Quantcast

MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
30 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Hans-74

I got my new 11" 1.06 kg MacBook Air yesterday and I was of course curious of the stitching times.
Especially as the Benchmarks are not really much to brag about.
Geekbench Benchmarks
MacBook Air Intel Core 2 Duo P7500 1.6 GHz (2 cores) = 2031
MacBook (Late 2006) Intel Core 2 T7400 2.16 GHz (2 cores) = 2787
iMac (27-inch Late 2009) Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores) =8312

Well here are the stitching times.
Testpano 12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark II

MacBook Air 4 GB Ram 70% used. = 5 minutes 35 sec
MacBook Pro 2.16 from 2006, 2 GB Ram 50% used. = 30 minutes
iMac 8GB Ram 69% used = 2 min 50 sec

My old MacBook is not 64 BIT

The PTgui auto settings for the Air seems odd to me. It sets memory usage to just 38%. This increased the stitching time to  7 min 55 sec.
I also use just  3 or 4 threads on the iMac which cuts stitching to half  compared to the auto setting which is all 8 threads.

Now what the heck do I use my old 17" MacBook to. I already have an older one in the kitchen for Recipes.

Hans

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Bostjan Burger
After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
Q720,@1.60 GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
II) ... settings to compare with yours.

Bostjan




________________________________
From: Hans <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 6:20:51 PM
Subject: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

 

I got my new 11" 1.06 kg MacBook Air yesterday and I was of course curious of
the stitching times.
Especially as the Benchmarks are not really much to brag about.
Geekbench Benchmarks
MacBook Air Intel Core 2 Duo P7500 1.6 GHz (2 cores) = 2031
MacBook (Late 2006) Intel Core 2 T7400 2.16 GHz (2 cores) = 2787
iMac (27-inch Late 2009) Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores) =8312

Well here are the stitching times.
Testpano 12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark II

MacBook Air 4 GB Ram 70% used. = 5 minutes 35 sec
MacBook Pro 2.16 from 2006, 2 GB Ram 50% used. = 30 minutes
iMac 8GB Ram 69% used = 2 min 50 sec

My old MacBook is not 64 BIT

The PTgui auto settings for the Air seems odd to me. It sets memory usage to
just 38%. This increased the stitching time to  7 min 55 sec.
I also use just  3 or 4 threads on the iMac which cuts stitching to half  
compared to the auto setting which is all 8 threads.

Now what the heck do I use my old 17" MacBook to. I already have an older one in
the kitchen for Recipes.

Hans

 


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Willy Kaemena
A Dell is dull piece  and full of  virus and malware...;-) or  needs special care agains that... the MacAir is a piece of  Art!!

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

And I want to replace my 17" MacbookPro  which I used for years as a main workhorse, with a light and elegant solution for traveling, so i might consider a MacbookAir

Willy



On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:

> After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
> Q720,@1.60 GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
> used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
> II) ... settings to compare with yours.
>
> Bostjan
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hans <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 6:20:51 PM
> Subject: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro
>
> I got my new 11" 1.06 kg MacBook Air yesterday and I was of course curious of
> the stitching times.
> Especially as the Benchmarks are not really much to brag about.
> Geekbench Benchmarks
> MacBook Air Intel Core 2 Duo P7500 1.6 GHz (2 cores) = 2031
> MacBook (Late 2006) Intel Core 2 T7400 2.16 GHz (2 cores) = 2787
> iMac (27-inch Late 2009) Intel Core i7 860 2.8 GHz (4 cores) =8312
>
> Well here are the stitching times.
> Testpano 12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark II
>
> MacBook Air 4 GB Ram 70% used. = 5 minutes 35 sec
> MacBook Pro 2.16 from 2006, 2 GB Ram 50% used. = 30 minutes
> iMac 8GB Ram 69% used = 2 min 50 sec
>
> My old MacBook is not 64 BIT
>
> The PTgui auto settings for the Air seems odd to me. It sets memory usage to
> just 38%. This increased the stitching time to 7 min 55 sec.
> I also use just 3 or 4 threads on the iMac which cuts stitching to half
> compared to the auto setting which is all 8 threads.
>
> Now what the heck do I use my old 17" MacBook to. I already have an older one in
> the kitchen for Recipes.
>
> Hans
>
> _,___
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

crane

On Tue, November 30, 2010 8:48 pm, Willy Kaemena wrote:
> A Dell is dull piece  and full of  virus and malware...;-) or  needs
> special care agains that... the MacAir is a piece of  Art!!

<yawn>
a mac is basically Unix, you are paying for the pretty case without the
functionality.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Bostjan Burger
In reply to this post by Willy Kaemena
Sorry, with over 3K VRPs a year I don't need a Piece of Art but a Working horse
;) I don't care what machine I use... today I got a new Qosmio X505 as a backup
portable for my ground work - I wonder what will be the stiching time. Not realy
much time handling with the PCs at the moment as I am too tired after beeing 12
hours a day 400 m below the surface ;)

Bostjan



________________________________
From: Willy Kaemena <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Tue, November 30, 2010 9:48:29 PM
Subject: Re: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

 
A Dell is dull piece  and full of  virus and malware...;-) or  needs special
care agains that... the MacAir is a piece of  Art!!

http://www.apple.com/macbookair/

And I want to replace my 17" MacbookPro  which I used for years as a main
workhorse, with a light and elegant solution for traveling, so i might consider
a MacbookAir

Willy

On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:

> After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
> Q720,@1.60 GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
> used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
> II) ... settings to compare with yours.
>
> Bostjan

 


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Thomas Krüger
@ Hans + Willy: To edit large 16bit tiff files on the Mac Book Air do you use Photoshop CS5 or something else? We need a new notebook next year and are thinking about to switch to the Mac.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Hans-74


--- In [hidden email], Thomas Krüger <th.krueger@...> wrote:
>
>
> @ Hans + Willy: To edit large 16bit tiff files on the Mac Book Air do you use
> Photoshop CS5 or something else? We need a new notebook next year and are
> thinking about to switch to the Mac.

I will install CS5 tomorrow on it.
Will check back and tell how it works with large files.

Hans



> --
> View this message in context: http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/MacBook-Air-11-against-iMac-i7-and-2006-MacBook-Pro-tp3065818p3067856.html
> Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

bigwade
In reply to this post by Hans-74
Hans, Congrats with your new toy ;-)
personally I can't imagine how you can do a decent stitch for a quality pano on such a small screen.

I like my iMac27+extra Eizo screen, ± 1 meter wide together :-)

btw use the old 17" for the kitchen and iTunes use and give away the older one..:-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Thomas Krüger
...ever thought about travelling on assignment with a small and lightweight computer?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

bigwade
Yep, I use a macbook 13" for storing/viewing images and tethered shooting but not for stitching, screen is simply to small for my usage.
and 11" is even smaller…..
Hey, and with a small country as the Netherlands I don't need an "on the road" stitch machine ;-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Hans-74
In reply to this post by bigwade


--- In [hidden email], bigwade <celsius@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hans, Congrats with your new toy ;-)
> personally I can't imagine how you can do a decent stitch for a quality pano
> on such a small screen.

Stitching does not really need a screen at all. You just load the images in batchbuilder and push the button.

>
> I like my iMac27+extra Eizo screen, ± 1 meter wide together :-)

I have a 40" Sony Bravia as extra screen on mine. I beat you with 50cm.

Hans

>
> btw use the old 17" for the kitchen and iTunes use and give away the older
> one..:-)
> --
> View this message in context: http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/MacBook-Air-11-against-iMac-i7-and-2006-MacBook-Pro-tp3065818p3070044.html
> Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

bigwade
Hans-74 wrote
I have a 40" Sony Bravia as extra screen on mine. I beat you with 50cm.

Hans
I knew this would come, you must feel very happy ;-)
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Bostjan Burger
In reply to this post by Willy Kaemena
I didn't mention that I stiched with the latest PTGui 8.x. I have downloaded the
latest PTGui 9.x today and tried to stich with the same settings and same PC. I
left the corest to "auto", that is 8 threads. And new stiching time? 1 min 33
sec, that is 1 min 2 sec faster. Faster stiching with PTGui as beter using of
cores?

Bostjan



On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:

> After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
> Q720,@1.60 GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
> used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
> II) ... settings to compare with yours.
>
> Bostjan

 



     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Hans-74


--- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't mention that I stiched with the latest PTGui 8.x. I have downloaded the
> latest PTGui 9.x today and tried to stich with the same settings and same PC. I
> left the corest to "auto", that is 8 threads. And new stiching time? 1 min 33
> sec, that is 1 min 2 sec faster. Faster stiching with PTGui as beter using of
> cores?

This can not be correct. The fact is that Joost has changed the autosetting to 4 threads for  in the final version of PTGui9. I doubt he made that only on Mac, the processor is the same and  the problem the same on Windows.

And on Windows if you used 8.3.10  64 bit it was actually faster. I cant test this on this large panorama as version 8 was 32 bit on Mac  but for smaller panoramas my speed is increased by 20% compared to 8.3.10. Joost has confirmed this after several reported it.
Some people reported much larger difference.

I did a new test on the final version  and got 2.43 with the auto setting which now is 4 threads.  Increasing it to 8 resulted in tripling the stitching time  to 8.11

Maybe you forgot to set it to 16 bit.
Outputting same panorama at 8bit only takes 1.20 with 4 threads.

Hans

>
> Bostjan
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:
>
> > After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
> > Q720,@... GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
> > used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
> > II) ... settings to compare with yours.
> >
> > Bostjan
>
>  
>
>
>
>      
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Hans-74
In reply to this post by Thomas Krüger
--- In [hidden email], Thomas Krüger <th.krueger@...> wrote:
>
>
> @ Hans + Willy: To edit large 16bit tiff files on the Mac Book Air do you use
> Photoshop CS5 or something else? We need a new notebook next year and are
> thinking about to switch to the Mac.
> --
> View this message in context: http://panotoolsng.586017.n4.nabble.com/MacBook-Air-11-against-iMac-i7-and-2006-MacBook-Pro-tp3065818p3067856.html
> Sent from the PanoToolsNG mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>

Here is my test with Photoshop CS5.

iMac 27" i7 8GB Ram
Convert 10 img 5D Martk II Raw to 16 bit tif   = 44 s
Open 12000x6000 16bit tif   first time 8.4 - 15 sec  next time same image 1.4 s
Shadow/highlight 3.8 s
Unsharp mask 2.2 s

MacBook Air 11" 1.6 GHz 4GB Ram
Converting Raw 105 s
Open  same 12000x6000 panorama 3 times 6-4.8-4.8 s
Open from USB stick   25 sec
Shadow Highlight  11.1- 11.8
Unsharp mask 4.2 - 4.2

MacBook Pro 17" 2006 DualCore 2,16 2GB Ram
Converting Raw  228 s  - 185 s
Open 12000x6000 panorama 19 s
Shadow Highlight  36 s
Unsharp mask 50 s

The fact that this incredibly small 1 kg laptop is more than 3 times faster on most tasks than my 2.16ghz MacBook which receives better Geekbench result  really makes me wonder how they perform those tests. The memory usage for the Raw images is within the Ram applied for the CS4 32 bit so the  fact that Air has 4GB and 64bit should not make this difference.
Both has  1 processor with 2 cores.

The difference with the superfast iMac i7 is not that large.

The only thing I miss from my old MacBook is the battery change. All new MacBooks have a fixed battery and stitching is probably the most demanding you can do. It drains the batteries very fast, flash is nothing against it.
My guess is that 15 stitches 12000x6000 16 bit is the max you can do.
Maybe the next thing Jobs will do is to forbid us to install Photoshop and Ptgui.

The only way to  use them for longer time in the field is an external battery. There are a couple available and they are not much more expensive than the old built in ones for my 17" MacBook  is.

Hans
 

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Bostjan Burger
In reply to this post by Hans-74
Some more: (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark)

4 cores: 1 min 10 sec
2 cores: 1 min:40 sec
3 cores: 1 min 35 sec

comparing with my previous tests and the same mesthod the use of 4 cores with
PTGui 9.x is the fastest.
That was all with Win 7 64-bit. I don't know for the Mac....

Bostjan



________________________________
From: Hans <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 11:38:31 AM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook
Pro

 


--- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...> wrote:
>
> I didn't mention that I stiched with the latest PTGui 8.x. I have downloaded
>the
>
> latest PTGui 9.x today and tried to stich with the same settings and same PC. I
>
> left the corest to "auto", that is 8 threads. And new stiching time? 1 min 33
> sec, that is 1 min 2 sec faster. Faster stiching with PTGui as beter using of
> cores?

This can not be correct. The fact is that Joost has changed the autosetting to 4
threads for  in the final version of PTGui9. I doubt he made that only on Mac,
the processor is the same and  the problem the same on Windows.

And on Windows if you used 8.3.10  64 bit it was actually faster. I cant test
this on this large panorama as version 8 was 32 bit on Mac  but for smaller
panoramas my speed is increased by 20% compared to 8.3.10. Joost has confirmed
this after several reported it.
Some people reported much larger difference.

I did a new test on the final version  and got 2.43 with the auto setting which
now is 4 threads.  Increasing it to 8 resulted in tripling the stitching time  
to 8.11

Maybe you forgot to set it to 16 bit.
Outputting same panorama at 8bit only takes 1.20 with 4 threads.

Hans

>
> Bostjan
>
>
>
> On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:
>
> > After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,

> > Q720,@... GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram

> > used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
>
> > II) ... settings to compare with yours.
> >
> > Bostjan

 


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Bjørn K Nilssen
In reply to this post by Hans-74
På Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:59:22 +0100, skrev Hans <[hidden email]>:

> Here is my test with Photoshop CS5.
>
> iMac 27" i7 8GB Ram
> Convert 10 img 5D Martk II Raw to 16 bit tif   = 44 s
> Open 12000x6000 16bit tif   first time 8.4 - 15 sec  next time same image 1.4 s
> Shadow/highlight 3.8 s
> Unsharp mask 2.2 s
>
> MacBook Air 11" 1.6 GHz 4GB Ram
> Converting Raw 105 s
> Open  same 12000x6000 panorama 3 times 6-4.8-4.8 s
> Open from USB stick   25 sec
> Shadow Highlight  11.1- 11.8
> Unsharp mask 4.2 - 4.2
>
> MacBook Pro 17" 2006 DualCore 2,16 2GB Ram
> Converting Raw  228 s  - 185 s
> Open 12000x6000 panorama 19 s
> Shadow Highlight  36 s
> Unsharp mask 50 s
>
> The fact that this incredibly small 1 kg laptop is more than 3 times faster on most tasks than my 2.16ghz MacBook which receives better Geekbench result  really makes me wonder how they perform those tests. The memory usage for the Raw images is within the Ram applied for the CS4 32 bit so the  fact that Air has 4GB and 64bit should not make this difference.
> Both has  1 processor with 2 cores.

I don't know how MAcs handle defragmenting drives, but couldn't fragmentation be a factor? SSD?

> The difference with the superfast iMac i7 is not that large.
>
> The only thing I miss from my old MacBook is the battery change. All new MacBooks have a fixed battery and stitching is probably the most demanding you can do. It drains the batteries very fast, flash is nothing against it.
> My guess is that 15 stitches 12000x6000 16 bit is the max you can do.
> Maybe the next thing Jobs will do is to forbid us to install Photoshop and Ptgui.

I wouldn't be surprised ;)

> The only way to  use them for longer time in the field is an external battery. There are a couple available and they are not much more expensive than the old built in ones for my 17" MacBook  is.


--
Bjørn K Nilssen - http://bknilssen.no - 3D and panoramas.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: MacBook Air 11

Hans-74


--- In [hidden email], Bjørn K Nilssen <bk@...> wrote:

>
> PÃ¥ Sat, 04 Dec 2010 12:59:22 +0100, skrev Hans <hans@...>:
>
> > Here is my test with Photoshop CS5.
> >
> > iMac 27" i7 8GB Ram
> > Convert 10 img 5D Martk II Raw to 16 bit tif   = 44 s
> > Open 12000x6000 16bit tif   first time 8.4 - 15 sec  next time same image 1.4 s
> > Shadow/highlight 3.8 s
> > Unsharp mask 2.2 s
> >
> > MacBook Air 11" 1.6 GHz 4GB Ram
> > Converting Raw 105 s
> > Open  same 12000x6000 panorama 3 times 6-4.8-4.8 s
> > Open from USB stick   25 sec
> > Shadow Highlight  11.1- 11.8
> > Unsharp mask 4.2 - 4.2
> >
> > MacBook Pro 17" 2006 DualCore 2,16 2GB Ram
> > Converting Raw  228 s  - 185 s
> > Open 12000x6000 panorama 19 s
> > Shadow Highlight  36 s
> > Unsharp mask 50 s
> >
> > The fact that this incredibly small 1 kg laptop is more than 3 times faster on most tasks than my 2.16ghz MacBook which receives better Geekbench result  really makes me wonder how they perform those tests. The memory usage for the Raw images is within the Ram applied for the CS4 32 bit so the  fact that Air has 4GB and 64bit should not make this difference.
> > Both has  1 processor with 2 cores.
>
> I don't know how MAcs handle defragmenting drives, but couldn't fragmentation be a factor? SSD?
>
> > The difference with the superfast iMac i7 is not that large.
> >
> > The only thing I miss from my old MacBook is the battery change. All new MacBooks have a fixed battery and stitching is probably the most demanding you can do. It drains the batteries very fast, flash is nothing against it.
> > My guess is that 15 stitches 12000x6000 16 bit is the max you can do.
> > Maybe the next thing Jobs will do is to forbid us to install Photoshop and Ptgui.
>
> I wouldn't be surprised ;)


No not really.
The MacOS 10 File system is far superior to the Windows system.
You can say that Defragmentation is only  recommended by people who sells defragmentation software,

Also read Apples own support
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1375?viewlocale=en_US

I sometimes do it the simple way, that means I just delite the whole volume after having backed it up on another volume or harddisc.

To check if it had any effect on the PTGui performance I just did on  the MacBook.
Result the stitch took 28minutes instead of 30 min before.

Hans


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Hans-74
In reply to this post by Bostjan Burger


--- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...> wrote:

>
> Some more: (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark)
>
> 4 cores: 1 min 10 sec
> 2 cores: 1 min:40 sec
> 3 cores: 1 min 35 sec
>
> comparing with my previous tests and the same mesthod the use of 4 cores with
> PTGui 9.x is the fastest.
> That was all with Win 7 64-bit. I don't know for the Mac....

I have to say I find your report very difficult to believe.

Your Dell has a benchmark here of 3,258
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

My iMac processor has 5,554

If you look at this Gigapixel test
http://hdview.at/speedtest/results.html
you find a Dell Dell XPS 435 Core i7 920 2,66 with almost same Benchmark as my iMac 5,558

He used 11:25
Last time I made the test I used around 12 min.

So how can you do the 12000x6000 almost 3 times faster.
That does not make sense unless you actually used 8bit images as source.

Hans


>
> Bostjan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hans <hans@...>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 11:38:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook
> Pro
>
>  
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't mention that I stiched with the latest PTGui 8.x. I have downloaded
> >the
> >
> > latest PTGui 9.x today and tried to stich with the same settings and same PC. I
> >
> > left the corest to "auto", that is 8 threads. And new stiching time? 1 min 33
> > sec, that is 1 min 2 sec faster. Faster stiching with PTGui as beter using of
> > cores?
>
> This can not be correct. The fact is that Joost has changed the autosetting to 4
> threads for  in the final version of PTGui9. I doubt he made that only on Mac,
> the processor is the same and  the problem the same on Windows.
>
> And on Windows if you used 8.3.10  64 bit it was actually faster. I cant test
> this on this large panorama as version 8 was 32 bit on Mac  but for smaller
> panoramas my speed is increased by 20% compared to 8.3.10. Joost has confirmed
> this after several reported it.
> Some people reported much larger difference.
>
> I did a new test on the final version  and got 2.43 with the auto setting which
> now is 4 threads.  Increasing it to 8 resulted in tripling the stitching time  
> to 8.11
>
> Maybe you forgot to set it to 16 bit.
> Outputting same panorama at 8bit only takes 1.20 with 4 threads.
>
> Hans
>
> >
> > Bostjan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:
> >
> > > After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747: i7,
>
> > > Q720,@ GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
>
> > > used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark
> >
> > > II) ... settings to compare with yours.
> > >
> > > Bostjan
>
>  
>
>
>      
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook Pro

Bostjan Burger
I used RAW images. Windows experience index of Dell is 7.1. Timing was accurate,
starting after pressing "create" panorama and ending after the end of the
progressive bar.
What else to do? ...it is the standard way I do VRPs...except I don't use 8 but
7 images. I didn't try with my new Qosmio, but the resoult will be most probably
even faster...
I use machines as a working horses so everything "artistic" was disabled and I
never had problems with Windows.

Bostjan




________________________________
From: Hans <[hidden email]>
To: [hidden email]
Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 4:19:21 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook
Pro

 


--- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@...> wrote:

>
> Some more: (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D Mark)
>
> 4 cores: 1 min 10 sec
> 2 cores: 1 min:40 sec
> 3 cores: 1 min 35 sec
>
> comparing with my previous tests and the same mesthod the use of 4 cores with
> PTGui 9.x is the fastest.
> That was all with Win 7 64-bit. I don't know for the Mac....

I have to say I find your report very difficult to believe.

Your Dell has a benchmark here of 3,258
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/high_end_cpus.html

My iMac processor has 5,554

If you look at this Gigapixel test
http://hdview.at/speedtest/results.html
you find a Dell Dell XPS 435 Core i7 920 2,66 with almost same Benchmark as my
iMac 5,558

He used 11:25
Last time I made the test I used around 12 min.

So how can you do the 12000x6000 almost 3 times faster.
That does not make sense unless you actually used 8bit images as source.

Hans

>
> Bostjan
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Hans <hans@...>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Sat, December 4, 2010 11:38:31 AM
> Subject: Re: Fw: [PanoToolsNG] MacBook Air 11" against iMac i7 and 2006 MacBook
>
> Pro
>
>
>
>
> --- In [hidden email], Bostjan Burger <si_lander@> wrote:
> >
> > I didn't mention that I stiched with the latest PTGui 8.x. I have downloaded

> >the
> >
> > latest PTGui 9.x today and tried to stich with the same settings and same PC.
>I
>
> >
> > left the corest to "auto", that is 8 threads. And new stiching time? 1 min 33
>
> > sec, that is 1 min 2 sec faster. Faster stiching with PTGui as beter using of
>
> > cores?
>
> This can not be correct. The fact is that Joost has changed the autosetting to
>4
>
> threads for  in the final version of PTGui9. I doubt he made that only on Mac,

> the processor is the same and  the problem the same on Windows.
>
> And on Windows if you used 8.3.10  64 bit it was actually faster. I cant test
> this on this large panorama as version 8 was 32 bit on Mac  but for smaller
> panoramas my speed is increased by 20% compared to 8.3.10. Joost has confirmed

> this after several reported it.
> Some people reported much larger difference.
>
> I did a new test on the final version  and got 2.43 with the auto setting which
>
> now is 4 threads.  Increasing it to 8 resulted in tripling the stitching time
> to 8.11
>
> Maybe you forgot to set it to 16 bit.
> Outputting same panorama at 8bit only takes 1.20 with 4 threads.
>
> Hans
>
> >
> > Bostjan
> >
> >
> >
> > On Nov 30, 2010, at 21:09, Bostjan Burger wrote:
> >
> > > After your posting I did a quickie test on my portable Dell Studio 1747:
>i7,
>
>
> > > Q720,@ GHz, 8 GB DDr3 1333 Mhz, 64-bit Win7, settings to 4 cores, 69% Ram
>
> > > used (default) = 2 min 35 sec. (12000x6000 16 bit from 8 images Canon 5D
>Mark
>
> >
> > > II) ... settings to compare with yours.
> > >
> > > Bostjan
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>


 


     

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

12
Loading...