Moderator: E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC-05:00

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 9 posts | 
by Tim Zurowski on Fri Nov 09, 2012 11:25 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I have recently been learning and using the stacking features in CS6 for macro images. Awhile back a few people here recommended Helicon Focus to me for stacking images. Can someone tell me what the advantages of Helicon Focus would be over just continuing to use CS6? My main beef with CS6 right now is how long it takes to load and stack the files. Would Helicon be a lot faster? Would it do a better job, and if so in what way?

Much appreciated :)
 

by Glenn NK on Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:51 am
User avatar
Glenn NK
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1879
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Member #:01120
Can't comment on Helicon, as I use Zerene Stacker.

It is very easy to use.

I just tried a stack of six images (each 16 bit TIFF was about 46 MB) - it took 45 seconds with my quad core to render DMap and PMax output (two images).

The file loading procedure is drag and drop.

Glenn
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources.
 

by signgrap on Sat Nov 10, 2012 10:54 am
User avatar
signgrap
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1776
Joined: 1 Sep 2004
Location: Delaware Water Gap, PA
Member #:00424
Here's another thumbs up for Zerene Stacker it also has a much better user license than Helicon Focus
Dick Ludwig
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Nov 10, 2012 12:09 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Thanks guys

What I am hoping for here is concrete examples of where Zerene Stacker, Helicon Focus, or any other stacking software will be better or faster than CS6. What are some things that are better about these third party apps that made you purchase it rather than just using Photoshop (which seems to do a pretty darn good job as it is).
 

by Glenn NK on Sat Nov 10, 2012 1:53 pm
User avatar
Glenn NK
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1879
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Member #:01120
Tim:

This link was provided by PedroS in the current thread about the D800E and Macro:

http://www.macrostop.com/

The article entitled "The Art of Focus Stacking" provides some answers to your question.

A quote: ". . . a stack of eight images took between 30 to 40 second in Zerene and Helicon, but took 28 minutes in CS5".

Another quote: ". . a stack of 36 photos in CS5 sent me to bed and in the morning was still chugging away."

I think the point is that the dedicated programs are much faster. :wink:

I routinely do stacks of 10 or so, and I'm never frustrated with Zerene.

Glenn
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Sat Nov 10, 2012 3:18 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
Thanks Glenn

He must have had a pretty weak system for it to take 28 minutes in CS5. I have a previous generation dual core system with 8 gigs of RAM and 10 to 15 files are taking me between 2 and 4 minutes in CS6. If I can get that down to 30 seconds with Zerene or Helicon, I would be very happy. I downloaded the Zerene demo and plan to install it today and give it a test run. Will do the same for Helicon and decide which one I like better.

But my other main question is will Zerene or Helicon actually do a better job for the final product? I guess what I am trying to determine if it is worth spending money for the benefits gained.
 

by Glenn NK on Sat Nov 10, 2012 6:24 pm
User avatar
Glenn NK
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1879
Joined: 13 Apr 2007
Location: Victoria, BC, Canada
Member #:01120
I don't have an answer to your question Tim as I don't have any CS versions.

But both Helicon and Zerene are purpose made for stacking, so I would suspect that they have more features. One feature I use and may be not be in CS is RETOUCHING. If there are areas in the finished stack that don't look quite right, either the other stack (the program will use two methods to stack) or the original TIFF files can be used to fix these areas.

There is also some share/free ware:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CombineZ

http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZP/News.htm

Note that CombineZP is an update from CombineZM (which I used to use). However neither will stack 16 bit TIFF files - which is recommended by Zerene.

Glenn
Economics:  the study of achieving infinite growth with finite resources.
 

by richard bledsoe on Sat Nov 10, 2012 7:32 pm
richard bledsoe
Forum Contributor
Posts: 237
Joined: 30 Oct 2004
Location: Arizona
Tim,

The retouching feature in Zerene Stacker is excellent! All the reason I needed to buy it.
 

by Greg Forcey on Wed Nov 14, 2012 8:56 pm
User avatar
Greg Forcey
Lifetime Member
Posts: 1615
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Location: Gainesville, Florida
Member #:00926
I think you will find that the performance with each stacker will depend on the image. Some images will do best on Zerene, some on Photoshop, and some better with Helicon. Though the general consensus is that Zerene is better than Helicon, at least from what I've read on forums where this topic is discussed.
Greg Forcey
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
9 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group