Post subject: Re: Stack software, comparative speed, optimizations and oth
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 11:58 am
Valued Contributor
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:24 am Posts: 168
Hi to all,
I run some times the test now with Adobe Photoshop CS4 and works some times but notever, some times block the Photoshop.
In some times too need a long time (i think block but not).
I only can run the 100 photographs, the test of 400 it's impossible in my computer with CS4 version.
See the next table:
You can compare the total time with my first table in the first post. The time to process is very high compared with specific stack programs. Now see the stacked images.
Curiously the time to align the images cropping is very high (See red text in table). I repeat three times; the first and second need a lot of time respect to the rest of test. The third block the Photoshop.
The quality of result is very poor in Photoshop CS4. See the next image:
Left Zerene 1/2 original size, Right Photoshop CS4 1/2 Original size
Some object missing, the texture is poor near to the hairs, etc.
I think that Photoshop not is a solution for good stacks, the time is very high, some times block the Photoshop and to process a big number of pictures, need a very high memory capacity.
Post subject: Re: Stack software, comparative speed, optimizations and oth
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 10:36 am
Moderator
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:42 pm Posts: 4091 Location: the Netherlands
I can try it again on B's computer (slightly newer) but Jester's setup is sweet as can be and if his crashed mine will fo shua... I hadn't seen Jester's post before I started...
The thing is though... when shooting macro like in Oscar's example you don't need 100 shots and with just a few pics photoshop does pull it off. Your DOF is still acceptable with low magnification. When shooting super micro your DOF decreases in such a way that you will need more shots to get a bit of depth.
Lemmie cook up an example, there must be a dead fly around somewhere...
Post subject: Re: Stack software, comparative speed, optimizations and oth
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 12:44 pm
Valued Contributor
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2013 6:24 am Posts: 168
The fly is not important, is only one example with 100 and 400 photographs. There are people of insects over 1,500 photos. In rare gems reach 100. But with this example you can see if the programs are able to function well and how long it takes to do so. That is my intention of this report.
The results are disappointing with Photoshop including a great computer with lots of resources.
Post subject: Re: Stack software, comparative speed, optimizations and oth
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:46 pm
Moderator
Joined: Thu Dec 13, 2007 3:42 pm Posts: 4091 Location: the Netherlands
So... PS CS6 doesn't do that good a job either. A light stack of 23 shots went though without melt down and resulted in the following:
The way to do this is outlined in this tutorial. There is other stacking options in PS but they result in very arty pics and have very little to do with focus stacking.
I ran that same stack through the two different versions of CombineZ: CZM and CZP. CZP is way faster than CZM and yields similar results.
CZP: (See file names for stacking mode and be your own judge)
Post subject: Re: Stack software, comparative speed, optimizations and oth
Posted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 3:55 pm
Valued Contributor
Joined: Fri Jun 21, 2013 8:14 am Posts: 108
Barbra Voltaire wrote:
I wasn't expecting that result.
Sadly, I was It's not horribly surprising, it is a pasted-on feature in PS rather than the sole function of the program like Heliocon. If I ever build or get a good macro rail, I'll be buying a copy of Focus.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum