Stacked Rose

I've been having a look at focus stacking software.

I tried CombineZM, but found that Helicon gives better results without having to fiddle with obscure (to me) parameters.

My biggest problem is actually shooting the frames. My eyesight combined with the small 350D viewfinder makes it impossibly difficult to see what's in focus. My problem was partially solved by a suggestion from another Helicon user.

Here's a rose bud using Helicon to stack 16 frames and achieve a DOF of about 1.5 inches.

EOS 350D, EF-S 60mm macro, f5.6, ~1/3 sec, ISO 100.



The full size 47 Mb 16-bit TIFF is even more impressive.

Regards,

Stuart

Stuart,

This is a fruitful area to work in to get 3D detail and feelings in any object.

I see an unusually strong 3D effect in the leaves and bud. The petals are harder to see in the same way perhaps because I'm forced to use my laptop screen and because of what JPG does to such relatively large almost continuous areas of one color. This is the sort of image that is best seen as a print. That after all is the final goal and where your work will pay off.

What would be nice is to compare this with a photograph taken under like conditions with a 50 1.4 or similar lens in one shot and see how different the presence is. Do you have something like that?

What hints did your Helicon-user friend provide you?

Hi, Stuart,

StuartRae said:

Here's a rose bud using Helicon to stack 16 frames and achieve a DOF of about 1.5 inches.

Click to expand...

Wonderful result!

Hi, Stuart,

StuartRae said:

I tried CombineZM, but found that Helicon gives better results without having to fiddle with obscure (to me) parameters.

Click to expand...

Could you give us a brief description as to how this is done in Helicon Filter (the basic scenario and procedure)?

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Asher,

The petals are harder to see in the same way perhaps because I'm forced to use my laptop screen and because of what JPG does to such relatively large almost continuous areas of one color.

Click to expand...

I can see quite a bit of detail on my NEC 2190, but the TIFF is better.

What would be nice is to compare this with a photograph taken under like conditions with a 50 1.4 or similar lens in one shot

Click to expand...

I don't have exactly what you ask, and am not likely to, as shortly after the shoot the rose committed suicide by discarding all its petals.
However, here's one of the frames. At 60mm and f5.6 the DOF is about 0.18". Even at f16 it would only be 0.3".

What hints did your Helicon-user friend provide you?

Click to expand...

Well, I don't suppose it's a state secret, so here's a transcription:

"A new technique I tried yesterday is to...

1. Get the furthest point in manual focus through the viewfinder.
2. Stand up and look at the barrel adjuster of the lens.
3. Take one shot
4. Without looking through viewfinder again, fractionally $$ turn the adjuster and shoot. Repeat until you are sure you have moved beyond focus of the nearest point of the subject - you can check through viewfinder.

I find doing it that way you take more shots, which is what you want, but you don't have to use them all. You end up with a shot more in focus. Because you are not looking through the viewfinder you tend to turn the adjuster a smaller amount.

Told you that you needed patience. "

$$ and he really means fractionally!!


Regards,

Stuart

Thanks, Stuart for that example.

It gives a kinda supernatural look, as nor our eyes, nor a cam would have that wide DOF - especially in the macro range.

IMO, the use of that software will be limited to few genres, but I could imagine using it occasionally for enlarging the DOF of architecture model shots. As they have added a mac-version, some 2 years ago, there wasn't...

Which version of Helicon focus did you use, the lite or the pro?
It's license expires after a year - funny sort of license - so it might be bought for a specific job only....

Photoacute has a imagingstack-function, too; in a test I did, it worked so lala...

Michael Fontana said:

Photoacute has a imagingstack-function, too; in a test I did, it worked so lala...

Click to expand...

"so lala"? Do you mean lala "Great!" or "only "So so"?

Hi Asher

"so lala" means here okay, but not superb....

I might add, that I did 2 tests (PhotoAcute) only, trying to enhance DOF from 40 cm, as closest point, to 70 cm, in focus steps of 5 cm - quite a difficult task. For sending it to a client, about one hour of PS-retouching would have been necessairy - 120 MB-tiff.

I'm aware, that Focus-stacking works in certain limits: if the lens - by focus adjusting - projects to different images on the sensor, it might not work 100%.

Hi Doug,

Thanks for the comments.

Your posts seem to have crept in while I was replying to Asher. Apologies for not answering sooner.

Could you give us a brief description as to how this is done in Helicon Filter (the basic scenario and procedure)?

Click to expand...

Well, it's embarrassingly simple really! It's a matter of File | Add New Items, selecting your images from the standard Windows file open, and then clicking the Run button. Sit back and wait, and then File | Save.

The only choices you get are Method A (Single pass based on weighted average) or Method B (Double pass based on depth map) and two sliders for Radius and Smoothing.

I found that Method B gave the best results but took longer. I left the sliders in their default positions.

It's also interesting, but maybe not surprising, to discover that the software doesn't work as well with JPEGs. I assume that edges get confused by artefacts.

Regards,

Stuart

Hi Michael,

Which version of Helicon focus did you use, the lite or the pro?
It's license expires after a year - funny sort of license........

Click to expand...

I'm using the trial version - 16 days remaining. It appears to be based on Pro.

Time to decide whether or not to buy. The expiring license may influence the decision.

Regards,

Stuart

Michael Fontana said:

I'm aware, that Focus-stacking works in certain limits: if the lens - by focus adjusting - projects to different images on the sensor, it might not work 100%.

Click to expand...

Successful focus-stacking depends on a few prerequisites.
1. The images must be taken from the exact same shooting position,
2. There should be some DOF overlap between images,
3. The exposure levels should be (close to) identical,
4. The images should be pixel accurately registered.

Numbers 3 and 4 can be software adjustments on the input images, prior to the actual stacking operation.

You correctly address the need for the individual images to be pixel perfectly aligned/registered. When we change focus, especially noticeable in close-up and macro/micro photography, the magnification factor of the image from most lenses changes. A dedicated program like Helicon Focus addresses that by (optionally) resizing/registering the images.

Using an alternative program like TuFuse Pro for focus-stacking (currently) assumes the images to be in alignment, and Photoshop CS3, or a Pano-stitching or Astro-stacking application, could be used for that.

Bart

So here' s the Photoacuteexample; the ghosting is quite obvious in the 100%-crop, meanwhile the entire frame is at the bottom. But ghosting isn't existing in the entire image. The Leicaboxes are just simulating a architecture modell ;-)



PhotoAcute can expand DOF, do image stacking, maybe its just a to big step from 40 - 70 cm, in 5 cm intervalls. Probably from 40 - 45 cm, one should have a additional step. The f-stop has been set at 11, to avoid diffraction. Canon 50 mm macro, on FF.

Stuart, did you have some ghosting viewed in 100 % as well?

Hi Michael,

Stuart, did you have some ghosting viewed in 100 % as well?

Click to expand...

Nothing that I'm able to see. Here's a 100% crop.



Helicon allows you to adjust the sharpness/ghosting compromise by the Radius and Smoothness sliders.

It also includes some basic image retouching tools which can remove such ghosting.

Regards,

Stuart

Thanks Stuart

so Helicon's focus filter - with its adjustements of sharpness/ghosting - offers better tools for stacking. Good to know...

Stuart, I can appreciate but do not understand the technique. must be difficult to master!

Hi Fahim,

...the technique. must be difficult to master!

Click to expand...

Yes, it's difficult for me because:

a. My eyesight's not all that good;
b. The viewfinder on my 350D is too small for accurate manual focus, even if my eyes were OK.

However, the technique outlined elsewhere in this thread does allow me to produce multiple frames. Once these have been taken, the rest is straightforward.

Regards,

Stuart

For some photos of art objects I needed a macro and a longer DOF; using the 100 mm macro (on FF) and giving Photoacute's focus stacking another try:

it worked out perfectly, extending DOF from about 110 to 150 cm.

The example with the Leica boxes (above) have been done with the 50 mm macro.

A longer lens has a lower magnification factor of the image, therefore it works better.