Anyone know PTGui and/or Panotools really well?

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/07/2005 01:19:38 PM · #1

I'm trying to stitch 19 3,072 x 2,048 frames to make a matrix pan. When I get to the point where the prog starts to put all the images together, after warping all 19 images, I get a memory error that states the prog was trying to allocate something like 1.3GB and failed.

I've never tried to stitch such a big pan (15,918 x 21,165), but I know that others have.

Here's a roughcut cropped version of what I'm trying to put together - using images that were resized to 512px on the long side:

Any tips for stitching really big files? I'm afraid I'm going to have trouble editing this beast too.

Thanks,
Ara

RebAl

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/07/2005 01:31:32 PM · #2

Either get more memory or make your pics smaller

hsteg

Fujifilm X-T20

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L USM

04/07/2005 01:33:16 PM · #3

Maybe get all the images for the bottom half, stitch the bottom and then save it as a tiff, then get all the images for the top, stick the top half and save it as a tiff. Then take the two tiffs or whatever you decide to save it as and stich the two together.

04/07/2005 01:42:36 PM · #4

Originally posted by RebAl:

Either get more memory or make your pics smaller

I've got 2GB physical - maybe my VM settings are a bit aggressive with a fixed 3GB pagefile. I'm in the process of getting out of PS so I can reboot with a system managed pagefile.

04/07/2005 01:44:34 PM · #5

Originally posted by hsteg:

Hmm. I think there is a way to keep it from rendering images in the pan, maybe I can do it that way. It's something to try if the VM settings don't make a difference. =]

04/07/2005 01:48:59 PM · #6

I don't know the answer to your question, but I'm watching to see if it gets solved. So far I have not run afoul of the problem, but I'm sure I will at some point.
I know that folks have stitched gigapixel images with PanoTools, but I believe it was done with a custom front-end that did not try to stitch everything at once.
If I were to stitch a multi-row image, I might start with the center row, stitch that, then stitch the row above to the center, the row below to the first two, etc.

04/07/2005 02:14:01 PM · #7

Originally posted by kirbic:

Can you think of a way to register the individual rows (mine are crappy because I did it handheld) so that once they're stitched, you don't need to transform each stitch slice to be able to get them all together in PS?

Maybe I need to create 3 projects from the original - each one with only one row of shots, then change the field of view for each to make it as small a final file as possilble - that might keep the alignment I already have (and, of course, I can't tell how good that alignment is, because I can't stitch the shot... =])

04/07/2005 02:35:44 PM · #8

BTW, the facade of the big building with the ivy was made famous on Seinfeld as the building where Elaine's boss, Mr. Pitt, lived.

04/07/2005 04:00:26 PM · #9

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

...Can you think of a way to register the individual rows (mine are crappy because I did it handheld) so that once they're stitched, you don't need to transform each stitch slice to be able to get them all together in PS?

Maybe I need to create 3 projects from the original - each one with only one row of shots, then change the field of view for each to make it as small a final file as possilble - that might keep the alignment I already have (and, of course, I can't tell how good that alignment is, because I can't stitch the shot... =])

What I was thinking of was to stitch each individual row, then stitch pairs of rows as if they were individual images. you'd have to be very careful as to which image you used as a color "standard", and probably start with the center row and work up/down. By doing this, you'd minimize the memory allocation since the maximum nmber of images to be joined would be the number of images in a single row.
You could also stitch in two-by-two image "blocks" which may or may not make more sense for your image layout.

Edit:
You're making me want to try a big stitch like this just to prove to myself that I can do it. I've thought about it, but didn't want to try it with the hand-held approach that I usually get stuck using (due to being on travel and without a tripod). I shoulda done it a few weeks ago in Arizona when I had a rented tripod. Well, I've got a trip to Oregon coming up, might provide an opportunity :-)

Message edited by author 2005-04-07 20:03:52.

04/07/2005 05:56:39 PM · #10

Originally posted by kirbic:

I will end up trying this, but do you really think it will significantly lower the mem requirements? I mean even though the sub-stitches will be a lot smaller, the final stitch will still be ~337 megapixels! Maybe I should just go reshoot at 18mm. =]

Well, at least I don't have to worry about the color standard, I shot it raw and set all the shots to the same white bal setting. As you can see in the small version there really isn't much variation from shot to shot (although I did use Enblend). There is one "hot" frame that's brighter than the rest (which I don't understand since the cam was locked at one setting for all the shots) that might be an issue if I can't use enblend.

Actually, stitching the full pan failed twice, and I suspect enblend was the culprit the first time, although I never got any error messages - just an 8 byte tiff.

Originally posted by kirbic:

Edit:
You're making me want to try a big stitch like this just to prove to myself that I can do it. I've thought about it, but didn't want to try it with the hand-held approach that I usually get stuck using (due to being on travel and without a tripod). I shoulda done it a few weeks ago in Arizona when I had a rented tripod. Well, I've got a trip to Oregon coming up, might provide an opportunity :-)

Handheld isn't too bad if you don't have many close objects.

Have fun in Oregon!

04/07/2005 05:58:46 PM · #11

Is there any way to pre-crop the final image in PTGui to keep the program from allocating memory for all the black space and unwanted pixels? That would let me reduce the file size by roughly 50% and might let me run the stitch without making any other changes.

04/07/2005 07:35:04 PM · #12

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

Yes, when you view the pano in the panorama editor you can use the tools at lower left to center, then fit the panorama. You can further tighten up the fit by moving the sliders at right and bottom to fine adjust the HFoV and VFoV. For panos that are asymmetrical around the horizon, you'll always be stuck with black space at top or bottom because there doesn't seem to be a way to make PTGUI trim more off ableow than above, or vice versa, without distorting the panorama. Still, you should be able to eliminate most of the black space, and you're correct, this should reduce the memory requirement.

dwoolridge

04/07/2005 11:04:29 PM · #13

I've tried pretty much everything under the sun to stitch together 30-something images to get this:

(don't mind the gap)
All efforts resulted in memory issues until I finally generated individual (masked I seem to recall) remapped 16-bit tiffs using hugin (probably cause it was the last project I had available). Actually, I might have only used hugin to create the ptstitcher script and then just did the rest at the command line. Either way, I ended up with a bunch of tiffs, which I had to toss through ImageMagick's convert tool (I can't remember why, but it was definitely necessary).

Now, here's the kicker. Owing to limited machine memory and photoshop's archaic and broken memory management, I could only open two of these tiffs at a time, wherein I would drag one to the other, make all the necessary seam blending, close photoshop (necessary), and repeat (using the blended image and a new tiff). Opening and saving files was painful so I took great care to get the seams blended nicely and ended up with a 2.3G tiff. I think it took 2 or 3 weeks off and on.

Mr_Pants

SiPix Blink

04/07/2005 11:19:22 PM · #14

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

Well, at least I don't have to worry about the color standard, I shot it raw and set all the shots to the same white bal setting. As you can see in the small version there really isn't much variation from shot to shot (although I did use Enblend). There is one "hot" frame that's brighter than the rest (which I don't understand since the cam was locked at one setting for all the shots) that might be an issue if I can't use enblend.

From what I've read in various places, using a preset white balance and manual metering is the way to go. Even shooting RAW and applying the same white balance in postprocessing can lead to different white balances in the frames if auto white balance in the camera is used. Like I said, this is just what I've heard, I don;t have direct experience.

04/08/2005 04:46:28 PM · #15

dwoolridge: ouch! that's a long time to stitch! nice pan, though.

AJAger: I'm pretty sure the only reason to not shoot pans raw is shooting speed.

BTW, you'd think I was less of an idiot (ok, you might not, but I do) I just checked the PTGui webpage and found this:

4. Troubleshooting
4.1. Unable to stitch large panoramas
Due to a limitation in Panorama Tools, the size of generated Photoshop files is limited to 64 megapixels. If the stitching fails, try to create Multi-image TIFF output instead. The individual TIFF files can be assembled in Photoshop again into a multi-layer document.

So, I'm trying multi-image tiff as I write and we'll see if it works... then we'll see if I can work it up in PS.

04/08/2005 05:12:11 PM · #16

Quoting myself:

Originally posted by BikeRacer:

...

If the stitching fails, try to create Multi-image TIFF output instead. The individual TIFF files can be assembled in Photoshop again into a multi-layer document.[/i]

So, I'm trying multi-image tiff as I write and we'll see if it works... then we'll see if I can work it up in PS.

Of course, I tried a multi-image with feathering and that didn't work. What's odd is that now that I've decreased the field of view, it only needed ~900MB and I had more than enough physical memory free at the time. Now I'm trying the plain multi-image tiff - let's hope it works.

dwoolridge

04/08/2005 06:53:47 PM · #17

I've found the feathered output a little too aggressive. If you have the time, you can get better results by blending the seams yourself.

04/08/2005 06:55:56 PM · #18

Originally posted by dwoolridge:

I've found the feathered output a little too aggressive. If you have the time, you can get better results by blending the seams yourself.

I agree with this line of thought. I find that for skies, I want more feathering than the PTGI defalut, and for high-detail areas, much less. Better to do it myself if I want it perfect.

Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM

04/08/2005 09:23:51 PM · #19

ok! it worked! i'm the proud owner of a spanking new, 19 layer, 11,287 x 10,153, 790,671KB PSD file. I haven't started playing with the seams yet, but here is a 300px tall strip from the middle of the bottom row:

Rossco

Kodak LS633

04/08/2005 09:33:17 PM · #20

Man, thats trippy! the same person is walking along with the photos, or lotsa identical sisters! 5 times, the accidental star i would say.

I love it, id prefer a nature one, but its a really interactive way to explore a scene.
Thanx for sharing.

Rossco

04/09/2005 05:24:05 PM · #21

Originally posted by Rossco:

Thanks! Yes, she's a prominent player, I tried for it and I'm happy with how she came out.

04/09/2005 05:30:07 PM · #22

So how did the stitch go? What was the maximum control point distance? Were you able to stitch it at one go, or did you have to break it up? Wait, sounds like you stitched it in one swell foop, since yo've got 19 layers.
What lens did you use, BTW?

04/10/2005 07:33:43 PM · #23

Originally posted by kirbic:

I think it went well - I think all the program does is morph the shots and make them BIG! Then it goes through and renames all the ~900MB working temp files to .tif files. PS was pretty quick too, but I learned to kill the browser and just load the files from the file menu.

At first I was cropping each file, then saving, then copy/pasting into a single multi-layer file, but then I stopped cropping and saving and just pasted them in - that sped things up a lot.

The max control point was something like 30-50px and the average was higher than I liked - about 7px I think - there was a lot of parallax error in the bottom of the image. I'm usually not happy with a max of 7px, let alone an average over 2px.

I'm thinking of re-stitching with hand entered control points rather than the autopano points. This way I can get the main images locked in super-tight and then be looser with the bottom row. Though I'm not sure about that, maybe morph-to-fit is the answer.

I used my 50/1.4.