Is Nikon intending to abstract the esence of focus stacking?

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:18 am

billjanes1 wrote:
ChrisR wrote:It's not a camera issue, but no, ZS doesn't accept Raw. Helicon sort-of does, but wouldn't you prefer to use your favourite Raw >Tiff processing program?

Stacking time in ZS depends on MP, not file size. My new fast-ish but not unusual PC should stack PMax at about 12-15 frames of 45MP per minute. That's OK by me.
I find it convenient to export 16 bit TIFs to Zerene from Lightroom. The TIFs are stored in a temporary directory and there is no need to save them, since they can be easily replicated from LR. TIFs from my D800e are over 100 MB so storing 100 36 MP TIF images would take up quite a bit disk space.

100 image stacks from my D800e are reasonably handled by Zerene on my 2 year old middling windows machine, so I should be able to handle D850 images when I get that camera.

Bill

Bill,

The TIFFs from LR of the D800E RAW are ~217MB each, that certainly takes up storage space quickly.

I'm using a 4 year old MacPro and its seems to run Zerene fine with these 217MB or 110MB TIFF files. Nothing spectacular, 6 core, 32GB RAM and SSD. I probably should look into going to 64GB RAM though, but not sure if that will make much difference when running Zerene alone. Might make a difference if I have PS open with some big TIFF files to edit, the files can grow to nearly a 1GB when using layering.

With the D850 I'm sure everything will get taxed more. Glad to see the XQD card included, these read and write really quickly and are really sturdy and no worries about bent pins like with CF.

Best,

Mike

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:24 am

mawyatt wrote:The TIFFs were created in LR in sRGB Color Space and 16 bit channels, no other processing was done to these files in LR (that I know about?).

The key lies in those last few words.

If you open the Develop tab in Lightroom and look around, you'll find a large number of controls in major categories like Basic, Tone Curve, Detail, and others. Under Basic you'll find white balance, exposure, contrast, and others, and under Detail you'll find sharpening and noise reduction.

Regardless of whether you set those controls, all of them are set somehow, and they all apply to raw conversion whether you know it or not.

--Rik

All Ex · Post by **All Ex** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:54 am

Sorry about my ignorance, but I am ussing, mostly, MF lenses, or hand made ones, with that thing, shifting focus, and requirements beeing on 200mm FL and 135mm in some cases for our objectives to give theare potentials, wich AF tubes will fit it?

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:00 am

Not sure to understand your question, but AF tubes do not focus at all, they just transmit the electric signals between camera and lens, a MF will still need to be manually focused.

All Ex · Post by **All Ex** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:12 am

The D 850 id doing focus shifting, thus it is using it`s power to shift in small incriments the focous of the lens, when using a MF lens this can not be achived.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:18 am

I imagine only the newer type lenses with AF motors will work, not the old "screwdiver" type.???????

All Ex · Post by **All Ex** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 11:23 am

The only prime AF Nikon 200mm I know is a beast that costs 6-6.500.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:26 pm

All-Ex

You don't change the "tube lens" focus to change focus with inf. objectives, you change distance from lens to subject (focus rail). Same goes for non-inf objectives.

Your 200mm and 135mm Nikkor lens are fixed a infinity focus and you use them with inf objectives as "tube lenses".

My understanding is the D850 changes focus position within the lens to do stacking, thus not compatible with using older lenses and certainly not compatible when using objectives.

Best

Mike

All Ex · Post by **All Ex** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 12:35 pm

For people like me it is a rather `canned` way.
Anyway I don`t intend to go that way, now that I made my rig and finnished it in the other way the one that we all know.
Besides I don`t have the monay.

ChrisR · Post by **ChrisR** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 3:59 pm

You don't change the "tube lens" focus to change focus with inf. objectives

You can a bit, Mike, for lower magnification objectives.... now, to find one of Rik's posts...

Edit - can't find it.. Canon 50-250 kit lens with a Nikon 10x on the front. stack made with tethering software iirc. Sheet of tissue for diffusion. Not enough unique search words to be able to find it!

Lou Jost · Post by **Lou Jost** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 6:13 pm

I've done that too, focusing with the tube lens, and it works but not for deep stacks.

rjlittlefield · Post by **rjlittlefield** » Fri Sep 01, 2017 8:14 pm

ChrisR wrote:now, to find one of Rik's posts...

Edit - can't find it.. Canon 50-250 kit lens with a Nikon 10x on the front. stack made with tethering software iirc. Sheet of tissue for diffusion. Not enough unique search words to be able to find it!

"AF motor focusing with a microscope objective"
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 2144#92144 , way down the page, explores the limits of the method.

I usually find it by looking for "flicker feather"

, 'cuz I remember that was the subject that produced the gallery post to go with the technical post.

--Rik

All Ex · Post by **All Ex** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 12:25 am

Mike wrote: My understanding is the D850 changes focus position within the lens to do stacking, thus not compatible with using older lenses and certainly not compatible when using objectives.

I find the essence of that kind of photography in using objectives with all the constructions that follow that, therefore what is the desire in doing macro the other way?
I `m not doing macro with finite objectives, I have to practice it, at a later time, for now, I`m OK with my way, the only problem, in my case, is that somebody else has to bring me live insects and that way it is taking me much time.
I must confess that once more I`m impressed with Rik`s abilities to see imperfections in the optics of a lens.

mawyatt · Post by **mawyatt** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 6:11 am

ChrisR wrote:
You don't change the "tube lens" focus to change focus with inf. objectives
You can a bit, Mike, for lower magnification objectives.... now, to find one of Rik's posts...

Edit - can't find it.. Canon 50-250 kit lens with a Nikon 10x on the front. stack made with tethering software iirc. Sheet of tissue for diffusion. Not enough unique search words to be able to find it!

Chris,

I was unaware this would work. It does make sense in that at some magnifications the actual internal focus distance moved is very shallow compared to the subject distance.

Edit. After reading Rik's posts I realize it's more of how far off the design point you can move the objective, and some objectives are tolerant and others not. The 10X Mitutoyo being one that's tolerant, I suspect the 5X is also, since it works well with a 125mm and 135mm tube lens which are pretty far from the 200mm design point.

Seems quite useful when one doesn't have to move the camera lens tiny amounts, but can use the tube lens internal focus mechanism...assuming it's good enough for such.

May have to try this with my older Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR lens, which hasn't seen any action lately.

Thanks for enlightening me!!

Best,

Mike

Pau · Post by **Pau** » Sat Sep 02, 2017 7:17 am

mawyatt wrote:Edit. After reading Rik's posts I realize it's more of how far off the design point you can move the objective, and some objectives are tolerant and others not. The 10X Mitutoyo being one that's tolerant, I suspect the 5X is also, since it works well with a 125mm and 135mm tube lens which are pretty far from the 200mm design point.

Mike, I think that they are two different aspects of the objective: at Rik's post the 10X is more tolerant to the lens focusing point than the 50X not because its wider image circle but because its lower NA.
Changing the focus point of the tube lens is like changing the tube length with finite objectives, and like in the last case the issue is spherical aberration when working outside the design point, and like cover glass correction it quickly increases with NA, being low NA objectives far more tolerant.

A good behaviour of the 5X is to be expected. In fact what most surprises me of Rik's test is how well the 50X works in these conditions.