www.photomacrography.net :: View topic - First comparison Tufuse vs CZP
www.photomacrography.net Forum Index
An online community dedicated to the practices of photomacrography, close-up and macro photography, and photomicrography.
Photomacrography Front Page Amateurmicrography Front Page
Old Forums/Galleries
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
First comparison Tufuse vs CZP

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 9:57 am    Post subject: First comparison Tufuse vs CZP Reply with quote

I ran my first comparison stack between Tufuse and CZP last night, with the same input images (well I ran the alignment/stack in CZP then exported the aligned images and re-ran the stack on those in Tufuse)!

Nikon 10x objective on OM bellows at minimum extension on E-330. Macro twinflash and one sheet of diffuser foam.

Results follow:-

Full image resized for web, tufuse first:-



And the CZP full image:-



Both these full images have had minor sharpening, no other PP after the stacking...

Now a couple of crops, this first one shows that Tufuse definitely has the edge when it comes to overlapping detail, first the Tufuse crop:-
(although the contrast increase from Tufuse is unwelcome!)



And the first CZP crop:-



But this second crop shows that Tufuse's tendancy to increase contrast has some serious downsides, the front of the eye is much clearer in CZP. First Tufuse:-



and the CZP second crop:-



So I think it's still swings and roundabouts really - each handles some bits better than the other. I will try to combine the best bits from each output into one final decent image!! Smile

ETA Further comments after perusing these images a little more:

The background is a lot noisier in Tufuse, but the output suffers really weird streaking in CZP, I think the noise although it looks bad will be easier to sort out than what CZP has done. I don't know how obvious this will appear to readers of this thread, probably depends on your monitor setup. I doubt the noise will be too obvious resized for web... CZP also made a bit of a mess of one of the antenna. Tufuse didn't do this perfectly but it did a much better job...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
augusthouse



Joined: 16 Sep 2006
Posts: 1195
Location: New South Wales Australia

PostPosted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 5:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for sharing that Laurie! Reading your post with great interest.

I downloaded Combine CZP when Rik first brought it to our attention but I haven't done much with it yet and I was wondering if anyone else had taken it for a ride.

Craig
_________________
To use a classic quote from 'Antz' - "I almost know exactly what I'm doing!"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19975
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurie,

When you ran CZP, did you use one of the new pyramid stacking commands, or did you run the old Do Stack macro or something like it?

I suspect the latter, since the defects in the CZP image look just like the ones produced by the depth-map algorithm used by Do Stack and friends.

To get the new pyramid algorithm, you have to use one of the new commands too.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 5:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nope I definitely ran a pyramid stack - I just re-ran it to be absolutely sure, the resulting image is almost identical (differences are probably due to me stacking a slightly different number of images, or alignment - see next paragraph!).

I /may/ not have run an alignment on these images, as I previously thought that align was run as part of the stacking macro (In fact I'm positive it was before, whether by default or by me modifying the macros!). I just realised in the last couple of days that the "pyramid do stack" macro at least, does no alignment.

Does this suggest that the software is not really doing a pyramid stack due to some bug, or that one of the other macro components (like fill gaps) is creating the mushy areas?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
rjlittlefield
Site Admin


Joined: 01 Aug 2006
Posts: 19975
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Laurie,

Oh, I think I understand now. I'm not in a place where I can re-test right now, but as I recall there are two different pyramid algorithms. The one named something like "maximum" is very similar to what TuFuse does. That's the one you want.

There is another algorithm with a name that might be something like "pyramid do stack" that uses a pyramid algorithm to calculate a depth map, complete with filling gaps, then uses that depth map in the old-fashioned manner, to select actual pixel values from individual frames. I have not seen any cases where the pyramid depth map is significantly better than the old do-stack.

My recollection is that the pyramid macros as released do not run alignment by themselves. I have no idea why Alan made that choice; it seems less than optimal to me.

--Rik
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

That's correct, there are actually three 'pyramid' macros, the one I've been using is just "Do pyramid stack" - there is also "Weighted average pyramid" and "Pyramid max contrast". I will try the max-contrast one post-haste!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Okay here are the same shots stacked with the "Max contrast pyramid" in CZP...

Full shot, minor sharpening same as above:-



First crop, tried to do the same bit, might be slightly mis-aligned from the ones above!



Second crop:



These do look much more like the Tufuse output! I need to peruse the images a little more to make my mind up!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
lauriek
Site Admin


Joined: 25 Nov 2007
Posts: 2404
Location: South East UK

PostPosted: Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm pyramid weighted average looks interesting, some detail has definitely been lost in some areas with this one but it's done an impressive job with that tricky overlapping hairy eye area...



Note this is unsharpened, I did use some sharpening on the first set of images but didn't note exactly how much! This is all getting a bit out of hand, I think I might do another test from scratch now I know what's going on a bit better!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    www.photomacrography.net Forum Index -> Macro and Micro Technique and Technical Discussions All times are GMT - 7 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group