View Single Post
  #25  
Old 29-04-08, 17:46
Don Hoey's Avatar
Don Hoey Don Hoey is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Norfolk
Posts: 4,462
Default CZM Update

No bugs yet but experimentation continues.

I have tried a stack as large as 32frames now, but unlike Astro stacking where more is best, I have found this does NOT apply with CZM. 32 frames was a bit of a disaster when compared to a 9 frame stack from a selection taken from the same set of images.

As posted previously as focus changes so does magnification.
I have compared the difference between moving the sliding rail and refocussing the lens between shots. Refocussing the lens reduces the magnification difference between first and last frames significantly when compared to the sliding rail focussing method.
Two images attatched to show the difference.
Image 1 is an overlay from the sliding rail focussing method, of Frame 32 on Frame 1 from an earlier experiment. Zone of focus - bias weight to back edge of the head is 70mm.
Image 2 is an overlay from refocussing the lens method, of Fame 6 on Frame 1 of the attatched main image from the experiment.

Image 3 is the result of a stack of 6 frames with refocussing by way of the lens between shots. Zone of focus 80mm taken at f8.
Image 4 is a 100% crop from image 3 as an example of the accuracy of registration from the stacking program.

Hey ho, back to the drawing board to come up with a means of micro adjusting focus on the lens without having to peer through the viewfinder to determine the points.

Don
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Sliding-rail-mag-difference.jpg (136.4 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg Lens-focus-mag-difference.jpg (151.6 KB, 8 views)
File Type: jpg SME 6 stack.jpg (132.5 KB, 9 views)
File Type: jpg SME 100%-crop.jpg (142.9 KB, 9 views)
Reply With Quote