Zerene & Heliconsome random thoughts (Page 2): If using a Nikon Camera, Always, Always set your in Camera Sharpening up to at least Plus 3, when using JPEG. I set my D600 on Plus 6.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Macronaut wrote:

Most cameras have in camera jpeg settings such as "standard, neutral, vivid, landscape, sharpening, contrast, etc. I set mine to the least amout of in camera processing so, "neutral".

If using a Nikon Camera, Always, Always set your in Camera Sharpening up to at least Plus 3, when using JPEG. I set my D600 on Plus 6. The max setting Plus 9 is to much and will actually soften the photo.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

Here's what Helicon does: http://www.heliconsoft.com/raw-in-dng-out
I have always uploaded raw files into Helicon. It appears that Helicon converts these to DNG leaving the raw files intact.

Tiff 16bit is what I process.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

martinfisherphoto wrote:

Tiff 16bit is what I process.

I was doing some massive stacks, so I used jpegs. What's your max for numbers? I've been creating some "worse case scenarios". I'll do some TIFFs next week-end. Maybe limit to 15 or so, stacks.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

martinfisherphoto wrote:

If using a Nikon Camera, Always, Always set your in Camera Sharpening up to at least Plus 3, when using JPEG. I set my D600 on Plus 6. The max setting Plus 9 is to much and will actually soften the photo..

I have my D7100 set to "3". I'm curious why the FX benefits from more sharpening. I've been looking at some refurbed D610s.

Macronaut Loc: Redondo Beach,Ca.

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I have my D7100 set to "3". I'm curious why the FX benefits from more sharpening. I've been looking at some refurbed D610s.

Perhaps the OLPF needs compensation. The 7100 and 810 have none. I have noticed that even though I kept my sharpening in PP minimal with the 800E (with OLPF), I find I have back it off to almost half with 810 (no OLPF). It seems that the OLPF may just be the difference. I'm not certain what something like the 610 has.

Having said that, I think I will dial in a bit on the 810 and check to see where I have it set on the 7100.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I was doing some massive stacks, so I used jpegs. What's your max for numbers? I've been creating some "worse case scenarios". I'll do some TIFFs next week-end. Maybe limit it to 15 or so.

30 plus with some of my jumper stacks. My computer only has 4GB ram to run the software. It takes a minute or so to run the stack. Now Walt has 32GB ram to run his software and it takes seconds to run a stack this size. Guess it depends on your computer.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I have my D7100 set to "3". I'm curious why the FX benefits from more sharpening. I've been looking at some refurbed D610s.

Have you tried bumping it up a bit. I played with mine to come up with my settings.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

martinfisherphoto wrote:

Have you tried bumping it up a bit. I played with mine to come up with my settings.

I did. I tried "5" and it was too much. More testing is due.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

Macronaut wrote:

Perhaps the OLPF needs to be compensated for. The 7100 and 810 have none. I have noticed that even though I kept my sharpening in PP minimal with the 800E (with OLPF), I find I have back it off to almost half with 810 (no OLPF). It seems that the OLPF may just be the difference. I'm not certain what something like the 610 has.
Having said that, I think I will dial in a bit on the 810 and check to see where I have it set on the 7100.

I would if your running the JPEG for your stacks. Heck, you might blow us out of the water.

LoneRangeFinder Loc: Left field

martinfisherphoto wrote:

30 plus with some of my jumper stacks. My computer only has 4GB ram to run the software. It takes a minute or so to run the stack. Now Walt has 32GB ram to run his software and it takes seconds to run a stack this size. Guess it depends on your computer.

FWIW, I ran a TIFF stack of 47 through Zerene on my laptop and it was faster than I thought. There may be something else going on here, but it actually seemed to be faster with the TIFFS v. the jpegs. I saved the same batch as PNGs and Helicon quit on me. I have another week on my 30 days, but I'm liking Zerene.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

I did. I tried "5" and it was too much. More testing is due.

Good, you've found the right setting.

martinfisherphoto Loc: Lake Placid Florida

LoneRangeFinder wrote:

FWIW, I ran a TIFF stack of 47 through Zerene on my laptop and it was faster than I thought. There may be something else going on here, but it actually seemed to be faster with the TIFFS v. the jpegs. I saved the same batch as PNGs and Helicon quit on me. I have another week on my 30 days, but I'm liking Zerene.

Sounds good. The Micro Nuts run 500 plus, but they also break them up to 100 per stack then combine the finished 5 or 6 depending on size of stack. So 100 should be no problem.