Some kind of fly?
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Some kind of fly?
not sure what it is but a good subject to stack
Again, the mitty 5x
Sony A7III in electronic shutter and full frame mode
Mitutoyo 5x 0.14
Raynox 150 as tube lens
2 Strobes triggered by stacking controller
MJKZZ Ultra Rail
372 images at 15um step size
Plastic sheet domed over subject
Again, the mitty 5x
Sony A7III in electronic shutter and full frame mode
Mitutoyo 5x 0.14
Raynox 150 as tube lens
2 Strobes triggered by stacking controller
MJKZZ Ultra Rail
372 images at 15um step size
Plastic sheet domed over subject
Hmm, I can clearly see the 0.5% quality loss cause of those scratches on the front element. I always found it funny when people get crazy about the minimal flaw on their lenses and objectives. I've had (and have) optics with apparently serious flaws: scratches, coating damage, dust and even slight delamination that after testing and comparison performs as a near mint unit.
By the way, have you tried the pixel shift mode on the a7R III? I am planning to get an a7R II ot III. Not sure if the pixel shift and 14 bits RAW with electronic shutter are worth the $$$ difference.
Best,
- Macrero
By the way, have you tried the pixel shift mode on the a7R III? I am planning to get an a7R II ot III. Not sure if the pixel shift and 14 bits RAW with electronic shutter are worth the $$$ difference.
Best,
- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
hahaha, I do not know if that is sarcastic or you can really tell 0.5% degradation.Macrero wrote:Hmm, I can clearly see the 0.5% quality loss cause of those scratches on the front element. I always found it funny when people get crazy about the minimal flaw on their lenses and objectives. I've had (and have) optics with apparently serious flaws: scratches, coating damage, dust and even slight delamination that after testing and comparison performs as a near mint unit.
By the way, have you tried the pixel shift mode on the a7R III? I am planning to get an a7R II ot III. Not sure if the pixel shift and 14 bits RAW with electronic shutter are worth the $$$ difference.
Best,
- Macrero
No, I have not tried pixel shift yet, but I will.
Spent 4 hours learning how to do manual retouch in Zerene, I would suggest Rik to change the tutorial or I am missing something. One does not have to do both DMap and PMax to do retouch. I retouched the antenna + eye part, particularly the right antenna. What I did was to do a full PMax (1 whole hour) and the two antennas by selecting all input files only for the antenna part, then painted over the "transparent" part of antennas. This feature is so powerful!
These were done with 10x Mitutoyo, 501 images at 10um step size.
These were done with 10x Mitutoyo, 501 images at 10um step size.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Perhaps some of the context and motivation was not clear.mjkzz wrote:I am missing something. One does not have to do both DMap and PMax to do retouch. I retouched the antenna + eye part, particularly the right antenna. What I did was to do a full PMax (1 whole hour) and the two antennas by selecting all input files only for the antenna part, then painted over the "transparent" part of antennas.
You're correct that it is not required to run both DMap and PMax. You can run either one, skip the other, then retouch just from original source or from some stack-selected intermediate output, as you did.
However, I generally recommend that people go the route of DMap+PMax because DMap is more faithful to color, contrast, and noise, while PMax is better for retaining detail with complex geometry, and going clear back to original source is tedious with deep stacks.
So in my experience the least-effort path to best possible results is to do what is shown in the tutorial: run both DMap and PMax, then start with DMap, retouch mostly from PMax where DMap messed up, then go clear back to original source only where PMax messed up also.
For the special case of "transparent foreground" artifact, some time may be saved by using the trick described in the tutorial "Using Stack Selected to Retouch Transparent Foreground". I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "selecting all input files only for the antenna part".
Thanks. Retouching is a big part of getting best possible results. That's why a good retouching capability is provided in every edition of Zerene Stacker, no matter what price point.This feature is so powerful!
--Rik
Pure sarcasm... There actually may be 0.5%, 5% or whatever % degradation due to the scratches, but that's imperceptible, even at 100%.mjkzz wrote: hahaha, I do not know if that is sarcastic or you can really tell 0.5% degradation.
No, I have not tried pixel shift yet, but I will.
- Macrero
https://500px.com/macrero - Amateurs worry about equipment, Pros worry about money, Masters worry about Light
Peter, Rik,rjlittlefield wrote:Perhaps some of the context and motivation was not clear.mjkzz wrote:I am missing something. One does not have to do both DMap and PMax to do retouch. I retouched the antenna + eye part, particularly the right antenna. What I did was to do a full PMax (1 whole hour) and the two antennas by selecting all input files only for the antenna part, then painted over the "transparent" part of antennas.
You're correct that it is not required to run both DMap and PMax. You can run either one, skip the other, then retouch just from original source or from some stack-selected intermediate output, as you did.
However, I generally recommend that people go the route of DMap+PMax because DMap is more faithful to color, contrast, and noise, while PMax is better for retaining detail with complex geometry, and going clear back to original source is tedious with deep stacks.
So in my experience the least-effort path to best possible results is to do what is shown in the tutorial: run both DMap and PMax, then start with DMap, retouch mostly from PMax where DMap messed up, then go clear back to original source only where PMax messed up also.
For the special case of "transparent foreground" artifact, some time may be saved by using the trick described in the tutorial "Using Stack Selected to Retouch Transparent Foreground". I'm guessing that's what you're describing by "selecting all input files only for the antenna part".
Thanks. Retouching is a big part of getting best possible results. That's why a good retouching capability is provided in every edition of Zerene Stacker, no matter what price point.This feature is so powerful!
--Rik
Interesting useful feature/technique "Using Stack Selected to Retouch Transparent Foreground" I was unaware of
Guess I need to read the tutorials again
Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
~Mike
Don't worry. I only discovered the "Use all color channels in decisions" checkbox (for PMax) a couple of weeks ago. Haven't suffered a "problem stack" since (and I've done quite a few more than usual). Happinessmawyatt wrote:...Interesting useful feature/technique "Using Stack Selected to Retouch Transparent Foreground" I was unaware of