Helicon Focus or Combine ZM?

[Carl_Constantine]

I know many of you use Helicon Focus for all your stacking needs. I don't really have any money right now (as cheap as HF is) so was looking at Combine ZM. Can I get an objective opinion about which might be better and why? Is there a stack that works better in one program as opposed to the other?

Thanks.

[rjlittlefield]

I use both and have tested them extensively.

I have stacks that have (in the past) worked better in HF, and other stacks that have (in the past) worked better in CombineZ. I emphasize "in the past" because both products have grown much better over the years. Historically, CombineZ had less trouble with halo, while HF handled overlapping detail better. But recently new algorithms have been added to both products that reduce those differences.

At present, I see two major differences. One is that HF has a more polished and intuitive "end-user" interface, while CombineZM has a more flexible and configurable "developer's" interface including a macro capability. The other is that HF is significantly faster -- 2 minutes for HF versus 14 minutes for CombineZM, doing the 30-frame 6-megapixel stack that I just now tested. Both will automatically correct for alignment, scale, and minor brightness changes. HF will also automatically correct for rotation, while CombineZM requires manual intervention to do this. Output quality is similar, given proper tuning of the parameters. Both allow to manually touch up places where the algorithm did not do the right thing.

Given your situation, I recommend to download a copy of CombineZM and feel good about it.

--Rik

[Carl_Constantine]

Thanks Rik, can always count on you to steer me in the right direction.