Pearl Coloured Petals of a Sunset Moth
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Pearl Coloured Petals of a Sunset Moth
Finally have something good enough to showcase! Lighting is spot on to my taste and lots of detail can be seen.
Using my new vertical setup, allows easier lighting and specimen placement.
I found an area which resembles the colour of pearls. It looked somewhat mundane on my D810's screen. I altered the lighting and gave it a run. Turned out to be my favourite stack of this moth.
Some petals have shades of gold, which resembles pearls as well.
For full resolution, here's the link: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4906/461 ... 7c6c_o.jpg
There are many areas of improvement in post. The brown petals show smudges which are just stacking artefacts, they can be removed in photoshop.
I'm happy with the results already. Going to improve on it in post maybe after I get up from bed.
Misc. Information:
D810, Mitutoyo Mplan Apo 10x, Stackshot at 3um/step, Zerene Stacker Dmap. ITL200 tube lens.
For lighting, I use halogen lamp illuminators.
Thanks!
Using my new vertical setup, allows easier lighting and specimen placement.
I found an area which resembles the colour of pearls. It looked somewhat mundane on my D810's screen. I altered the lighting and gave it a run. Turned out to be my favourite stack of this moth.
Some petals have shades of gold, which resembles pearls as well.
For full resolution, here's the link: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4906/461 ... 7c6c_o.jpg
There are many areas of improvement in post. The brown petals show smudges which are just stacking artefacts, they can be removed in photoshop.
I'm happy with the results already. Going to improve on it in post maybe after I get up from bed.
Misc. Information:
D810, Mitutoyo Mplan Apo 10x, Stackshot at 3um/step, Zerene Stacker Dmap. ITL200 tube lens.
For lighting, I use halogen lamp illuminators.
Thanks!
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23625
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Nice result, for sure.
About the sharpness, bear in mind that this is 36.30 megapixels on 35.9mm x 24.0mm, so the pixels are almost 4.9 microns across. That's about the same size as 14 megapixels in APS-C.
It's good that the corners held up well with the ITL. What orientation and spacings did you use?
--Rik
About the sharpness, bear in mind that this is 36.30 megapixels on 35.9mm x 24.0mm, so the pixels are almost 4.9 microns across. That's about the same size as 14 megapixels in APS-C.
It's good that the corners held up well with the ITL. What orientation and spacings did you use?
--Rik
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
Yep, I am looking to buy perhaps a used D7200 to take advantage of the smaller pixels. I did consider the D850, not anymore. I'll just get the shortcomings of the D810 covered with a field monitor. The new fullframe sensors with 16-bit ADC from Sony is very exciting to me.rjlittlefield wrote:Nice result, for sure.
About the sharpness, bear in mind that this is 36.30 megapixels on 35.9mm x 24.0mm, so the pixels are almost 4.9 microns across. That's about the same size as 14 megapixels in APS-C.
It's good that the corners held up well with the ITL. What orientation and spacings did you use?
--Rik
I have the ITL200 reversed, 245mm away from the sensor. I use the SM2 tubes from Thorlabs. The corners of the ITL200 reversed are as good as the centre from my previous configuration, mounted according to the thorlabs website. This is a pretty big difference for sure.
Yeah, I can get away with 5. Setting it at 3 however always seemed to yield far more detail.Beatsy wrote:Dead sharp! Very impressive. Technically the step size is half what you can get away with, but no arguing with results! That ITL200 is likely big a factor too. I've been trying to convince myself I don't need one of those. You haven't helped
Thank you!Lou Jost wrote:That's stunningly sharp.
Same here! The 60 megapixel one will be miiiine. Mwah haha haaaMacro_Cosmos wrote:...The new fullframe sensors with 16-bit ADC from Sony is very exciting to me.
Not sure when it will be out though - or which camera range they'll put it in. Or even if it will be the same sensor - they could have another in the wings for exclusive use by Sony. The announced versions are for other manufacturers to use too. Could be an A9r but more likely A7r iv I reckon. A lot of the higher end lenses are out-resolving sensors these days (e.g. Otuses on A7rii) so the extra mpix will go some way to addressing that. Not so useful for macro/micro work (except at lower mags) but a true 16-bit dynamic range will really help with low contrast stuff (4-stops more leeway to stretch levels in post).
Waiting is such a pain....
Steve,Beatsy wrote:Same here! The 60 megapixel one will be miiiine. Mwah haha haaaMacro_Cosmos wrote:...The new fullframe sensors with 16-bit ADC from Sony is very exciting to me.
Not sure when it will be out though - or which camera range they'll put it in. Or even if it will be the same sensor - they could have another in the wings for exclusive use by Sony. The announced versions are for other manufacturers to use too. Could be an A9r but more likely A7r iv I reckon. A lot of the higher end lenses are out-resolving sensors these days (e.g. Otuses on A7rii) so the extra mpix will go some way to addressing that. Not so useful for macro/micro work (except at lower mags) but a true 16-bit dynamic range will really help with low contrast stuff (4-stops more leeway to stretch levels in post).
Waiting is such a pain....
I'm not sure that "true' 16 bit DR is available from the smaller pixels (higher pixel density) yet, unless Sony has uncovered something. If this is the case then 16 bits will be like "empty magnification", with no real benefit in image DR.
I'm sure when some folks (Bill @ PtP) get there hands on these new sensors we'll find out, I hope it's true as a couple extra bits (stops) would be very useful indeed.
Best,
Research is like a treasure hunt, you don't know where to look or what you'll find!
~Mike
~Mike
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
I haven't experimented too much and still don't really see an adequate way to determine the best distance. Currently, it's about 65mm spacing. Measuring the exact amount wouldn't be simple, since my tubing is too long. I have the objective and adapter deep in one of the tubes.Lou Jost wrote:Thanks for the added information.
How much space did you leave between the ITL200 and the objective?I have the ITL200 reversed, 245mm away from the sensor.
Unfortunately thorlabs doesn't offer a m26-sm2 adapter and their adjustable helicoid tubes are too expensive. I use the rotating threaded types, one which is being wasted acting as a 20mm spacer for the itl200.
Now that I have a vertical setup, using a resolution chart is much easier. It should be a good start.
~ MC