Volcanoland
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Volcanoland
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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,
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
μ-stuff
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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.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 ?
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
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
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
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
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)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.
...and -3/+3% image (no post processing, sorry)
Pairs are vertical for better viewing.
Saul
μ-stuff
μ-stuff