Is Nikon intending to abstract the esence of focus stacking?

This area is for the discussion of what's new, what's on your mind, and general photographic topics. A place to meet, make comments on this site, and get the latest community news.

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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

All Ex
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:54 am
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

Post by All Ex »

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)

:smt105
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20855
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

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

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20855
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

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

All Ex
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:54 am
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

Post by All Ex »

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

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20855
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

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

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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. ;).
Chris R

All Ex
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:54 am
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

Post by All Ex »

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

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

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 :lol:.
Chris R

mawyatt
Posts: 2473
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

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

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20855
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

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

mawyatt
Posts: 2473
Joined: Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:54 pm
Location: Clearwater

Post by mawyatt »

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

All Ex
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:54 am
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

Post by All Ex »

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

ChrisR
Site Admin
Posts: 8546
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 3:58 am
Location: Near London, UK

Post by ChrisR »

People will disagree on what is "significant" :).
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

All Ex
Posts: 258
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 3:54 am
Location: Greece Thessaloniki

Post by All Ex »

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,

\:D/
All--Ex
My YouTube initial video

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic