www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - Is Nikon intending to abstract the esence of focus stacking?
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Is Nikon intending to abstract the esence of focus stacking?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7368
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 8:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

D850 is actually quicker in full res mode because it doesn't have to shrink the files.
ZS I believe unpacks tiff or jpeg, to the same size to work on.
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
All Ex



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 222
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 10:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The conclusion will be the quality of the final image, that will possibly be by combining tiff photos that will come from raw photos with the max resolution (and the weight of them in MB I suppose) although the small raws will be having the same res.
The quality will certainly be enhanced, with the back lit sensor. I`m only considering if it will worth the effort, as we claim to be amateurs and the majority of us did its investment in Stack Shot and building a rig on that.
On the other hand:

  • Electronic shutter
  • Speed
  • Back lit sensor (some were claiming of lower dynamic range)
  • More Megapixels
  • Blotooth & wi-fi (no cables)


_________________
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18365
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

All Ex wrote:
although the small raws will be having the same res.

According to Nikon, "Seamlessly switch between raw sizes of Large (45.4 MP), Medium (25.6 MP) and Small (11.4 MP), whichever fits your need or workflow."

Sounds to me like "small raw" will be 1/2 the resolution of "large raw", on each axis. Only 1/4 as many total pixels.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18365
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:09 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ChrisR wrote:
ZS I believe unpacks tiff or jpeg, to the same size to work on.

Correct. Internally, all images are handled by ZS as 32-bit floating point color (that is, three 32-bit values per pixel). The conversion to that format from external 8- or 16-bit color, possibly compressed, is a small part of the overall processing time.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
All Ex



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 222
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thus we ought to use the large raw, as I said. Meaning that ZS will have to deal with the BIG files if it makes any difference, according to your last post it doesn`t.
Thus the only problem will be the storage of that large files.
_________________
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18365
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 1:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Processing time is proportional to the number of pixels.

Memory requirement is proportional to the number of pixels.

At same pixel count, file format and size do not matter much.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7368
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

With an 8TB external drive from $200, storage is not too much of a problem.

Canon Sony and Olympus already had 40MB plus, so any improvements for high magnification macro coming from this camera don't look more than incremental.
(As I wrote in another thread, the auto stacking as provided, is a bit disappointing. Though it may be fantastic with a firmware update?)
They may well add up to be significant, if you make images large enough. I'd buy one if only it had a pop-up flash. Nice cup stand, though. Wink.
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
All Ex



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 222
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

what is your estimation in the rise of pixels from 36 to 46?
About the memory requirements, we figured it out, will it be an acceptable rise in the processing time?
This answer is already answered from CrisR, it must be a matter of memory in the end.
The only thing that bothers me is the time will be required and consumed processing the resulting tiff files.

(I`m in the time to decide to take a fresh camera, I`ll first have to ensure my workflow with my D800. My decision tends to be a used D800E for financial reasons, but I`ll wait for the first reviews of the D850 and the financial things here in Greece.)
There is always the problem of the compatibility of it with the lenses that CrisR mentioned.
_________________
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7368
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 2:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rise of what?
Sqrt(46/36) = 13% larger picture width.
Some advantages from a D800. No AA filter, much less shutter vibration.
Noise perhaps not an issue, Dynamic range only slightly better, speed not an issue. Faster memory card may upload to your PC faster. What else, that matters?
But we're talking about a new camera to play with. Let's not pretend rationality has much to do with it Laughing.
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1130
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The D5, D500, D800, D810 and new D850 can produce TIFF files directly in the camera, no need to convert RAW to TIFF. This can save a significant amount of overall image processing time, just importing TIFF files directly into Zerene.

The time it takes to convert the files in the camera varies for each camera body. You can use this time to allow your focus rail system to stabilize by overlapping it with the settling time after a focus rail move. I usually trigger an image capture then move the focus rail right after the rear shutter closes, while the TIFF file is being created in the camera. This usually saves a couple seconds per stack.

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 18365
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mawyatt wrote:
The D5, D500, D800, D810 and new D850 can produce TIFF files directly in the camera, no need to convert RAW to TIFF.

I'm under the impression that the camera's TIFF is limited to 8-bit color. Is that correct, or have I missed an option for deeper pixels?

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
mawyatt



Joined: 22 Aug 2013
Posts: 1130
Location: Clearwater

PostPosted: Thu Aug 24, 2017 6:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
mawyatt wrote:
The D5, D500, D800, D810 and new D850 can produce TIFF files directly in the camera, no need to convert RAW to TIFF.

I'm under the impression that the camera's TIFF is limited to 8-bit color. Is that correct, or have I missed an option for deeper pixels?

--Rik


Rik,

Yes it's 8 bits per channel. Long ago I found that I got better results with these TIFF files than JPEG. I had some banding issues with JPEG images when stacking but not so with TIFF. I did convert the RAW files to 16 bit TIFF before I found the camera can produce the TIFF files directly. Then I switched to in camera TIFF.

I use the 16 bit TIFF in everything after the initial image capture.

I haven't compared an in camera generated TIFF and a RAW converted TIFF to see what the difference might be.

Best,

Mike
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
All Ex



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 222
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 12:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dear friends,

mawyatt:
If you do that comparison don`t forget to tell us what will be the results of it.
I`ll switch it to tiff as well too.

CrisR:
Don`t you think that all that issues (by adding them together) are forming an issue on the final result that is by far not an insignificant one. And that 13% better quality is a feature that is adding to them.
(and to clarify things another fancy toy is the last that I need in my present financial situation.)

And a consideration of mine that bothers me for a while now:

What is the cause that serves the settling time in stack shot? as soon as the actional trigger in our case is the flash, the duration of which is insignificant.
The slight movement I think can be corrected inside the ZS.
_________________
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 7368
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

People will disagree on what is "significant" Smile.
Is this for competitive commercial use, or enjoyment?

If the photos are for web use, maximum perhaps 1600 pixels wide, then if you have a sensor 7379 wide, would it help to have 13% more?
Then would the lack of AA filter make a difference?

If you're doing microscopy, how many pixels can your optics use?
But then the silent shutter will help, in many setups.

Plus, there is a number of details we don't know about, afaik, such as how you can use flash, in all shutter modes.
_________________
Chris R
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
All Ex



Joined: 20 Jul 2015
Posts: 222
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

PostPosted: Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for giving me more arguments to make the decision not to take that thing, I`m on that side of the scale and a final boost won't do me any harm.
Besides a new version of my rig is almost ready, it would be a huge waste of effort and money to come now to a bitter end in all that rig construction procedure.

Cheers my friends,

Dancing
_________________
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> General Discussion Forum and Community Announcements All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Page 2 of 6

 
Jump to:  
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 vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group