someone could try?
Thanks,
G
In case someone with Photoshop product responsibilities reads this, I would appreciate some "official" feedback very much. I know, I might be a freak in the way I use photomerge but still it might be an interesting change of thoughts…
In case someone here owns a "max performance" PC (64-bit) and would like to try a merge, I could send images, let me know. Just a question… In case of positive results I could use that for convincing my bosses to invest in hardware 🙂
Regards,
Gerhard
OK, read the article…so, C64, not a Commodore C64 then…
From the article:
The machine, code-named C64, is being built for a United States government agency. Its rather like It, multiplied many times over, though nothing in C64 will come from Home Depot. When the machine is finished, it will contain two million processors and fourteen thousand hard drives. It will use two and a half million watts of electricityenough to power a few thousand homes. Two thousand gallons of water per minute will flow through the core of C64 to keep it cool. If the pumps fail, it will melt down in less than ten seconds.
Bard’s Tale never looked so good! 😉
I’d also recommend using specialized software such as one of the PanoTools options. There are many, many reasons for doing this over automated solutions such as Photomerge. One of them is that you can save your project. Another that you can choose many more output projections, another again that you’ve got much more control over the process, another that they’re built for larger output etc.
I use PTAssembler and the author of that software, Max Lyons, routinely creates gigapixel images with it.
Try using Autopano Pro. It worked great for me on 100+ images at once.
Downloading Autopano, PTAssembler and PTGui for test, thanks for your ideas! Will report results tomorrow.
Again: Fancy perspective options are not relevant for me since my perspective is always a "simplified straight vertical", like with aerial photos. Also individual image distortions by setting matching points is not usable when dealing with thousands of photos. For me, a "best average" is best. And: the result Photoshop produces is almost perfect for my needs. And it’s very productive too, in junction with ArcView. A 1500 image mosaic I do in a day. It’s just the limitation in the number of images I can process at once that sucks. Why?
Imagine this: It’s like you would have to paint a mountain. If you do it in one session, the image will reflect your talent as a painter, yes, but at least it will be consistant. If you would have to do it in two sessions, eg because someone is hiding one half at a time, each individual painting might be consistant as well. But if you hold them next to each other, there will be differences you have to correct for, eg for scale. That’s why it would be important for me to produce bigger patches…
Will be back,
G
No the manual adjustment option is still gone is CS4. You select the images, it does everything else. If you want manual control and the possibility for larger numbers of images try PTGui
http://www.ptgui.com. Robert
Did a quick test on all three. They all were very good on small scale mosaics (<40 images) with good contours to match. I found Autopano best here (based on the engine of Autostitch from University of British Columbia, I guess).
However, when I loaded +200 images, none of the programms produced usable results in the auto mode. Means, I would have to use the manual tools image by image. Yes, I do image by image in Photomerge as well but here the complextity is low: Just drag on image over the neighbour, release it and done. No forced fancy perspective distortions, which I don’t want. just flat, like a 2D puzzle with the pieces numbered. In the 3 tools here, this is a much advanced but therefore more time consuming procedure. What I think is, these tools "over complicate" the process. Only for my needs of course, don’t get me wrong. I think the tools offer great precision if your goal is to produce high quality panoramas of small size.
The images I have to deal with are very often very uniform, just sediment on the ocean floor with a starfish here and there or a rock. The manual "drag & place2 as possible in CS2 is perfect for me. By that, I can even "bridge" gaps, where I don’t see any matching structures due to bad visibility. i just place the images where they belong, since I know the neighbours.
Anyway, thanks for the inspiring discussion. And still, in case someone with a powerfull PC wants to do a test for me, welcome!
And what’s the best way to get in contact with Adobe techs? The hurdles for using the online mail contact are miles high…
G
Just flat, like a 2D puzzle with the pieces numbered
Forgive me, but from my memory, I believe the (rather clumsy) manual placement Photomerge mode only offered spherical panorama output. I think what you’re looking for is what they call ‘move only’ in newer Photomerge.
What I’m looking for was – for my purposes – perfectly realized in CS2 and Adobe took it away in CS3: The option to simply load all images into the top image tray without any attempts of PS to place the images automatically. I’m not looking for any other options. Simply want it back. And a more powerfull hardware to be able to process more than 150 640×480 and 90dpi images at a time.
If thats all youre using photomerge for, and you are happy with it, maybe you can copy over the old photomerge form cs2 to cs3 plugin folder.
Lately I’ve had great success with…. Microsoft ICE.
It’s a "dumb" program in the sense that it allows very little user control, so all it does is stitch the photos.
I have personally tried the software with 300+ jpgs from a 6megapixel camera, and 30 minutes later I had a 112megapixel 360 degree panorama. For your purposes it sounds like this program could be what you’re looking for.
It’s quick, speedy, accurate and it does really nice blending.
<
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/38818/top%20of%20the%20pru%20001_ stitch%20copy.jpg>
The only errors are near the extreme bottom of the frame where there is too much distortion for anything to be accurate.
I’m about to buy a new PC for my company now (Dell is required since we only buy Dell). Would you consider this to be a good choice, when the goal is to get most out of Photoshop:
Dell Precision T5400 64bit
– Quad Core Intel® Xeon® Processor X5470 (3.3GHz,2X6M L2,1333) – Genuine Windows Vista® Business Bonus-Windows XP Professional downgrade – 768MB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 4600, Dual Monitor DVI Capable – 8GB, DDR2 SDRAM FBD Memory, 667MHz, ECC (4 DIMMS)
– C2 All SATA drives, Non-RAID, 2 drive total configuration – 80GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache – 320GB SATA 3.0Gb/s,7200 RPM Hard Drive with 8MB DataBurst Cache
For $1000 more there is a 1.5GB PCIe x16 nVidia Quadro FX 5600, Dual Monitor DVI Capable graphics card available. Would you think this is worth it for Photoshop?
Also, would you think a Quad Core is better (for Photoshop) than a Dual Core?
Thanks for any feedback,
G
