The key idea in depth mapping is to assume that the stack frames are in depth order, figure out which frame has the best focus in each small neighborhood, then construct a single-valued depth map function that fits the best-focus estimates, and finally construct the output image by selecting pixel values from just a single frame, or a weighted average of two adjacent frames, as specified by the depth map. I do not have a handy reference for depth map methods, but I expect articles are pretty simple to find. Zerene Stacker DMap and Helicon Focus Method B are both "depth map" methods. exploits the fact that the Laplacian pyramid representation already directly encodes local contrast of details at each scale level, to create a particularly simple method for the focus stacking bit. The most important concept of the pyramid methods is that you decompose each image into a bunch of different scales of detail (levels of the pyramid), you do some form of focus stacking on each layer independently, then you construct the output image as the recomposition of all the focus-stacked levels of the pyramid. This is not exactly what PMax does, and I doubt that it is exactly what HFMC does, but it should be close enough to get you started. In that paper, look in particular at formula 7 and figure 9 (in which it looks like panels a and c got accidentally switched). Processing, "Pyramid Methods in Image Processing", Adelson et.al., 1983. I can provide partial answers to your questions.Ī good introduction to the "pyramid" methods that are used by Zerene Stacker PMax and (I presume) by Helicon Focus Method C is provided by. Thanks a lot, and sorry if there are already answers to these subject in some place/thread, but i can't find specifically. In some other forums, someone claims that Photoshop procedure is something that "resembles" the formally named "Method A" of Helicon.Ī) Is there someone can confirm this info ? Or is a totally different logic? (maybe also someonce can infer/induct conclusions from his experience?)ī) Is there someone can address me about the photoshop method (in general i mean) and the differences between Zerene and Helicon ?Ĭ) Are there some docs/papers which i'm missed (i mean also for Zerene /Helicon procedure which i can read to go more depth) ? Instead, I can't find anything about Photoshop logic/procedure, or at least i'cant find anything with some "good level of trustness". Thanks to documentation of Zerene and also Helicon, i've at least a little idea of which kind of algo's and logic they use (sure, i know details are not public due to commercial reasons) I'm here for the expertise that various member clearly shows, as also for Rik (his knowlegde is quite vaste of course). What makes Helicon Focus preferential to Zerene Stacker for focus stacking in coin photography? (Please feel free to refute that premise as you see fit.) How likely am I as a user to run into the kind of work that makes the differences painfully obvious to me? (i.e.Hi, i'm a student interested in stacking procedure.Įven if newbie in the field, after a little search seems already clear that the big actors in this field are Zerene/Helicon. It is not something I have the time, resources, or inclination to try to test for myself, so I put the question to the list: This made me wonder if there is something about the distinctiveness of the subject that makes one software more utilitarian than the other. Yet among this coin photo group, with its particular interest in flat objects of varying relief and generally more reflective surfaces, there seems to be a preference for Helicon Focus. Among these there is a decided preference for Zerene Stacker as the software of choice. As I sought info online on the technique and recommendations for focus stacking I found that most of the discussion is from naturalists seeking fine definition images for decidedly 3-dimensional subjects like bugs and flowers.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |