Hi Stas,
Currently focus stacking capture use A and B points and goes from A to B in several steps according to depth of field. That's good. But here's a thought : what if it'd allowed us to specify intermediary steps on specific scene features we'd love to have perfect sharpness on it ?
Why, because those features even if encompassed in the depth of field of the calculated steps, won't be as sharp as they could be.
Thanks
A,B… and C, D, E etc
-
Stas Yatsenko
- Posts: 3841
- Joined: 06.05.2009 14:05
- Contact:
Re: A,B… and C, D, E etc
Hi,
Your suggestion makes sensem but it's quite hard to implement and wouldn't work reliably even if we did (there's always some mechanical imprecision that affects physical step size, and since there's no feedback from the lens we can't comprensate for it). If you find that sharpness of the scene features is lacking, best thing to do is to simply reduce the step size (interval between shots).
Your suggestion makes sensem but it's quite hard to implement and wouldn't work reliably even if we did (there's always some mechanical imprecision that affects physical step size, and since there's no feedback from the lens we can't comprensate for it). If you find that sharpness of the scene features is lacking, best thing to do is to simply reduce the step size (interval between shots).
Re: A,B… and C, D, E etc
Hum, that's too bad. It's time camera manufacturer tackle precise distance.
But something I don't understand, if you can reliably set point A and Z (let's call Z you current B) , what prevents a intermediary C step to be reliable ?
because to me its' the same as if I did 2 shots
A to C
C to Z
Other way to think about it would be like this. Suppose I want to do A,B,C,D,Z
When I would save the a, b, c,d,z points, Remote would in fact consider this as several focus bracketing session.
So It's do as the reliable A B method of today, swapping the current A and B with BCDZ as If I'd do manually.
A B
B C
C D
D Z
Maybe Remote is only counting focus steps between A and B, but no worries. Nothing prevents Remote to "rewind" to the original A to apply the steps.
So let's say Z is 20 focus steps from A, D is 17, C is 13, B is 3
so the log steps would be, in the most complicated form :
go to A > -20
shoot A
Go to B +3
shoot B
Go to A -3 don't shoot
Go to C + 13
shoot C
Go to A -13 don't shoot
Go to D + 17
shoot D
Go to A -17 don't shoot
Go to Z + 20
shoot Z
But something I don't understand, if you can reliably set point A and Z (let's call Z you current B) , what prevents a intermediary C step to be reliable ?
because to me its' the same as if I did 2 shots
A to C
C to Z
Other way to think about it would be like this. Suppose I want to do A,B,C,D,Z
When I would save the a, b, c,d,z points, Remote would in fact consider this as several focus bracketing session.
So It's do as the reliable A B method of today, swapping the current A and B with BCDZ as If I'd do manually.
A B
B C
C D
D Z
Maybe Remote is only counting focus steps between A and B, but no worries. Nothing prevents Remote to "rewind" to the original A to apply the steps.
So let's say Z is 20 focus steps from A, D is 17, C is 13, B is 3
so the log steps would be, in the most complicated form :
go to A > -20
shoot A
Go to B +3
shoot B
Go to A -3 don't shoot
Go to C + 13
shoot C
Go to A -13 don't shoot
Go to D + 17
shoot D
Go to A -17 don't shoot
Go to Z + 20
shoot Z
Re: A,B… and C, D, E etc
Hi Stas,
Any update on this.
Cause I just wanted to do a landscape of 3 castles C1,C2,C3 + background (see attachment)
obviously the background is very far, so if the background would we B, and A would be set on C1, given large distances between A and B, then it's very probable that C2, and C3 won't be perfectly in focus.
Also, it will make way too much steps, whereas, here we could have just 4 steps
P.S : you'll note that this is a sunset picture, so you may understand that reducing the steps counts is important to reduce time of capture
Any update on this.
Cause I just wanted to do a landscape of 3 castles C1,C2,C3 + background (see attachment)
obviously the background is very far, so if the background would we B, and A would be set on C1, given large distances between A and B, then it's very probable that C2, and C3 won't be perfectly in focus.
Also, it will make way too much steps, whereas, here we could have just 4 steps
P.S : you'll note that this is a sunset picture, so you may understand that reducing the steps counts is important to reduce time of capture
- Attachments
-
- dslr0002.jpg (84.49 KiB) Viewed 4762 times
-
Stas Yatsenko
- Posts: 3841
- Joined: 06.05.2009 14:05
- Contact:
Re: A,B… and C, D, E etc
Hi,
One important consideration that wasn't mentioned initially is that distance must increments must be equal in order to obtain the best focus stacking result, so the current stack shooting is what you should stick with. Besides, no matter what the DOF range there is in your scene, the lens only has so many steps start to end. It's a finite number.
One important consideration that wasn't mentioned initially is that distance must increments must be equal in order to obtain the best focus stacking result, so the current stack shooting is what you should stick with. Besides, no matter what the DOF range there is in your scene, the lens only has so many steps start to end. It's a finite number.