Caedes
Upload Images
Welcome guest
Log In or Register
User Stats
- 1 total users online
- 42 users active today
- 259163 total members
- +show users online
Photography
Discussion Board -> Photography -> Focus Stacking in Macro Photography
Focus Stacking in Macro Photography
Comments
Post a Comment - Subscribe to this discussion
I got better results with the trial version of this one. I'm just not into it enough to spend that kind of money yet.
Zerene Stacker
. Professional Edition, $289 USD
· Personal Edition, $89 USD
· Student Edition, $39 USD
Zerene Stacker
. Professional Edition, $289 USD
· Personal Edition, $89 USD
· Student Edition, $39 USD
0∈
[?]
Just out of curiosity, David ... your rig's CPU and GPU power and then that of processing an image such as these, took how long?
/\ Looking for a ballpark benchmark of sorts.
/\ Looking for a ballpark benchmark of sorts.
0∈
[?]
"There is always something waiting at the end of the road ... if you're not willing to see what it is ... you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place."
OK.
Mac OS X 10.6.3
2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Stack 23 .tif format photos.
Approximately 36 MB each / 828.6MB total.
Stack PMAX about 3min 40sec
Stack DMAP less than 6Min
DMAP aligns and combines then asks for user input on the contrast threshold then refines the final image.
DMAP gives a better overall image but is more prone to artifacts. ( I think )
Mac OS X 10.6.3
2.8 GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
4GB 800 MHz DDR2 SDRAM
Stack 23 .tif format photos.
Approximately 36 MB each / 828.6MB total.
Stack PMAX about 3min 40sec
Stack DMAP less than 6Min
DMAP aligns and combines then asks for user input on the contrast threshold then refines the final image.
DMAP gives a better overall image but is more prone to artifacts. ( I think )
0∈
[?]
Thanks, David. Appreciate the information, as I was curious just how much processing power one needed on the graphics and cpu fronts.
And then how long things took.
Between the two sample images? That of the DMAP and PMAX?
Ehhh ... to my eyes and almost hands down, the PMAX is superior. Better contrast, better meshing/blending/stacking.
In short, clarity is improved.
In just examining the furthest right-hand portions of the DMAP image ... some blurring is still evident.
The contrast differences could ... could, lead to the appearance of being sharper. That one area aside.
And then how long things took.
Between the two sample images? That of the DMAP and PMAX?
Ehhh ... to my eyes and almost hands down, the PMAX is superior. Better contrast, better meshing/blending/stacking.
In short, clarity is improved.
In just examining the furthest right-hand portions of the DMAP image ... some blurring is still evident.
The contrast differences could ... could, lead to the appearance of being sharper. That one area aside.
0∈
[?]
"There is always something waiting at the end of the road ... if you're not willing to see what it is ... you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place."
I suppose it depends on what your looking for.
PMAX is clearly sharper and more detailed. I'll give you that. To my eye however; the DMAP appears more fluid, especially in the clear parts of the plug. I did not care much for the right side either though. Neither is 100% perfect, especially unedited as I have posted them.
I claim no knowledge at all. I have stacked maybe 5 images all together including this one.
Here is the explanation from their documentation
Zerene Stacker — How to Use It
----------------------------------------------------
DMap versus PMax
To get the most benefit from using Zerene Stacker, it’s important to understand the differences between its two major stacking methods.
PMax is a “pyramid” method. It is very good at finding and preserving detail even in low contrast or slightly blurred areas. It's also very good at handling overlapping structures like crossing bristles. But PMax tends to increase noise and contrast, and it can alter colors somewhat.
DMap is a “depth map” method. It does a better job keeping the original smoothness and colors, but it's not as good at finding and preserving detail.
The two methods complement each other. Some types of subjects look good when they are processed automatically by PMax, but not by DMap. Other subjects are just the opposite. For particularly challenging subjects like bugs and flowers shot through microscope objectives, neither method is ideal by itself. In that case the best results are obtained by using human judgment and the retouching tool to combine the best aspects of both algorithms.
---------------------------------------------------
After reading these and other instructions I see I did not use the DMap method correctly. Remember I said it asks for user input? I input not good full of ignorance :P
So, When ya gonna post some focus stacked images Les?
PMAX is clearly sharper and more detailed. I'll give you that. To my eye however; the DMAP appears more fluid, especially in the clear parts of the plug. I did not care much for the right side either though. Neither is 100% perfect, especially unedited as I have posted them.
I claim no knowledge at all. I have stacked maybe 5 images all together including this one.
Here is the explanation from their documentation
Zerene Stacker — How to Use It
----------------------------------------------------
DMap versus PMax
To get the most benefit from using Zerene Stacker, it’s important to understand the differences between its two major stacking methods.
PMax is a “pyramid” method. It is very good at finding and preserving detail even in low contrast or slightly blurred areas. It's also very good at handling overlapping structures like crossing bristles. But PMax tends to increase noise and contrast, and it can alter colors somewhat.
DMap is a “depth map” method. It does a better job keeping the original smoothness and colors, but it's not as good at finding and preserving detail.
The two methods complement each other. Some types of subjects look good when they are processed automatically by PMax, but not by DMap. Other subjects are just the opposite. For particularly challenging subjects like bugs and flowers shot through microscope objectives, neither method is ideal by itself. In that case the best results are obtained by using human judgment and the retouching tool to combine the best aspects of both algorithms.
---------------------------------------------------
After reading these and other instructions I see I did not use the DMap method correctly. Remember I said it asks for user input? I input not good full of ignorance :P
So, When ya gonna post some focus stacked images Les?
0∈
[?]
(*checks temperature 'down below' ...*)
Soon?
:oP
Soon?
:oP
0∈
[?]
"There is always something waiting at the end of the road ... if you're not willing to see what it is ... you probably shouldn't be out there in the first place."
Pretty cool stuff....if only I was allowed to do it.
0∈
[?]
Procrastination is a high stakes game played at break-neck speeds and is not suggested for the fient of heart or week of mind
Photoshop also has this function since CS4 I think
0∈
[?]
A smart bomb is only as clever as the idiot that tells it what to do
The technique is called 'focus stacking'. Whereby, you take a series of photos with a narrow DOF ... and then using software ... combine them for an ultra-sharp image.
Here is the video.
Link to CombineZM downloads page ... found here.
Both the 'full' and 'small' versions are available at this link.
Actually there are four versions and all are freeware. The differences being, two do not include the 'Help' files, aside from that of the full and small versions.
Link to ... Helicon Focus program.
In their own words;
"Helicon Focus is a program that creates one completely focused image from several partially focused images by combining the focused areas."
Three versions available, namely; Helicon Focus Lite (basic version), Helicon Focus Pro (advanced version) and Helicon Focus Pro X64 (premium version). Cost is approximately $115, $200 and $250 respectively.