Photocameras

Yes, the weight of the object is 600g, 15 lenses, cool ) And where are the specks on the images from, is there really garbage on the lenses? Although in theory it should not be displayed, then on the matrix.

It's in Pan's head. Well, how could those hefty spots be mistaken for garbage on the matrix? Does Pan have any idea what size the matrix is there, and what size the sorina should be to create such a spot?

I tried the same flower with an inverted whale object

Pictures:

Bellis_perennis1.jpg — (86.98к)

On a full automatic machine, it is almost impossible to sew perfectly. you always need to manually finish it later. By the way, I also didn't bring this mother-and-stepmother to mind in some places in the corners, I'll have to fix it a little. The essence of manual debugging is as follows. that after automatic stacking, you need to save all aligned frames and open them as layers in the image editor. Next, we look at what turned out better on one and the other layers than on the result and wipe in these places. We reduce two layers and repeat with the third and so on until one stops.

but here you can find out more ? or a link to lesson

Yes, on the last page (or the one before that) I painted it, however, in relation to CombineZP and GIMP, I don't have Photoshop and commercial stitches. The only thing I forgot to mention: CombineZP needs to feed files whose names alphabetically follow the same sequence as the shooting order when the camera moves to the object. I usually have it this way initially, in other cases it is easier to take it to a separate folder and rename it with numbers with a leading zero. But they say this is purely a CZP problem, with other programs in this regard it is easier.

P.S. The previous post slightly expanded.

Yes, on the last page (or the one before that) I painted it, however, in relation to CombineZP and GIMP, I don't have Photoshop and commercial stitches. The only thing I forgot to mention: CombineZP needs to feed files whose names alphabetically follow the same sequence as the shooting order when the camera moves to the object. I usually have it this way initially, in other cases it is easier to take it to a separate folder and rename it with numbers with a leading zero. But they say this is purely a CZP problem, with other programs in this regard it is easier.

PS The previous post slightly expanded.

Wow thank you ! About the modes everything is correct as you wrote only in Zerene I have three of them . CombineZP, too, I have only never used it. And what kind of program is GIMP ? is this a GIMP photo editor? You can also work with stacks there ?

Yes, GIMP - he's a GIMP. For me, this is almost a complete replacement for paid Photoshop (because I shoot in jpeg). But photoshop, according to the generally accepted opinion, in addition to supporting 16-bit color, features GIMP, and there is more material on it in Russian. He should be able to wipe the layer to the previous one with brushes of different shapes and transparency, and how this is done should be in any manual. In GIMP, the right tool is called "eraser", I strongly suspect that in the shop it is the same. As far as I know, there is no plugin for automatic stacking for GIMP. So first we stack and get an aligned stack in a special program, and only then we go to gimp or photoshop. True, in Zerene and Helikon, you can not go anywhere, but wipe right there. But I'm not sure that the simplest brushes built in there will provide enough opportunities for fine-tuning the process. In any case, experienced stackers, judging by the articles, usually bring in the store.

You, as I see it, are not a weak collector of photo processing software. I can recommend another useful thing - SmartDeblur 2.3, but only Pro is suitable for you - it can eat RAW at once and save it to TIFF. Even on my camera zhpeg, a small defocus and wiggle eliminates completely (see the photos of bees above, almost everyone who sits on a willow tree in natural light has passed through it), and with ravs in general, it should be fantastic. And for meditation and tea drinking, it is just as suitable as stackers.

Shot today on a Canon 700d + whale shifter-33 stacks-stitching in Helicon Focus "pyramid" . Then I processed it in Photoshop with different filters ...

Pictures:

Polistes_dominula.jpg — (151.21к)

Yes, GIMP - he's a GIMP. For me, this is almost a complete replacement for paid Photoshop (because I shoot in jpeg). But photoshop, according to the generally accepted opinion, in addition to supporting 16-bit color, features GIMP, and there is more material on it in Russian. He should be able to wipe the layer to the previous one with brushes of different shapes and transparency, and how this is done should be in any manual. In GIMP, the right tool is called "eraser", I strongly suspect that in the shop it is the same. As far as I know, there is no plugin for automatic stacking for GIMP. So first we stack and get an aligned stack in a special program, and only then we go to gimp or photoshop. True, in Zerene and Helikon, you can not go anywhere, but wipe right there. But I'm not sure that the simplest brushes built in there will provide enough opportunities for fine-tuning the process. In any case, experienced stackers, judging by the articles, usually bring in the store.

You, as I see it, are not a weak collector of photo processing software. I can recommend another useful thing - SmartDeblur 2.3, but only Pro is suitable for you - it can eat RAW at once and save it to TIFF. Even on my camera zhpeg, a small defocus and wiggle eliminates completely (see the photos of bees above, almost everyone who sits on a willow tree in natural light has passed through it), and with ravs in general, it should be fantastic. And for meditation and tea drinking, it is just as suitable as stackers.

Thanks ! even though I live in Germany, I didn't buy any software if you understand what I mean . Another question, I still don't understand (in practice ) what does it mean to wipe the layer ? Do you have Power Shot how do you use it to shoot macro shots ? You can't screw an object on it, like, or ?

The angle isn't quite right. It is necessary strictly in full face and it is desirable that the last segments of the antennas are visible. But it is already clear that this is Polistes dominula. On such a large stack, you can get a pretty good animation with rotations, like this one of mine (only adjusted for a much better matrix):



Or this one: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/BEHB/9oP9yizJP

In the last case, there were only 6 images. The more of them there are, the more accurately the three-dimensional structure is restored.

This post was edited by ENO-03.04.2016 01: 35

The angle isn't quite right. It is necessary strictly in full face and it is desirable that the last segments of the antennas are visible. But it is already clear that this is Polistes dominula. On such a large stack, you can get a pretty good animation with rotations, like this one of mine (only adjusted for a much better matrix):



Or this one: https://cloud.mail.ru/public/BEHB/9oP9yizJP

In the last case, there were only 6 images. The more of them there are, the more accurately the three-dimensional structure is restored.

How do you make these GIFs ? Hi, tell me the method of shooting and stitching in gif

Gif Maker ?

here's another Dolichovespula media wasp-Canon 700d + whale shifter

Pictures:

Dolichovespula_media.jpg — (195.69к)

Do you have Power Shot how do you use it to shoot macro shots ? You can't screw an object on it, like, or ?
Yes, the trouble is with this, but I found a cheap and angry way out: http://molbiol.ru/forums/index.php?showtop...dpost&p=1610380

True, some objective builders who love "heavy R & D", you see, do not like color reproduction and detail.

Shot today on a Canon 700d + whale shifter-33 stacks-stitching in Helicon Focus "pyramid" . Then I processed it in Photoshop with different filters ...

And you can take a photo of the adapter that you use to photograph a whale shifter on Canon or in general a carcass with a lens what does it look like ?

Reverse ring fasten and insert the lens backwards
here photographer Vasily Menshov explains how it works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzwO4CgktPs and then the continuation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOgMS32HxeY
and here you can see his photos http://vmenshov.35photo.ru/
here he explains in detail how to shoot a supermacro http://vmenshov.livejournal.com/tag/макро

This post was edited by gstalker - 03.04.2016 17: 10

Pictures:

20160403_140525.jpg — (2.9 mb)


20160403_140521.jpg — (2.6 mb)


20160403_140504.jpg — (1.88 mb)

 

The shooting method is exactly the same. Gif is made in SZP with the "Rocker" macro (loaded separately with the "Load Macro Set" command). By the way, many people do not know about this, because they do not read the detailed manual that jumps out by default when starting the program. It is important to set the right and left limits correctly, otherwise the object will either be rotated initially (with a blur and split). You will have to choose it experimentally. The default parameters are rarely suitable. Helikon and Zerene can also do this, but I don't know what menu they use. As a result, we have a bunch of redesigned images - frames of our movie, which, in theory, can be sewn through the Movie -> Make menu, but I never did it - it gives an error. Instead, I saved all the frames via Movie -> Extract (or Export, I don't remember, but I don't want to check). Then I opened it as layers in GIMP and just saved it as a gif. There is also an optimization function (for significant compression), but in this case, first you need to cut holes on each layer except the lowest one in place of the background, otherwise it is unlikely that it will find something to be thrown out.

and how to shoot the footage ? Move the camera sideways or rotate the object ?

Fresh eyes, non-photoshopped eyes, to whom eyes , all sorts of varieties

Pictures:

P4030062.jpg — (476.09к)


P40301032.jpg — (228.94к)


P40301222.jpg — (158.92к)


P403025922.jpg — (280.8к)


P4030266.jpg — (338.69к)


P40302783.jpg — (178.86к)


P4030297.jpg — (211.3к)


P40303426.jpg — (121.2к)


P40303648.jpg — (115.93к)

Someone talked about the" heaviness " of modern DSLRs with a lens?
So, for example, my Soviet FS, from the "film" times, has an assembled weight of 3 Kg . , and the weight of the camping stowage is 5.5 Kg. At one time it was purchased in the early 80s, in a thrift store for 140r (although without the camera itself and an additional normal lens), I had to redo the usual Zenith, make it a lower descent.





Next, a small test (in a hurry):
Old "duty" Kodak z1012 is +inverted Helios-44 + tripod, approximate angle of inclination to the plane (sheet of paper) 45 degrees.
The device is on "auto", so it puts 200w (of course it makes noise), the flash is native(although it is repaired).
The attachment lens was held by hand (crooked).

Display field and GRIP. The maximum zoom of the device(eq. 390mm), Helios - the maximum light hole.


In reality, you can work with any zoom value of the device, but the field will be like this.


This is a photo of a young stickman (head and paws), the noise is terrible at 200, if there was time to tinker, I would shoot on manual focus and 64iso
(full "reduced" frames, real 100% in the corner)




This post was edited by Yuriy352-04.04.2016 13: 20

Raynox CM-3500.
I understand that Raynox CM-3500, decently cut the frame, although the nozzles themselves are well corrected for chromatism.
http://www.myrmecophoto.fr/article/1-Compa...ox-CM-3500.html

This post was edited by Yuriy352-04.04.2016 01: 05

gstalker, I wrote in Russian: the method is exactly the same as for stacking the focus. This is actually it, one of the applications. You don't need to turn anything anywhere. You can of course rotate the object physically, but that will be a completely different story.
Oh, Pan's "megafotki" were not long in coming. The second is a strong wind, you can even see the trajectory with the naked eye, maybe Smartdeblyur will fix it. Only Grave basket will fix the penultimate one. The fly was a good success, but it's just a big head. However, the HA is very noticeable, something slightly helped pan by his aspherical element. The eye of the horse is very similar to my pictures, even when viewing it, I couldn't help thinking: it seems that I didn't post this particular photo, and I didn't crop it like that. But sometimes I can do better than that. Almost everywhere, the noises are terrible, as if after a fig shumodava-only smeared. Ktyr is also not bad, but the GRIP is sorely lacking for it. How strange: pan freezes in every possible way with lenses, according to him, in order to get a GRIP with more than one lens, but to no avail. For example, the head of dorcadion (or something for a beetle?) in the GRIP on, my taste, did not get at all. In general, the pan system gives photos of approximately the same level as mine (on average, it's a little worse, but we'll put this down to the photographer's crookedness), its only significant advantage is the long shooting distance. But I tried to apply a magnifier X2 to the lens of my fotik-the focusing distance increased to 20-30 cm, the GRIP generally skyrocketed. True, the magnifier is hefty and crooked, giving a lot of distortion. You will need to look for a similar strength, but better quality and smaller size. You can also solve the problem of fitting entire insects, the size of a honey bee, into the frame.

This post was edited by ENO-04.04.2016 02: 37

Reverse ring fasten and insert the lens backwards
here photographer Vasily Menshov explains how it works https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzwO4CgktPs and then the continuation https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOgMS32HxeY
and here you can see his photos http://vmenshov.35photo.ru/
here he explains in detail how to shoot a supermacro http://vmenshov.livejournal.com/tag/макро

The Kulibins, however... Do you think that if everything was solved so simply on the knee, then the engineers of manufacturing companies would not take advantage of this? But no one has ever been able to circumvent the laws of optics.
I understand if there were Soviet times now, when nothing practical could be obtained or simply bought. Or such equipment simply did not exist in nature. He himself once used furs and shifters-staff members with double cables + "unreal" permissive materials like Mikrat-300.
But now... Well, earn money on a normal device and optics + a tripod and rails, and you will not need to suffer hemorrhoids from such tricks.
Moreover, the author recommended by you for his "supermacro" still uses not some homemade products, but the only existing MP-E 65mm on 5D Mark II, stitching multi-frame stacking. So now do all those who need to get a frame with a full GRP.
So, my advice is not to talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

The Kulibins, however...Well, earn money on a normal device and optics + a tripod and rails, and you will not need to suffer hemorrhoids from such tricks...
do not talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

When a father with many children was asked " you have such a big family!You must be very fond of children?"To which he replied, " Not that the children, but the process!.. "

The Kulibins, however... Do you think that if everything was solved so simply on the knee, then the engineers of manufacturing companies would not take advantage of this? But no one has ever been able to circumvent the laws of optics.
...
So, my advice is not to talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

Good idea! But to invest (especially now) in professional equipment, there is no point in the absence of commercial implementation of their photo results, good equipment is a means of production that should pay for itself.

This post was edited by Yuriy352-04.04.2016 13: 55

Good idea! But to invest (especially now) in professional equipment, there is no point in the absence of commercial implementation of their photo results, good equipment is a means of production that should pay for itself.

I agree, it's not cheap. But without initial investments, it is difficult to expect decent results. You can also use less sophisticated cameras, focusing on optics, which you can't do without in principle.
But first of all, decide why you need such images, and whether they are needed at all...

I agree, it's not cheap. But without initial investments, it is difficult to expect decent results. You can also use less sophisticated cameras, focusing on optics, which you can't do without in principle.
But first of all, decide why you need such images, and whether they are needed at all...

I think every person (participating in this topic) chooses the "limit-bar" for the quality of their images (at this time) and strives for it in their own way(using their capabilities), what's wrong with that?
For example, for me, this question is "supermacro", rather entertainment (almost all the objects of my interest are quite large). As a mechanical optician, I am interested in the results obtained from various combinations of optics and photographic equipment.

The Kulibins, however... Do you think that if everything was solved so simply on the knee, then the engineers of manufacturing companies would not take advantage of this? But no one has ever been able to circumvent the laws of optics.
I understand if there were Soviet times now, when nothing practical could be obtained or simply bought. Or such equipment simply did not exist in nature. He himself once used furs and shifters-staff members with double cables + "unreal" permissive materials like Mikrat-300.
But now... Well, earn money on a normal device and optics + a tripod and rails, and you will not need to suffer hemorrhoids from such tricks.
Moreover, the author recommended by you for his "supermacro" still uses not some homemade products, but the only existing MP-E 65mm on 5D Mark II, stitching multi-frame stacking. So now do all those who need to get a frame with a full GRP.
So, my advice is not to talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

Hi ! And what is this Reaction ? A person asked me for a photo of the adapter, I showed it and gave a link to how it works. And I don't think anything - what did you write to me there(i.e. I don't care ) , everyone is spinning as best they can and everyone has their own head on their shoulders .
With respect...

What other laws of optics ))
The law here is simple - to rip off more, investing less) In the photos of the lower price range, all sorts of soap boxes - put bad objects, and noisy matrices crowded with megapixels, 50% of which are just superfluous, and in expensive cameras and objects stick what is better, and respectively. to even more expensive ones - just a little bit better. Where "better" is just a more thorough lens grinding, improved glass composition and a high-quality matrix.
Moreover, price growth does not depend linearly on quality growth, so for a 50% increase in quality, you need to pay a 300% higher price, and for another 25% increase, you will have to pay 500% more, and so on

The laws of physics are the same everywhere, both in a home-made object and in a factory one, and these laws do not depend on the price or the company, infections

It should be concluded: the bundle "soap dish + macro lens + vspyshka + stacking + live insect", with rare exceptions, does not work.

You can also add RAW to the heap...

  
By the way, I shot the moth yesterday with a flash. However, I don't know if it's the same type or already different, I don't have a foot in them at all. But the angle is less successful, the light is a little too much, and the focus is not perfect. But since you know a lot about moles, I'll lay it out:

The moth is different, but I don't know enough about them to tell. Just the one with a specific wavy pattern and quite often comes across.

 
I looked in the personal account, there are 10(!) duplicates of one letter from a terribly frightened lady with a question about the crawling of bedbugs, which she stubbornly calls beetles, in her ears and nothing more.

It's kind of weird... this doesn't seem to have happened on the site before. I still have a copy in my sent files (i.e. I sent it)... I meant to look at my flies and bees, maybe something will be determined...

The Kulibins, however... Do you think that if everything was solved so simply on the knee, then the engineers of manufacturing companies would not take advantage of this? But no one has ever been able to circumvent the laws of optics.
I understand if there were Soviet times now, when nothing practical could be obtained or simply bought. Or such equipment simply did not exist in nature. He himself once used furs and shifters-staff members with double cables + "unreal" permissive materials like Mikrat-300.
But now... Well, earn money on a normal device and optics + a tripod and rails, and you will not need to suffer hemorrhoids from such tricks.
Moreover, the author recommended by you for his "supermacro" still uses not some homemade products, but the only existing MP-E 65mm on 5D Mark II, stitching multi-frame stacking. So now do all those who need to get a frame with a full GRP.
So, my advice is not to talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

The price of a reverse ring is 300 rubles.
The price of a macro lens is 10,000 rubles.
The result is identical for the layman.
Why pay more?

You can also add RAW to the heap...

I don't understand, what does RAW have to do with it? I mean, it's going to take a very long time to write on a soap dish? So in my case, the manufacturer himself took care that the user did not bother - RAW is not written at all. Although, they say, you can enable it through a third-party program, whatever it is... It was discussed above.

Raynox CM-3500.
I understand that Raynox CM-3500, decently cut the frame, although the nozzles themselves are well corrected for chromatism.

If you just put it to the lens, then they usually cut it. But the whole trick is that on compacts with lenses, shooting usually takes place in the maximum zoom zone - this is how the maximum zoom is obtained. Otherwise, what is the point of shooting without using optics to the fullest.
I.e. in real typical situations, there is no cutting.

I don't understand, what does RAW have to do with it? I mean, it's going to take a very long time to write on a soap dish? So in my case, the manufacturer himself took care that the user did not bother - RAW is not written at all. Although, they say, you can enable it through a third-party program, whatever it is... It was discussed above.

Yes, RAW is written in a few seconds. RAW is still more of a blessing than an extra strain for the user and the manufacturer is wrong... You can get much more out of RAW than from JPG. This is especially true for operational field shooting, when you don't always get where you need to go in terms of exposure, white balance, etc.

That rav is a blessing in itself is clear to the goat, but a few seconds of recording is no longer a blessing when shooting live insects with a stack of hands. But when using a flash, it may be justified: the capacitor is recharged, the rav is written, everything is in order. Or will they take turns?

The Kulibins, however... Do you think that if everything was solved so simply on the knee, then the engineers of manufacturing companies would not take advantage of this? But no one has ever been able to circumvent the laws of optics.

Everyone has their own niche.
The laws of optics just say that on large matrices, the GRIP drops, which forces you to do stacking and, accordingly, efficiency is lost. You will not remove the running beetle.

Well, earn money on a normal device and optics + a tripod and rails, and you will not need to suffer hemorrhoids from such tricks.

You haven't counted everything yet... I would add to this pile and a normal car with all-wheel drive and a roomy trunk. Because you can't carry all this stuff on your shoulders and you can't get on the bus with it... and through the ravines and swamps it is not shuffle.

Moreover, the author recommended by you for his "supermacro" still uses not some homemade products, but the only existing MP-E 65mm on 5D Mark II, stitching multi-frame stacking. So now do all those who need to get a frame with a full GRP.
So, my advice is not to talk nonsense, but switch to normal equipment.

If we talk about the super-quality of static scenes, then yes-the mirror technique is justified. If, of course, you close your eyes to the financial side of the issue, and it is almost impossible to compensate financially for this.
But with expensive mirror technology, there can be no question of rapid shooting... at least some of it... at least at the compact level... Because it doesn't exist at all. The entire macro club is littered with flowers and "peacock's eye" (well, with some variations). DSLRs don't take pictures of small things running around because they can't physically do it... despite a lot of money invested.
So don't talk about hemorrhoids here... it depends on who else has it exactly... Each technique and approach serves its own purposes and solves its own problems.

Hi ! And what is this Reaction ? A person asked me for a photo of the adapter, I showed it and gave a link to how it works. And I don't think anything - what did you write to me there(i.e. I don't care ) , everyone is spinning as best they can and everyone has their own head on their shoulders .
With respect...

And what exactly is the reaction? I wrote that I went through it all myself. But those were different times when nothing could be obtained, or nothing like the current opportunities simply did not exist in nature.
I could write about the disadvantages of focus stacking (which the author of your links shyly omitted), but why, if you don't care?
Well, the fact that everyone is spinning as best they can, I agree. No one is forbidden to invent their own personal bicycle.

What other laws of optics ))
The law here is simple - to rip off more, investing less) In the photos of the lower price range, all sorts of soap boxes - put bad objects, and noisy matrices crowded with megapixels, 50% of which are just superfluous, and in expensive cameras and objects stick what is better, and respectively. to even more expensive ones - just a little bit better. Where "better" is just a more thorough lens grinding, improved glass composition and a high-quality matrix.
Moreover, price growth does not depend linearly on quality growth, so for a 50% increase in quality, you need to pay a 300% higher price, and for another 25% increase, you will have to pay 500% more, and so on

The laws of physics are the same everywhere, both in a home-made object and in a factory one, and these laws do not depend on the price, the company, or the infection    

Gee-gee… I would like to see your "homemade" lens with clear lenses made of low-dispersion glass or fluorite and aspherical. And without them, it is impossible to get rid of aberrations and parasitic highlights, soap and vignetting. And so you have to pay for these very expensive technologies.

The price of a reverse ring is 300 rubles.
The price of a macro lens is 10,000 rubles.
The result is identical for the layman.
Why pay more?

Yes, I myself would be two hands FOR it, if the output result was comparable...

Yes, RAW is written in a few seconds. RAW is still more of a blessing than an extra strain for the user and the manufacturer is wrong... You can get much more out of RAW than from JPG. This is especially true for operational field shooting, when you don't always get where you need to go in terms of exposure, white balance, etc.

This is where high-speed flash drives come in handy. For example, I have no brakes at all with a 95 Mb/s card, and a couple of files (RAW+JPG), where RAW is written under 50 Mb at a time. With a burst of 4.5 frames per second, you can shoot a series of up to 20-30 seconds without pausing or slowing down.

[quote=barry,05.04.2016 10:11]