Focus stacking software...

JohnClif

Senior Member
Messages
1,564
Reaction score
235
Location
Bellevue, US
So, I tried another experiment with focus stacking, this time attempting to generate a stacked image of the bore/inside of a surplus pistol barrel.

The first attempt using in-camera focus stacking was a failure. You can't build a decent image with only 15 shots. So, I abandoned in-camera focus stacking and went to focus bracketing instead.

I realized that I needed overlap on DoF so I set the interval to '1' and had a limit of 999 shots... everyone surely knows that the bracketing sequence can be stopped by pressing the shutter again. I rested the barrel on a pill container (it was handy), and used two LED lights, one illuminating a napkin placed past the end of the barrel as a bore reflector, and one on top of the camera to light the chamber, breech, and bore. I did all of this sitting at the kitchen table, getting a good stable position by bracing my forearms on the table with my elbows against my chest.

On my E-M1.III, focus bracketing started at the point of focus obtained on a half-press of the shutter, and went incrementally further out (away from the camera) with each image. I focused on the breech end of the barrel, so that's how I did it.

Here's the OM Workspace focus stacking attempt:

Using OM Workspace's focus stacking feature
Using OM Workspace's focus stacking feature

This did not turn out well at all... the bore looks threaded! I think this is because the interval was too far apart and so the software interpolated what was supposed to be in the blurry parts.

Next, I tried Helicon Focus after grabbing some new photos. It did a decent job but didn't show the detail that I could see in the bore. I did go into PS to bump up the contrast and sharpen the image, but it didn't make much of a difference.

70d8b49985d44818803dfb12cc0505da.jpg

Finally I tried Zerene Stacker, something I hadn't heard of before but my buddy ChatGTP recommended it for longer focusing ranges and detail. It did the best job of all three, generating an image which is very much what the eye sees. I did grab new images, hoping to do a better job of centering the bore... nope, just different.

5e0888d06ada46498bba28a6f8147171.jpg

Note the preserved detail of the tool marks in the grooves (the recessed areas) and what looks like fouling (firing residue and/or jacket deposits from the bullet) on the lands (protruding rifling).

So far, Zerene Stacker seems to be the winner for this application.

--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'
 
Last edited:
depending on the subject helicon or zerene will do better, and it also depends on the mode your using with them (eg helicon b & c)

both (often) get better results by first stacking using both modes (eg helicon b & c) , then stacking the 2 stacks into one final image (eg using helicon c)
 
depending on the subject helicon or zerene will do better, and it also depends on the mode your using with them (eg helicon b & c)

both (often) get better results by first stacking using both modes (eg helicon b & c) , then stacking the 2 stacks into one final image (eg using helicon c)
Hi Jim,

So how does this work - say you have 100 shots. Did you mean we split them up 50 - 50 ?
 
depending on the subject helicon or zerene will do better, and it also depends on the mode your using with them (eg helicon b & c)

both (often) get better results by first stacking using both modes (eg helicon b & c) , then stacking the 2 stacks into one final image (eg using helicon c)
Hi Jim,

So how does this work - say you have 100 shots. Did you mean we split them up 50 - 50 ?
The tools have different algorithms that look for different things, and depending on the stack one mode may be better than the other.. especially with a deep stack. For example one may be better at picking out details, one may give a more pleasant smoother looking image. When you run the stacker again it merges the best of both

so run mode b with 100 shots, mode c with 100 shots, then mode c with the 2 output shots

with most small stacks in helicon I tend to use mode c, if I don’t like the result I try b, and since I have both I merge b&c. Since it’s a stack you can also clone the best bits from one to another, eg one should have a better background

it doesn’t always work, but I do find I prefer one over the other

if it’s a good shot it’s worth the extra time

ive seen a few YouTubers demo their editing approach, try looking up this vid by naturefold , or similar with Jamie spencley, tewart wood, Jamie hall, etc
 
Hi Jim,

OK - will give that a try.

Last nite i remembered your comment and tried splitting 67 shots into 3 groups and then joined the 3 into 1. The result was a very small artifact above the flower petal compared to the doing the entire 67 all in one go. So i discarded the idea of slabbing them....but i'll give yours a try.
 
When I focus stack, which is often when I shoot macro, I focus manually using Live View. Most of the time I am using my PB-6 bellows anyway. I have found that Zerene Stacker is the best stacking software I have used.

This Magnolia Green Jumping Spider was about 12mm long from leg tip to leg tip. It took 24 shots focus stacked to get sharp front to back

Nikon D850, 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor on a PB-6 bellows





1958c90aee254bc8913e06efa52b2b1b.jpg
 
When I focus stack, which is often when I shoot macro, I focus manually using Live View. Most of the time I am using my PB-6 bellows anyway. I have found that Zerene Stacker is the best stacking software I have used.
This Magnolia Green Jumping Spider was about 12mm long from leg tip to leg tip. It took 24 shots focus stacked to get sharp front to back
Nikon D850, 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor on a PB-6 bellows

1958c90aee254bc8913e06efa52b2b1b.jpg
Great shot, shooter.
 
When I focus stack, which is often when I shoot macro, I focus manually using Live View. Most of the time I am using my PB-6 bellows anyway. I have found that Zerene Stacker is the best stacking software I have used.
This Magnolia Green Jumping Spider was about 12mm long from leg tip to leg tip. It took 24 shots focus stacked to get sharp front to back
Nikon D850, 55mm f/2.8 AIS Micro Nikkor on a PB-6 bellows

1958c90aee254bc8913e06efa52b2b1b.jpg
That’s a very nice jumper, ive never seen a green one nor a hairless one, it’s eyes don’t look to have the same configuration either. it looks like a cross between a green cucumber spider with the 2 large eyes from a more traditional jumper stuck on

--
Jim
 

Keyboard shortcuts

Back
Top