This is the front of the butterfly (eyes up, objective down), the orange-ish region.
Taken with the mitty 20x, more information here: https://flic.kr/p/2eQaKPR
Lighting is about right, pmax stack.
Here's 100% resolution: https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7892/471 ... e348_o.jpg
It's softer than I expected, not sure if it's right or not. Personally not too satisfied, the results are acceptable however to me.
Thanks for viewing!
-- MC
My Very First 20x Stack: Chrysiridia Rhipheus (Sunset Moth)
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
I agree that it looks a bit soft.
Is this just the way it came out of camera & stacking, or has it already been digitally sharpened (and if so, how and how much)?
I'm not seeing asymmetric aberrations, like I would expect with a decentering problem.
So I'm thinking maybe vibration. It's challenging to keep things still at pixel level and 20X, with a 1.3 second exposure, even with mirror lockup or shutter delay.
For testing purposes, I suggest shooting a stack with speedlight on low power, to get exposure times in the 0.1 ms range.
One more thought: which Mitty 20X is this, the NA 0.42 normal version or the NA 0.28 longer WD?
--Rik
Is this just the way it came out of camera & stacking, or has it already been digitally sharpened (and if so, how and how much)?
I'm not seeing asymmetric aberrations, like I would expect with a decentering problem.
So I'm thinking maybe vibration. It's challenging to keep things still at pixel level and 20X, with a 1.3 second exposure, even with mirror lockup or shutter delay.
For testing purposes, I suggest shooting a stack with speedlight on low power, to get exposure times in the 0.1 ms range.
One more thought: which Mitty 20X is this, the NA 0.42 normal version or the NA 0.28 longer WD?
--Rik
Hello MC,
I have noticed something common during the tests of my Mitty 20x:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
But my Mitty has some problems
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
BR, ADi
I have noticed something common during the tests of my Mitty 20x:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
But my Mitty has some problems
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
BR, ADi
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
+120 in Capture One Prorjlittlefield wrote:I agree that it looks a bit soft.
Is this just the way it came out of camera & stacking, or has it already been digitally sharpened (and if so, how and how much)?
Yeah I agree, decentering in objective lenses can be weird though. From asymmetric aberrations all the way to overall softness, depending on how bad it is.rjlittlefield wrote: I'm not seeing asymmetric aberrations, like I would expect with a decentering problem.
At 10x, I can go all the way to 5 seconds. Vibrations is kind of a weird issue, I don't own any speedlights anymore. I do have an Einstein E640 studio strobe from PCB, going to try that later so see what happens.rjlittlefield wrote: So I'm thinking maybe vibration. It's challenging to keep things still at pixel level and 20X, with a 1.3 second exposure, even with mirror lockup or shutter delay.
For testing purposes, I suggest shooting a stack with speedlight on low power, to get exposure times in the 0.1 ms range.
It's the 0.42 version, not SL. The SL version has the same NA as a normal 10x mplan, not sure why anyone would buy that for photomacrography, might as well pull the 10x to 20x via a 400mm tube lens.rjlittlefield wrote: One more thought: which Mitty 20X is this, the NA 0.42 normal version or the NA 0.28 longer WD?
Thanks for the links, I'll have a look.Adalbert wrote:Hello MC,
I have noticed something common during the tests of my Mitty 20x:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
But my Mitty has some problems
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... highlight=
BR, ADi
Thanks for the help.
- rjlittlefield
- Site Admin
- Posts: 23603
- Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
- Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
- Contact:
Thanks. Unfortunately I don't speak Capture One so I don't know how hard that is.Macro_Cosmos wrote:+120 in Capture One Pro.rjlittlefield wrote:I agree that it looks a bit soft.
Is this just the way it came out of camera & stacking, or has it already been digitally sharpened (and if so, how and how much)?
I did pull your full-size image into Photoshop and hit it with an Unsharp Mask at 300% and 1.5 pixels. That made visible a lot of what looks like real detail at fine scale.
Remember that at NA 0.42 and 20X, you're running at effective f/23.8. Even using lambda = 0.55 micron, diffraction would still put you at MTF=0 at 13.1 microns/cycle, MTF=39% at 26.2 microns/cycle. It takes pretty hard sharpening to compensate for that much softening.
I agree. But I've seen it done, so I thought I should ask.The SL version has the same NA as a normal 10x mplan, not sure why anyone would buy that for photomacrography, might as well pull the 10x to 20x via a 400mm tube lens.
--Rik
-
- Posts: 1527
- Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:23 pm
- Contact:
I see, the NA is a limiting factor. I'm using a 36MP D810. Still a pretty high MP body by today's standards. An HR objective would do really well... if one can even find it.rjlittlefield wrote: I did pull your full-size image into Photoshop and hit it with an Unsharp Mask at 300% and 1.5 pixels. That made visible a lot of what looks like real detail at fine scale.
Remember that at NA 0.42 and 20X, you're running at effective f/23.8. Even using lambda = 0.55 micron, diffraction would still put you at MTF=0 at 13.1 microns/cycle, MTF=39% at 26.2 microns/cycle. It takes pretty hard sharpening to compensate for that much softening.
As far as both my friend (he gave me the objective) and I are aware, there's no decentering which is always a relief. I had to take the objectives on a 10-hour-flight. I think I did a good job in protecting them. Potentially, lighting can be a problem as well. I'll try different lighting methods. I also ran a stack on a Papilio genus butterfly, the results were just bad. I'm seeing the leap from 10x to 20x as a major challenge to my skills...
Thanks for the help! I might upload the .tiff file somewhere. The non-processed version is even softer.