Hi Guys,
As some of you will be aware, I have been trying my "inexperienced" hand at close-up with my 300 f4 and tubes,

So far I've had the best success with Zerene Stacker,
Unfortunately, my free trial period runs out in 4 days

The disparity in pricing from $0:00 to $89:00 appears unusual,
Is there any sound reason for this difference?
Regards,
Gary

Poll result (36 votes) Combine ZP (12 votes) Vote Helicon Focus (11 votes) Vote Zerene Stacker (12 votes) Vote Other (1 votes) Vote

I've never tried Helicon Focus but I did do the free trial of Zerene Stacker. I did a direct comparison of some stacks of images that I had already done with CombineZP which I've been using for several years. I liked the results from CombineZP better. I thought they were sharper with better contrast. I did like the touch up capability of Zerene Stacker, a very nice feature, but after trying several different stacks with ZS and comparing the results with the CZP results I decided against buying ZS. I did try some pp on the ZS stacks to see if I could get closer to the CZP results but was not able to match the CZP results. If I can find the ZS stacks I did and the CZP stacks of the same subjects I'll post them.

As to the price differential, CZP is a labor of love for Alan Hadley and he has a Yahoo group that you can post questions to him on. He usually responds in a timely manner when he's not too busy with his day job. Other posters often provide knowledgeable responses. ZS is probably more user friendly but I haven't found CZP difficult to use. Have you compared results from the same set of images from the 2 programs? Which do you like better?

John

Actually John, I've used all three,
Not really knowing what I'm doing, just loading the stack and letting the program do its thing,
So far, the Zerene stacker has been more consistent, although I have only got one really good stack without any artifacts

I have also downloaded "Control my Nikon" which is a very interesting economical program but there is one area I'm not sure of, once I sort that out I might have a better evaluation of the above programs

One thing I have found, the stacking programs certainly test my laptops processing capability,
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Artifacts often appear with either ZS or CZP. The retouching capability of ZS was a very nice feature for dealing with them but even that tool can't always eliminate them. In CZP the only way I've dealt with them is by cloning which can be tedious. Sometimes they come out clean and sometimes there are many artifacts to deal with. In the latter case I have to decide how much I like the result and whether it's worth the effort.

Attached is one comparison of results of a 15 frame stack between CZP and ZS. I like the contrast and sharpness of the CZP results better. As I said in the previous post I tried some pp on the ZS result to see if I could make it look more like the CZP result but never achieved it. Could be due to inadeqate pp skills on mm part.

John

CZP


ZS

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)

Gary,
All of these programs get the job done and I believe the best choice depends upon how you plan to use the program and your personal preferences (stacking RAW vs JPG images, the "look" of the output, the fidelity of the stack, ease of editing, etc.). Photoshop can do a good job stacking images but I would not want to do deep stacks using Photoshop. If I were going to do occasional stacks of 5 or so images, I would use Photoshop because I already have the program.

I personally like Zerene stacker because I often take photographs through a microscope where the depth of focus is achingly small. Typical stacks for me are 40-200 images. Zerene stacker was developed by Dr. Rik Littlefield a photomicroscopy guru and the moderator of the Photomacrography website. This program works well for me because it has the features that make it easy to process and edit large stacks without killing my computer.

The other programs work well too. Friends, colleagues, and other members of this forum produce outstanding images using CombineZip and Helicon Focus. You have tried all of these so my advice is to choose the one you like best and learn to use it well.

They all work.

Dan
Ann Arbor, Michigan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Helicon allows me to configure Cognisys Stackshot from my comp, I like that!

Willem

Sony Nex-7

Your right John,
CZP image does look a lot sharper,
I guess I have to get a really good stack to see a genuine difference,
Nice image BTW, I would be happy with either one
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Tks for your input Dan,
Unfortunately, I lack the skills and knowledge to make an accurate assessment but the Zerene Stacker appeared to work faster,
I think part of the problem was I had inconsistent quality with my stacks,
Are you indicating that ZS is less taxing on the computer than the other stackers?
I have noticed already that the chip can be "stretched" to the limit on my laptop at times, hopefully I can pony-up for a 16gb iMac in the new year
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Willem,
The Cognisys Stackshot looks a fancy package,
My budget might be a mile short of their asking price
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

John, thank you for posting this. I was surprised to see how poorly ZS worked compared to CZP especially looking at the tell-tale sign of postprosseing around the legs of the top bee. This review of yours really added value to my Nikonians subscription.

thanks again,

Kent in VA

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

"A poor worker always blames his tools" Anonymous

So far I'm using Photoshop for stacking. It is pretty piggy about resources, particularly compared to what I'm seeing from other packages. But it's already installed, and better yet it runs on my MacOS without resorting to a virtual machine.

The results from CS5 are pretty good if I don't make mistakes, but I make a lot of mistakes and CS5 simply isn't able to recover from them.

I am going to have to investigate some of the other packages, although I'm moving slowly on that as I'm traveling a lot these days.

I'm not sure what pricing others are seeing, but Helicon Focus appears to me to be priced at $200 and possibly as high as $250. At least their license is flexible enough to cover four systems, as long as only one is in use at any given time.

_____
Brian... a bicoastal Nikonian and Team Member

My gallery is online. Comments and critique welcomed any time!

Hi Brian,
Looking at the "lite" version of Helicon focus, its only $30 but does not have the retouching though,
The other budget consideration here in Australia is that Photoshop is cost prohibitive except for the professional or student,
Elements at $218AUD and CS5 at $1400, prices vary, I've have seen PS CS5 as high a $1600

I am starting to find out that CS5 does come with a lot of functions including HDR etc, considering the whole package, I guess it does make it more attractive

Combine ZP does appear to be an attractive choice, leave alone the price point

My own results have been erratic so far due to a less than ideal stacking platform, It was only since I started using "control my Nikon", the results improved, I'm sure that when I finally get a focus rail, I'll have a better handle on choosing a program
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Gary,
Thanks for starting this thread. I've recently started trying focus-stacked images using my D800 and a Kirk focusing rail. The only two programs I've tried to date are Adobe PS CS6 and ZS. While CS6 can do well on some stacks, it's also failed completely for me. I tried ZS on the same stack that CS6 failed on, and it gave me a fine result. I guess I need to try CPZ next. I'm also wondering if I need to down-sample the D800 raw images before I process them. Seems the sheer size of these frames creates some problems. My PC is a big one (12GB RAM, 3.3GHZ quad-core i7, 4.5TB disk), so I can't really use a much bigger machine.
Anyone else stacking frames from a D800? I'd like to know whta you've tried that gives good results.
-- Thanks, Jim

Hi Jim,
I've been a bit out of action for a while, plus my computer system has been telling me, "A catastrophic failure is imminent!", so I have been madly making new arrangements like, a bit more back-up and clean-up I should have done a long time ago"

I hope to get a RRS focusing rail in the next few months, would have been earlier but a new 27" iMac soon, 16gb ram and i5 3.1GHz and some new software so the hole in the "budget bucket" is getting larger

I found I was just wasting my time without a focusing rail, will attempt stacking when I am set up correctly
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Jim,

The two skipper images in this post are stacks from a D800.

http://www.nikonians.org/forums/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=169&topic_id=48400&mesg_id=48400&page=

I used LV in the field and zoomed in to fill the monitor frame with the skipper. I refocused for each image used in the stack (rather than a rail). LV allows pretty accurate focusing and also is better for detecting subject motion. I used a cable release and when I saw the motion stop I'd mash the shutter release. Since it's electronic I don't need to worry about that causing camera movement. Also the mirror remains up during shutter release in LV so you don't need to worry about mirror slap. It took some patience because the motion may stop for only a second. The eyepiece blind in the D800 is also a nice feature. I'm coming from a D300 where LV in the field was very cumbersome to start with and you had to either try to find that slide on eyepiece blind in your bag or shade the eyepiece with your hand. I tried LV once in the field on the D300 and never used it again.

For pp my usual process is to make WB adjustment and maybe other global adjustments to one image, batch to the others, convert to jpg and run through CombineZP. Then do final adjustments in CNX2 and/or PSE. One caution though. I did try one pyramid stack and the CombineZP hung up. I didn't try it again because I was getting good results with the Do Stack command.

Hi all. I am cheap and use the stacking part of PS CS6. I just get so tired of buying new camera stuff and then new software. Maybe I am just not as particular as the rest of you but I am happy so far with CS6 stacking engine. My last one was with 13 layers and I still missed taking some intermediate steps. So far I am happy with what I am getting, although mine are not perfect. I printed out a 8.5 by 11 inch image yesterday and it looks fine to me. I have so much respect for all of you that have the patience to get the top notch images that you do. It is great fun to see what you have done and it gives me something to work towards. I might be brave enough to post an image here in time.

Thank you,
Wes

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I use Helicon with s Stackshot. I tried the other two softwares, free versions. However I preferred the way Helicon handled the RAW files. Except when attempting to shoot many rapid shots of fast-moving subjects, I shoot RAW. That was the deciding factor for me.

Russell Brown
Knowledge speaks, but wisdom listens. -- Jimi Hendrix
Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I have used Helicon Focus for several years now with no problem, originally getting it because it was Mac compliant.
 Here are my stacked pics of a Giant Leopard Moth (Hypercompe or Ecpantheria scribonia) from North Florida. It was exactly 1.5 inches long. I wanted to capture it in a single, in-focus, head-first, stacked image using the Helicon Focus software. The result is this 11-stack image at 1/60 sec., f/22, ISO 640, with the Nikon D90, Nikon SB-400 Speedlight, and Tokina AT-X Pro D 100 mm f/2.8 macro lens, aperture priority, on a Spiratone Versatile tripod with the Adorama large focus rail.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Great Image Dick!
The choice is endless,
Other than combine ZP, Ive only had trial downloads of Zerene stacker etc,
I've actually been holding out as my windose system is showing signs of age. (like me actually, )
So am getting an iMac soon and will get back into some stacking trials again soon,
next thing on the budget is a focusing rail, I did not cope too well without one
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Thanks Gary. Yea, for stacking I have found a good focusing rail is almost essential. I learned this when I was coming up with 8-legged insects (or worse) during my early attempts. Adorama has two rails, both priced fairly reasonably, and either will do the job nicely. Naturally, I deleted these weird images ASAP, but now I wish I had saved a few to show folks how NOT to do it! It is an adventure, for sure--but have fun doing it!!
Cheers,
Dick

Here's a pic of the Adorama large focusing rail. I got this one because I thought I needed the extra sturdy design, but I think the smaller one would have worked just fine.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Attachment #1, ( file)

looks the goods Dick!
The way the cash flow is ATM with my, which appears, endless upgrades, I may just have to forget about the RRS for the time being and go for your suggested option, I'm guessing I may have to get an arca swiss plate though?
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I had been thinking the choice of software b/w Helicon and Zerene for a while. After some trials at the end, I made a decision for Helicon (64bit Pro version for Mac). Here is my thinking.
In general, the software has several algorisms for stacking. In Helicon (64bit pro version, maybe pro version too), there are three, which are:
Method A: computes weight for each pixel based on its contrast. Then all pixels from all source images are averaged using their weights.
Method B: finds the source image where the sharpest pixel is located and creates "depth map" from this information. This method requires that images are shot in consecutive order from front to back or vice versa.
Method C: uses pyramid approach to image representation. It is gives good results in complex cases (intersecting objects, edges, deep stacks) but it increases contrast and glare.
Zerene has two algorithms (1) DMap – similar to Method B in Helicon and (2) PMax – similar to Method C in Helicon but this is the one method everyone is raving.
Controlling parameters for two software systems are similar with radius and smoothing, though there are much more complex parameter in the systems. One of the impressive mechanisms is retouching functions of Zerene, in which you can use DMap and PMax resuiting images for retouching sources along with each original stacks. I do not think Helicon has this function.
Helicon 64 bit pro version comes with several software. One of them is Helicon Remote, which controls camera (very primitive, comparing to Nikon Camera Control Pro 2) and create semi-automatic depth map with automatic shooting mechanism. I tried it with my new D800E and it worked well with 17 stocking shots.
Although I suspect that Zerene might have a better algorithm for superior rendering, my major decision factor was Helicon’s interface with Adobe Lightroom on MAC Lion environment. I can have seamless workflow from shooting, initial editing and focus stacking on Helicon to final.

www.hitoshiujiie.com/photography.html

Hi there,
(I was going to attempt at using your first name but as sure gravity, I would make a mess of it),
Thank you for such a detailed response,
I could find much difference between the two but unfortunately, my macro shooting gear was not up to pace to make an informed choice,
For example, I found it vary "agricultural" just using the ball head instead of a "proper" macro focusing rail
I'm moving to an iMac soon so you post was very informative,
Thank you,
Regards,
Gary

My Nikonians Gallery

Visit my Nikonians gallery.