Yeah it was 6.2. I reckon it just doesn't play nice with Win 8.1.. all I can imagine.
As for .PSD files... got one right here that's 4.2GB
No idea how rigid that 4GB limit is, but so far I've been able to save files of this size before. I read on Adobe it's 3 to 4GB depending on system configuration.. whatever that means. However, I think the limit is set more to pixel dimensions rather than actual file size. If I recall, used to be in the region of 30k x 30k in CS6.. no idea if that's changed. Funnily enough, I've had PS warn me it can't save as a TIFF with files much smaller than 4GB. Lots of other complaints about that when I searched for a remedy to that. I'm trying to get the files a smidgeon below the limit for either TIFF or PSD so Lightroom can adequately catalogue them. Last time I used PSB it didn't... unless 5.3 has fixed that.
Either way.. thanks, but that's not the reason PTAssembler bails on me. It does the same if I output to PSB. It runs out of memory, then crashes instead of paging to the SSD.
It will eat up all your memory unless you allocate a particular amount.
...at which point it should use a swap file. It doesn't.. it crashes.
each core takes it's own dollop, so too many cores running can be counter productive.
four will handle four files at once. (I do not know where to set that as I have never done it , I only have 4 cores)
Sorry Terry, but I have to disagree... the more cores working, the faster it will be, and the overall memory usage will not increase with the number of threads working., it will just be shared across all 6 cores. There's a slight management overhead with that, but with quad channel RAM and large amounts of L1 and L2 cache in this board, it isn't a problem.
Don't think of rows as a line of pictures, think of them as shots at the same distance. as long as the whole image is covered by one row (set) or other with plenty of overlap it will work. That will give the minimum number of shots to fuse.
But the whole image will not be covered by one row, so I fail to see how I can change focus halfway through a set and retain sharp focus of objects that go top to bottom on a single vertical plane... like a lamp post or a flag pole. Sorry Terry if I misunderstand, but you're not making a great deal of sense there. Care to try that again? You were suggesting a means of increasing depth of field, but if for argument's sake, the scene has a wall at the back of scene, and that must be sharp, but I also want to increase depth of field to include foreground objects, you are suggesting I can change focus per row of images? Surely then in the stitch the wall at the back would not be sharp over the entire stitch, as some of the component frames are refocused to a nearer distance.
You will find you are trying to fly before you can walk...you simply must work through the learning curve first ... we all do.
It then all becomes so much easier. There are so many variables that you will simply not know where you are going wrong.
With all due respect Terry, I've been doing this for 20 years, using a variety of software. You seem to think anyone younger than you is a beginner
PTAssembler crashes. It's as simple as that. I have no difficulty operating it, understanding it, or producing stitched images via any other piece of software... PTAssembler just doesn't work here.
It will be far quicker to get where you are going with low res first.
No it won't... because all I need to establish is a working method.. which actually Terry... I have, and am happy with, despite being slow, but you know what, I challenge PTAssembler to do it any faster than I'm doing it already. I hope you're right, and it is faster... but it doesn't run, so I'll never know.
This all came about because you convinced me to use PTAssembler... which refuses to run on this machine/OS. I've been getting superb results with Photomerge. Utterly perfect, every time. I've no idea why I'm arsing about with PTAssembler. I just did so because you convinced me it was brilliant. Well.. it might be, but it doesn't work here, so that's the end of that.
I have used Photoshop Photomerge and it works well, though rather slowly, however it simply does not have the projections I like, or any means of correcting control points on difficult subjects.
You don't need to manipulate the control points when you can manipulate the layers it produces. I've very rarely had to make any adjustments to be honest, but you've got the full suite of tools available to manipulate each layer or it's mask. warp is particularly useful if a layer doesn't align correctly. I've only ever had that with hand held stuff though. Generally if my intent is to crate a mosaic, Brenizer, or panoramic, I'll be rotating the camera around it's nodal point in all axis.
So it either works or fails, but always on its own terms.
Always works for me.
Most people find PTGui easier than PTAssembler, but I don't know how good it is with gigapixels.
I've used PTGui before. It worked OK for me, but never used it for anything on this scale. I can't imagine the performance will be radically different. I'll run the images through that and see what happens and let you know.
Just done a very quick and dirty hand held pan of two shots, using panomatic to pick the points and smartblend to blend. The whole process took me 1 minute 5 seconds to load the files into PTAssembler and display the resulting finished pan. I adjusted nothing... just auto everything.
(I had not used the newer panomatic-64 before, so thought I should check.)
I can't see any bad stitches in the trees at all, at 100%. The join must have gone through the branches somewhere
Yeah but Terry.... such a simple pano stitch is a walk in the park for ANY software
Hell.. I could have put that together manually.
