Hello Luca,
Thanks a lot, as usual, for your work!
In the past days, I have been testing on Windows 11
Version 1.13.2 (not today's version...)
It works fine on the whole.
However with 10x magnification the results are not good.
Tested more set of images: always insects (heads) with:
Nikon Z8 + luminar 25 lens (on nikon bellow) + Novoflex micro-castel electronic rail to perform the stacks
With pyramids., as usual, I have compared the results with other softwares (Zerene stacker + Helicon Focus)
Both softwares produce good results compared to shinestacker.
In case you are interested, here is the dropbox link, with 187 jpeg images, and also the results with Zerene + Helicon + Shinestacker (pyramids):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wwau9y04wz9zn276mpk7u/STACK_10X.zip?rlkey=0dtu4m7bkhixqciyl64w8r7va&dl=0
p.s:
With Depth map the results are usually not good as well.
The finale image looks "soft" and a bit blurry with 10X magnification (e.g. tested with the 187 jpeg images)
In addition, even though I always made sure to select this algorithm, in the advanced options, I am not ever "visually sure" (through the GUI) whether it has been indeed applied during the stack
With Zerene and Helicon this choice is made much more visually clear to the user in the interface, IMHO. In essence, it is not buried in the menus and once it has applied it is visible during the stack
The final stack in ShineStacker is different from the result of the pyramids, though. Therefore the depth map must have been applied indeed :-)
Hello Luca,
Thanks a lot, as usual, for your work!
In the past days, I have been testing on Windows 11
Version 1.13.2 (not today's version...)
It works fine on the whole.
However with 10x magnification the results are not good.
Tested more set of images: always insects (heads) with:
Nikon Z8 + luminar 25 lens (on nikon bellow) + Novoflex micro-castel electronic rail to perform the stacks
With pyramids., as usual, I have compared the results with other softwares (Zerene stacker + Helicon Focus)
Both softwares produce good results compared to shinestacker.
In case you are interested, here is the dropbox link, with 187 jpeg images, and also the results with Zerene + Helicon + Shinestacker (pyramids):
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/wwau9y04wz9zn276mpk7u/STACK_10X.zip?rlkey=0dtu4m7bkhixqciyl64w8r7va&dl=0
p.s:
With Depth map the results are usually not good as well.
The finale image looks "soft" and a bit blurry with 10X magnification (e.g. tested with the 187 jpeg images)
In addition, even though I always made sure to select this algorithm, in the advanced options, I am not ever "visually sure" (through the GUI) whether it has been indeed applied during the stack
With Zerene and Helicon this choice is made much more visually clear to the user in the interface, IMHO. In essence, it is not buried in the menus and once it has applied it is visible during the stack
The final stack in ShineStacker is different from the result of the pyramids, though. Therefore the depth map must have been applied indeed :-)