OK I've redone the four stacks, using every fourth frame. The result is just as I presented above. When Scaling is checked, there is no difference in resolution between DMap and PMAx outputs. When Scaling is unchecked, there's a huge difference in resolution between the two outputs. Also, comparing ...

Aha, I see that I took four shots at each camera position, and I may have changed the "use every n-th shot" setting between stacks. Will run everything again. Maybe that's the explanation.

I strongly suspect that what you're seeing is due to some other cause that is just coincidentally correlated with scaling. But with the very same source images, there is no difference between DMap and PMax when scaling is left on. I'm not sure what I should look for in the adjusted images....I'll r...

It is nice, but if I may offer some constructive criticism, the out-of-focus parts are distracting for me.

I was experimenting with telecentric Nikon MM 10x measuring objective pushed down to lower magnifications than its designed m. Stacking was in Zerene. I knew it would no longer be telecentric when pushed down to a wider FOV, but still I wanted to see what would happen if I turned off scaling in Zere...

I am selling my 105mm Scanner Nikkor ED, which I removed from a Nikon 8000 Coolscan scanner that I bought. This lens is optimized for 1:1 reproduction and at that magnification it is designed to cover an area about 60mm in diameter. It has the same number of elements (and the same number of exotic-g...

An alternative I have employed is to epoxy a 43mm-52mm step-up ring onto it, with the 52mm side facing out. Then I mount a 43-52mm ring on that, which can be attached to any camera brand reversing ring.

Robert, here is a link to my post on my DIY auto-reversing ring:
http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/v ... nsion+tube
Since then I have modified it slightly to make the connections more robust.

I love my DIY MFT version of this.

Ray, there is almost nothing online about particular lenses, though there are lots of general articles and even books on the subject. Luckily the Zeiss lenses are well-labeled, usually with m, NA, and optimal wavelength. But GCA/Tropel lenses usually only have model numbers and serial numbers.

Ray, do you know much about some of these legacy lenses? Or is there a source to ask?

You should experiment!

I'm gearing up for it. Initially I am focusing on the last generation of chipmaking lenses that used visible light. I now have a decent assortment of 5x and 10x lenses for 436nm (royal blue, mercury g line) and a few old soviet lenses for green light, and a 5x lens for 248nm UV light. Not sure if my...

Pau, yes, modern chip-making optics are crazy, even worse than SEMs. Even a few years ago, microlithography lenses had reached the 500kg weight range!! But the lens mentioned in the patent referred to in my post is relatively small and is available on ebay right now for under $400. The light source ...

Pau, SEM and x-rays are not easier for a home operation. SEM is expensive, complex, and specimen preparation is challenging and semi-destructive for many soft biological tissues. X rays are also difficult. UV is a simple extension of normal optical tools that are easy to do at home, and very cheap c...