Testing the speed of my shiny new PC with deep-ish stacks using full-res 16-bit TIFFs. First two with Minolta 5400 onto full-frame (42 mpix, 140@1.2x & 180@2.0x frames), last one a 10x Mitty onto APS-C crop (18mpix - 430 frames). Whooosh - done!
And a stereo...
Self Heal (Prunella vulgaris) - stereo added
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Very nice, I like the light.
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Best regards
Jörgen Hellberg
Jörgen Hellberg, my webbsite www.hellberg.photo
Thanks. Obviously the images above are cropped, but I stacked all of them as full frames. 16-bit uncompressed TIFFs. PMax with shift, scaling and "use all channels" turned on. Not counting file import and export, stats and sizes were...AlxndrBrg wrote:Gorgeous!
I'm curious about your stacking speeds, how long it take to complete, and what processor are you using?
First image (DImage 5400), 121 frames (forgot I cut some frames), 7952x5304 (42mpix), 277 secs (4m37s)
Second image, didn't note the time
Last image (Mitty 10x), 438 frames, 5168x3448 (18mpix), 532secs (8m52s)
Stereo, didn't note the time
CPU is a stock Intel Core i9-7940X with 14 cores - liquid cooled. Rated at 3.1GHz, but generally runs cores at around 3.8GHz (it's not overclocked). RAM is 64Gb of 3600MHz DDR4. Hard drives are Seagate 2Tb Barracuda Pros.
My old PC starts paging with this much image data and easily takes half an hour to an hour, and I can't use it for anything else until stacking completes. There's plenty of horsepower left to do other things simultaneously on the new machine. So that's why these results feel seriously "Whooosh" to me