IQ4-150 stacking

[tashley]

Crikey it's complicated.

Firstly, don't try stacking on a technical camera unless you're using the Eiffel Tower as a 'pod: nothing is steady enough for you to tweak focus between shotes without losing position.

Second, when using the XF, expect it (or the back? actually it seems to be both) to lock up often if there are a lot of exposures in the stack.

Third, expert the auto stack calculation feature to sometimes tell you the you need a LOT more frames than you need. For example, over 50 when you need less than twenty.

Fourth, use live view and focus mask to set your near and far focus points. It works and it's a lot easier.

Fifth, set a delay between frames or use seismic.

Sixth, don't use the C1 to Helicon plugin unless you want to pull all your hair plugs out. It sucks. There are lots of examples of why it sucks but the most irritating is the plethora of open, 'doing nothing but claiming to be doing something' activity panels it leaves on your desktop - and the habit it has of default saving the finished stack to an impossible place, to whit the middle of a package content in your C1 catalogue, from whence you will need to be expert to find, see, use extract or otherwise care about. Tell Helicon to save it to a folder you can see and find and then import from that folder into C1.

These two are from a 13 and 18 shot stacks. Process quick as you like on a ten core iMac Pro. I wanted to link to TIFFs too but my Zenfolio can't handle the 880gb files and I'm out of dropbox...
18 shots is over 2.7 BILLION pixels. These suckers will print to the side of a bus. They are so close to being impossible that they are almost magic - like all good technology....

 

[etrump]

Wonder what firmware you are running. I’ve done a couple dozen stacks with no issue. Xf/iq4150, 28 LS. 10-20 shots typically - no crashes.

 

[tashley]

Wonder what firmware you are running. I’ve done a couple dozen stacks with no issue. Xf/iq4150, 28 LS. 10-20 shots typically - no crashes.

Current latest FW in back and body. It’s fine with the ES, less good otherwise. Typically crashed at about 12.

 

[dchew]

Crikey it's complicated.

Firstly, don't try stacking on a technical camera unless you're using the Eiffel Tower as a 'pod: nothing is steady enough for you to tweak focus between shotes without losing position.

Hi Tim,
Was this with the STC? I stack frequently, including a few tests with the IQ4-150 and felt it was pretty reliable. In fact, stacking is one of the reasons I keep the HPF rings on my lenses. Over the years, I've learned how many degrees rotation are required between images and the HPF rings are great for that.

I suppose any human interface with the camera during the stacking process is problematic. Since I don't have an XF to compare my stacking results, maybe it is better I don't know...

Dave

 

[tashley]

Hi Tim,
Was this with the STC? I stack frequently, including a few tests with the IQ4-150 and felt it was pretty reliable. In fact, stacking is one of the reasons I keep the HPF rings on my lenses. Over the years, I've learned how many degrees rotation are required between images and the HPF rings are great for that.

I suppose any human interface with the camera during the stacking process is problematic. Since I don't have an XF to compare my stacking results, maybe it is better I don't know...

Dave

It was with the XF Dave, which IMHO has some serious advantages for stacking being:

1) Automatic calculation of number of images needed in the stack
2) If using ES, no movement at all between shots and total automation of the sequence.

I have tried the STC and whilst it is possible, it's IMHO not the best tool for the job - at least with my rig, which is very very difficult not to shift a touch as you change focus. At 150mp, any tiny accidentl movement counts....

 

[Wayne Fox]

Crikey it's complicated.

Firstly, don't try stacking on a technical camera unless you're using the Eiffel Tower as a 'pod: nothing is steady enough for you to tweak focus between shotes without losing position.

I’ve stacked quite easily with both a Rm3di as well as my Cambo Actus DB, in fact it’s pretty easy to stack. Is the issue alignment or not having enough control to move the focus in small enough increments? I’ll admit I’m stacking landscape shots for depth of field, so no need for a huge number of shots and not trying to get 1 or 2mm focusing increments. Helicon Focus or even Photoshop has never had an issue with aligning the images before the merge of the stack, so even a slight bump doesn’t cause an issue for me.

 

[tashley]

I’ve stacked quite easily with both a Rm3di as well as my Cambo Actus DB, in fact it’s pretty easy to stack. Is the issue alignment or not having enough control to move the focus in small enough increments? I’ll admit I’m stacking landscape shots for depth of field, so no need for a huge number of shots and not trying to get 1 or 2mm focusing increments. Helicon Focus or even Photoshop has never had an issue with aligning the images before the merge of the stack, so even a slight bump doesn’t cause an issue for me.

I think it’s the extra pixel count that makes it harder: I’ve done a few stacks on the STC/Rodie combo and a few on the XF and to me it’s very clear that with the XF you are getting the optimal number of shots and no movement between frames whereas in the STC however careful you are you can see the rig move a touch. The proof of the pudding is that the XF stacks are immaculate whereas the STC shots are just good. Ish.

 

[k-hawinkler]

I do a lot of focus stacking with my Fuji 50S, C1Pro12, Helicon Focus, and plug-in on my Mac trashcan. Images stored on a Raid5 of 4 SSDs.

No issues whatsoever. :thumbs:

 

[Stuart Richardson]

This, in my opinion, is one of the most convincing arguments for Phase One. I know stacking can be accomplished with many cameras, but the idea of it being more or less fully auto, combined with the massive resolution creates the possibility to make pictures that were quite literally impossible before. I have shot a lot of macro on 4x5 and it is an exercise in trade offs at every step of the way. It can give a beautiful aesthetic and in certain situations the results are breathtaking as well, but at a certain point depth of field is depth of field and diffraction is diffraction...the stacking neatly sidesteps this and really changes the game. Tim, I think you are right to call it magic!

 

[narikin]

Crikey it's complicated.

Second, when using the XF, expect it (or the back? actually it seems to be both) to lock up often if there are a lot of exposures in the stack.

Third, expert the auto stack calculation feature to sometimes tell you the you need a LOT more frames than you need. For example, over 50 when you need less than twenty.

Fourth, use live view and focus mask to set your near and far focus points. It works and it's a lot easier.

Fifth, set a delay between frames or use seismic.

Sixth, don't use the C1 to Helicon plugin unless you want to pull all your hair plugs out. It sucks. There are lots of examples of why it sucks but the most irritating is the plethora of open, 'doing nothing but claiming to be doing something' activity panels it leaves on your desktop - and the habit it has of default saving the finished stack to an impossible place, to whit the middle of a package content in your C1 catalogue, from whence you will need to be expert to find, see, use extract or otherwise care about. Tell Helicon to save it to a folder you can see and find and then import from that folder into C1.

Thanks for posting. Agree with much you say about 150mp demanding impeccable technique.

Care to run us through the precise sequence of steps on XF for stacking with live View on IQ4?
I've done it with IQ3, but so much has moved or missing from current firmware, that I fear loosing an important image, or frustration.

Agree with you the XF + IQback are one of the finest of focus stacking combo's. It does indeed come into it's own this respect. 'Credit where credit is due'.

 

[tashley]

Thanks for posting. Agree with much you say about 150mp demanding impeccable technique.

Care to run us through the precise sequence of steps on XF for stacking with live View on IQ4?
I've done it with IQ3, but so much has moved or missing from current firmware, that I fear loosing an important image, or frustration.

Agree with you the XF + IQback are one of the finest of focus stacking combo's. It does indeed come into it's own this respect. 'Credit where credit is due'.

Sure. It’s the exact same process: navigate to the stacking screen on the XF top plate, get the back into Live View mode with focus mask switched on, use the rear and front dials to move focus (lens is in AF mode) until the nearest part of the subject is showing green, then press the Flower symbol to set the near focus point. Now repeat for the far focus point and set using the Mountains symbol.

Using the focus mask makes this super easy.

When you have both these set, press the rear start button to begin the sequence, having set the other parameters as you wish (for delay between shots etc - but since you are using ES here you can generally forget this).

I find that this works a lot better than using the physical shutter, which does require delay between shots and for me at least tends to lock up halfway through longer stack sequences.

Hope that helps!

 

[ErikKaffehr]

Congratulations!

I think I have seen some of your progress at another place!

Best regards
Erik

I do a lot of focus stacking with my Fuji 50S, C1Pro12, Helicon Focus, and plug-in on my Mac trashcan. Images stored on a Raid5 of 4 SSDs.

No issues whatsoever. :thumbs:

 

[narikin]

Sure. It’s the exact same process: navigate to the stacking screen on the XF top plate, get the back into Live View mode with focus mask switched on, use the rear and front dials to move focus (lens is in AF mode) until the nearest part of the subject is showing green, then press the Flower symbol to set the near focus point. Now repeat for the far focus point and set using the Mountains symbol.

Using the focus mask makes this super easy.

When you have both these set, press the rear start button to begin the sequence, having set the other parameters as you wish (for delay between shots etc - but since you are using ES here you can generally forget this).

I find that this works a lot better than using the physical shutter, which does require delay between shots and for me at least tends to lock up halfway through longer stack sequences.

Hope that helps!

Thanks - basically same as before with IQ3 - I was concerned there was some changes with IQ4.

'Focus mask' - you mean working tethered, not the on camera focus check?

A small delay even with ES is useful, as the XF motorized focus stepping induces a small bit of vibration, that is best left to settle.

I usually to go a bit beyond either far/near point, just to be sure of coverage. But am no expert in this - maybe done XF focus stacking 30-ish times or so, but was impressed with the results, assuming you can accept the serious Mb 25+ IQ4-16bit files it generates, for each shot!

(I tether to a Surface Pro on location, and now wish I'd bought the 1Tb version!)

 

[tashley]

Thanks - basically same as before with IQ3 - I was concerned there was some changes with IQ4.

'Focus mask' - you mean working tethered, not the on camera focus check?

A small delay even with ES is useful, as the XF motorized focus stepping induces a small bit of vibration, that is best left to settle.

I usually to go a bit beyond either far/near point, just to be sure of coverage. But am no expert in this - maybe done XF focus stacking 30-ish times or so, but was impressed with the results, assuming you can accept the serious Mb 25+ IQ4-16bit files it generates, for each shot!

(I tether to a Surface Pro on location, and now wish I'd bought the 1Tb version!)

Actually I'm not tethering other than when in the studio. The IQ4 has live view focus mask indication on the back's own screen and it seems to work really well to visually identify the nearest and furthest focus point just by racking focus from near to far and seeing where the first and last green shimmer is.