but that might mean waiting forever.Īs an example, here is a hillside on Anzo-Borrego. Wind whipping through the scene continuously, and everything that was not a rock or the ground was whipping back and forth. I took a series of frames and finally chose two for the stacking, one close and one far. ( EDIT: The following series of comparisons were made using Zerene Stacker's default settings. After a little bit of reading, I found that As I found out, though, these do not work well when there is subject movement AND result in washed out contrast. Slight adjustments to the Zerene Stacker default settings: (1) DMap, with Radius = 1/100 to 1/200 of the pixel width and (2) disabling extended dynamic range preservation fixed the ghosting and washed out contrast, respectively, I note below. This, of course, makes most of the following invalid. For the results with the correct settings, see here. )īelow are side-by-side images of Helicon Focus Method B depth map with default settings (on the left) and Zerene Stacker PMax (on the right), followed by my observations. These were the methods for each that performed best out of the box with the default settings - I did not understand (yet) either program to do anything with any of options/parameters (smoothing etc.). I am open to learning and perhaps someone with a better understanding of either program can come up with ways that flip the results or show that they are more equivalent than I found.Īlso, I am very aware that the subjects moving in the frame wildly violates the basic assumptions/conditions/expectations of either program, so this is very much an "unfair" stress test! But (a) this was the point of the test, and (b) these violations are very common in landscape photography. (1) By default, the Zerene images are significantly lower contrast, looking pale and washed out, compared to the Helicon Focus or even the originals.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |