Home PageAbout MindatThe Mindat ManualHistory of MindatCopyright StatusWho We AreContact UsAdvertise on Mindat
Donate to MindatCorporate SponsorshipSponsor a PageSponsored PagesMindat AdvertisersAdvertise on Mindat
Learning CenterWhat is a mineral?The most common minerals on earthInformation for EducatorsMindat ArticlesThe ElementsThe Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryGeologic Time
Minerals by PropertiesMinerals by ChemistryAdvanced Locality SearchRandom MineralRandom LocalitySearch by minIDLocalities Near MeSearch ArticlesSearch GlossaryMore Search Options
The Mindat ManualAdd a New PhotoRate PhotosLocality Edit ReportCoordinate Completion ReportAdd Glossary Item
Mining CompaniesStatisticsUsersMineral MuseumsClubs & OrganizationsMineral Shows & EventsThe Mindat DirectoryDevice SettingsThe Mineral Quiz
Photo SearchPhoto GalleriesSearch by ColorNew Photos TodayNew Photos YesterdayMembers' Photo GalleriesPast Photo of the Day GalleryPhotography
╳Discussions
💬 Home🔎 Search📅 LatestGroups
EducationOpen discussion area.Fakes & FraudsOpen discussion area.Field CollectingOpen discussion area.FossilsOpen discussion area.Gems and GemologyOpen discussion area.GeneralOpen discussion area.How to ContributeOpen discussion area.Identity HelpOpen discussion area.Improving Mindat.orgOpen discussion area.LocalitiesOpen discussion area.Lost and Stolen SpecimensOpen discussion area.MarketplaceOpen discussion area.MeteoritesOpen discussion area.Mindat ProductsOpen discussion area.Mineral ExchangesOpen discussion area.Mineral PhotographyOpen discussion area.Mineral ShowsOpen discussion area.Mineralogical ClassificationOpen discussion area.Mineralogy CourseOpen discussion area.MineralsOpen discussion area.Minerals and MuseumsOpen discussion area.PhotosOpen discussion area.Techniques for CollectorsOpen discussion area.The Rock H. Currier Digital LibraryOpen discussion area.UV MineralsOpen discussion area.Recent Images in Discussions
Mineral PhotographyCombine z vs Helicon Focus
18th Dec 2007 03:00 UTCTom Mortimer Expert
19th Dec 2007 17:34 UTCVolker Betz 🌟 Expert
I am using Helicon sisncea few years, in a version which also allows "retouching", this means to correct artefacts manually. I have tested Combine Z only a little. What I can see is that Helicon seems much faster and als is not limited to JPEG formats, it als supports raw formats.
On the other hand Combine Z is for free and ok for most cases.
Volker
19th Dec 2007 19:08 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
Helicon is somewhat easier to use but as far as I'm concerned the two tools are equally powerfull although some say the algorythms in Helicon are more powerfull.
I ran several comparative tests using the same frames with both programms, there was hardly any noticeable difference between the two results.
I allways use CombineZ by the way...
Cheers
Harjo
19th Dec 2007 20:08 UTCBill Gordon
19th Dec 2007 21:13 UTCdominik schlaefli
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/combinez/
19th Dec 2007 21:14 UTCdominik schlaefli
tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/combinez/
1st Feb 2008 02:49 UTCSteve Stuart Expert
Thanks!
Steve Stuart
1st Feb 2008 03:26 UTCTony Peterson Expert
Tony
1st Feb 2008 03:37 UTCDouglas Merson 🌟 Expert
Doug
2nd Feb 2008 00:57 UTCSteve Stuart Expert
How can I get a copy of the July 07 Combine ZM. I had it, but replaced it long ago with the newer versions.
Thanks!
2nd Feb 2008 02:24 UTCTony Peterson Expert
tony
4th Feb 2008 16:13 UTCVolker Betz 🌟 Expert
i updated to Helicon 4.4 and tested the new B stacking method. This gives much better results for halos.
Volker
28th Mar 2008 21:25 UTCTony Peterson Expert
I wonder if the best algorithm for these programs wouldn't be, instead of sequentially stacking the images, to stack adjacent pairs, then pairs of pairs, etc. until only 1 image is left. Alan, are you there?
Tony
7th Apr 2008 22:35 UTCAMADEO TRIVIÑO
10th Apr 2008 08:01 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
That's what I do too when the sequence involves many frames, stack f.i. 4 groups of 8 frames and then stack the 4 resulting frames instead of stacking the whole 32 frames in one sequence.
The reason why this works better is probably due to the fact that the program discriminates between the sharp, sharper or sharpest areas, obviously there's less to discriminate between 8 frames worth of sharpness compared to 32..
@Steve,
I also still use the Z5 version, I compared the results between Z5 and ZM but will stick to Z5 for the moment (I compared the standard stacking sequence as well as customised stacking sequences)
Cheers
Harjo
12th Apr 2008 13:54 UTCTony Peterson Expert
keep stacking,
Tony
20th Apr 2008 18:21 UTCHarjo Neutkens Manager
I did a stack like that (2 by 2 then 2 by 2 etc) the other day.
The result can be quite good but some problems arouse with an object lacking high contrast.
In that case this method seems to exaggerate the problems encountered when stacking tools have to deal with very low contrast areas....
Cheers
Harjo (keeping up stacking :-) )
Mindat.org is an outreach project of the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization.
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 17:24:57
Copyright © mindat.org and the Hudson Institute of Mineralogy 1993-2024, except where stated. Most political location boundaries are © OpenStreetMap contributors. Mindat.org relies on the contributions of thousands of members and supporters. Founded in 2000 by Jolyon Ralph.
Privacy Policy - Terms & Conditions - Contact Us / DMCA issues - Report a bug/vulnerability Current server date and time: April 25, 2024 17:24:57