Focus Stacking
Jan 24, 2018 05:10:19 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
The major drawback to stacking is that it requires lots of computer resources.
Truth is, it isn't a drawback at all. If your computer struggles to do a stack, then it is probably struggling to do things like apply a gaussian blur, which really consumes ram and cpu time, along with many other tasks. Stacking is relatively benign. Any properly configured computer with at least 16 gb ram and a quadcore CPU should be able to handle stacking.
Jan 24, 2018 05:21:55 #
Gene51 wrote:
Truth is, it isn't a drawback at all. If your computer struggles to do a stack, then it is probably struggling to do things like apply a gaussian blur, which really consumes ram and cpu time, along with many other tasks. Stacking is relatively benign. Any properly configured computer with at least 16 gb ram and a quadcore CPU should be able to handle stacking.
I’ve used a MBP exclusively for stacking for several years. Not an issue for me.
Jan 24, 2018 06:14:40 #
Not even close to truth.. I move my camera forward while stacking, have hundreds of examples that are Tack Sharp.......
Bobspez wrote:
If you move the camera the images may not stack as they become different sizes.
Feb 4, 2018 01:35:54 #
Gene51 wrote:
Truth is, it isn't a drawback at all. If your computer struggles to do a stack, then it is probably struggling to do things like apply a gaussian blur, which really consumes ram and cpu time, along with many other tasks. Stacking is relatively benign. Any properly configured computer with at least 16 gb ram and a quadcore CPU should be able to handle stacking.
Shit, I do stacking on a computer with less than 1GB of ram!
Feb 4, 2018 02:08:21 #
Festus wrote:
If you are going to spend $ for Zerene Stacker, please do some research on Helicon Focus and compare the 2. Many prefer Helicon, ease of use, more intuitive than Zerene, and possibly more features. Just saying, Zerene not necessarily the "best available".
FWIW, I started with Helicon Focus and used it for three years. I stacked the same sets using both software—and I stand by my statement. So I did all the research I needed to do....
http://extreme-macro.co.uk/zerene-stacker/
Feb 4, 2018 05:53:13 #
speters wrote:
Shit, I do stacking on a computer with less than 1GB of ram!
It's all about the size of the image and how long you want to sit there waiting for the layers to align and merge. If I used a 2 mp camera I could theoretically do it on my phone. I doubt you would be successful if you were stacking 40 D850 psd images, with a computer that only has 1 gb ram.
Feb 4, 2018 05:54:38 #
LoneRangeFinder wrote:
I’ve used a MBP exclusively for stacking for several years. Not an issue for me.
Good for you!
Feb 4, 2018 06:01:16 #
cactuspic wrote:
Both methods will work; but, depending on the magnification, one will work better. For magnifications of 1:1 or less, turning the focus ring tends to work better. For magnifications greater than 1:1, a rail works better. If you go to the Zerene Stacker website, there is a tutorial on this very topic by the author of Zerene.
In addition to the true macro forum, the website photomacrography.net is a wealth of info. Enjoy stacking although it can become addictive.
In addition to the true macro forum, the website photomacrography.net is a wealth of info. Enjoy stacking although it can become addictive.
Stacking is not just about macro. And for landscape, moving the camera is not an option. Here is an example of a shot I did the past Friday. I wanted the compression of a 120mm lens, but at 10 ft, the distance from my camera to the rocks in the foreground, the DoF is only about 20 inches at F13.5. This was a 5 shot stack. The DoF at the furthest distance was about 30 ft, and the shortest was 1.66 ft.
Feb 4, 2018 08:25:14 #
speters wrote:
Shit, I do stacking on a computer with less than 1GB of ram!
How much less than 1 gb do you have and in what computer is that?
Here are the memory usage stats on a small 9 frame focus stack. It shows 10.5 gb ram in use after loading the nine images, then 15.0 during alignment and 17.7 at the end of merging the images.
Now I suppose if you have a large hard drive and you have set aside 50 gb for a scratch disk you could, in theory get away with less than 1 gb ram. But I would expect that it would take a while and that would take all the fun out of it . . .
On my Intel i7-2600K running at 5 ghz, with 32 gb ram, it took 1 min, 16 secs to align and merge the 9 images.
.
.
Feb 4, 2018 08:54:41 #
Screamin Scott wrote:
The major drawback to stacking is that it requires lots of computer resources.
Unless you have a camera with stacking built in.
Feb 6, 2018 00:45:57 #
Gene51 wrote:
It's all about the size of the image and how long you want to sit there waiting for the layers to align and merge. If I used a 2 mp camera I could theoretically do it on my phone. I doubt you would be successful if you were stacking 40 D850 psd images, with a computer that only has 1 gb ram.
Maybe not, but I have stacked about a hundred images from the 5D M III!
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.