www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - "Stacking mush" -- an example
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 
"Stacking mush" -- an example

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17869
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Thu Apr 01, 2010 1:09 pm    Post subject: "Stacking mush" -- an example Reply with quote

Periodically we talk about "stacking mush". This is a term coined by phero66 back on Jan 30, 2007 in his POST with the same title. Stacking mush describes a condition in which stacking software is unable to determine which frames are in sharpest focus in part of the image, so that part ends up being constructed mostly from out-of-focus information. The problem becomes more common with deeper stacks and low contrast detail.

I've written before that Zerene Stacker is less vulnerable to stacking mush than some other packages.

Here is a particularly good example that I ran into last spring while photographing "High style of a maple flower".



All images produced with default parameters, no retouching, no post-processing except for resizing and assembly into this panel. These images processed today, using Helicon Focus 5.0.6 and Zerene Stacker 1.02 Build T201002062230.

To be fair, this is what I would call an "illustrative example". In other words, this is the most extreme case I've ever seen and I'm showing it to make a point.

On the other hand, having now compared a lot of stacked results generated by various methods, I've come to think that stacking mush is actually very common but often goes unrecognized.

I know that I'm frequently surprised to layer up a set of results, flash between them, and realize that what I thought was a nice result is actually missing a lot of detail that was in the original frames but never made it through to the final output.

Whatever downsides it might have, ZS PMax hardly ever misses any detail, so it has become my standard of comparison. Even when I decide to use ZS DMap because of its lower noise and better colors, I always do a flashing comparison against PMax to see if there is some additional detail that I should think about retouching from PMax into the DMap master.

BTW, in case you're wondering why I don't show a ZS DMap result in the above panel, that's because with default parameters, it's awful. With modified parameters, it works pretty well (somewhat better than I've been able to get by tuning HF), but setting the parameters is definitely a matter of "some experimentation required". I did do that for the big image in the "High style" post, and as noted there that image was generated by a combination of PMax and DMap.

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



Joined: 22 Nov 2007
Posts: 1561
Location: UK

PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rik - Impressive demo Smile.
I assume the stacking mush you are referring to is the missing detail in the middle of the flower rather than the haloing around the outside ?

One of the main differences I noticed between zerene and the combine series was the ability of zerene to retain low contrast detail especially on flowers.

Brian V.
_________________
www.flickr.com/photos/lordv
canon20D,350D,40D,5Dmk2, sigma 105mm EX, Tamron 90mm, canon MPE-65
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
pierre



Joined: 04 Jan 2010
Posts: 227
Location: France, Var, Toulon

PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rik,

I found out the same problem when I use more the 20 frames on CZP for sub millimetric FOV and low contrast even after fine setting the parameters.

Only solution yet: splitting by batches the whole series.


I will try ZS to test the difference.


Best Regards,
Pierre
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 17869
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

LordV wrote:
I assume the stacking mush you are referring to is the missing detail in the middle of the flower rather than the haloing around the outside ?

Correct.

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



Joined: 27 Mar 2010
Posts: 388
Location: Japan

PostPosted: Sat Apr 03, 2010 8:52 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Cool info man! Thanks RJ.


For those interested in this topic we kind of got into it in this thread as well:

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9333

Mmmm Smile More yummy RJ tidbits! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
PaulFurman



Joined: 24 Oct 2009
Posts: 595
Location: SF, CA, USA

PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

rjlittlefield wrote:
LordV wrote:
I assume the stacking mush you are referring to is the missing detail in the middle of the flower rather than the haloing around the outside ?

Correct.


That's the same effect DMap gave me with a medium threshold. I don't really understand yet but maybe it would have been splotchy in those areas with a zero threshold so best to wipe it out like that, then stack with PMax, I guess...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
ChrisR
Site Admin


Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Posts: 6985
Location: Near London, UK

PostPosted: Sun Apr 04, 2010 10:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have yet to produce a usable image from Dmap, regardless of settings! There are always too many areas of lost detail (mush?), and/or little areas of concentric "contour maps", which would need retouching. Putting Threshold more than zero has only ever made it worse.
Maybe one day, though I usually don't run it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
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