Volcanoland

Images taken in a controlled environment or with a posed subject. All subject types.

Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Volcanoland

Post by Saul »

Image

Bigger:
https://c1.staticflickr.com/5/4497/3722 ... 9433_o.jpg

Nikon D7200, Lomo 3.7x, PMax
Saul
μ-stuff

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Very nice!

But what exactly is this?

--Rik

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

Thanks Rik !

I suspect that it is Gymnosporangium , on the small branch of the tree (instead leaf). Tried for the stereo but it was too low quality (27 photos in the stack only). Never tried, if I'll take not 27 photos but, let's say, 100 photos through the same stacking distance, will it improve stereo quality ?

Thanks,
Saul
μ-stuff

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Saul wrote:Tried for the stereo but it was too low quality (27 photos in the stack only). Never tried, if I'll take not 27 photos but, let's say, 100 photos through the same stacking distance, will it improve stereo quality ?
Yes, but it's much better if you also open the aperture so that 100 photos is an appropriate step size that gives no more than 50% DOF overlap between adjacent frames.

Typically what limits stereo quality is the smearing you get when the optical DOF is too much for the shift % that you're trying to use. If you get unacceptable smearing at say +-2%, then try +-1% instead. Of course that will give a weaker stereo effect, but sometimes that's a good trade-off with the reduced smearing.

If you go from 27 frames to 100 frames by just reducing the step size, with no other changes, then there will be almost no difference in the smearing.

--Rik

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

rjlittlefield wrote:... If you get unacceptable smearing at say +-2%, then try +-1% instead...
I used +-3%.
What will happen using asymmetrical settings, like +3/-1 ?
Saul
μ-stuff

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 23561
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Asymmetric settings work OK from a technical standpoint and can be helpful in special cases. My own favorite example is at http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... 7823#47823 , where I rendered at -1% and +3% in order to get a better view of the groove on a fly's ovipositor that I had photographed long before.

Where smearing is an issue, asymmetric rendering may be helpful in giving as large as possible stereo separation, while still retaining one high quality image. I think the success of this approach will depend on eye dominance in the viewer. It's a happy situation if the high quality image happens to get matched up with a viewer's dominant eye, not so happy if a strongly dominant eye gets the low quality image.

--Rik

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

rjlittlefield wrote:I think the success of this approach will depend on eye dominance in the viewer. It's a happy situation if the high quality image happens to get matched up with a viewer's dominant eye, not so happy if a strongly dominant eye gets the low quality image.
Rik, very interesting and I agree with you. Most probably we are talking about dominant side of the brain ? Following example is -2/+1 %. Quality is much more better than -3/+3% (for me). Left side is worse quality but when it comes to the stereo - smearing disappears (again, for me)

Image

...and -3/+3% image (no post processing, sorry)

Image

Pairs are vertical for better viewing.
Saul
μ-stuff

Saul
Posts: 1781
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2011 11:59 am
Location: Naperville, IL USA
Contact:

Post by Saul »

-2/0%

Image

-3/0%

Image

Hoped that 0% will keep quality of the stereo pair...but...

-2/+1% looks better than -3/0% (despite the same total 3% difference)
Saul
μ-stuff

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic