All right, I'm wetting my pants. I took the plunge today, and installed a PC emulator on my Mac. Then I installed Helicon Focus software. Here's a quick test of half the length of West Harbor--no particular attention paid to lighting. I've still got a little more learning to do--I think I confused it by taking the last shot at focus infinity rather than 15 feet. I have never seen anything like this outside of government image processing.
While I don't have anything nearly as interesting to photograph, I was amazed by the Helicon program as well.
Pete: That's a great photo. How many images did you use to make the final photo? Stay cool and run steam.....
That's a great photo Pete and it really shows off your fine modeling skills. However, your photo offers definitive proof that the world is indeed flat and that ships can sail off the edge if they go far enough.
Kozmo, If you take several photos of a scene, with diffrent areas in focus, say 3 pics, the fore ground, the middle, and the background, Helicon will combine them so all areas are in focus. It basicaly gives you a greater depth of field. This is especially usefull with cameras that won't stop down very far.
I took seven shots. The last one, focused at infinity, was probably unnecessary, since the far wall was only 15 feet away. Good news--I think Helicon works better at f/8 rather than f/22--the focal planes are more distinct at f/8. Now, I started at about 2.5 feet. If I had started closer, it would have taken more shots. As you get closer to the subject, the depth of field diminishes. I didn't record the focal distances, but it probably went something like this: 2.5, 3.25, 4.75, 7, 11, 15, infinity.
Here's another, looking across the inlet to the East Harbor. I used a 12mm lens (18mm equivalent) and again took six shots. All it's missing is a train.
The shot above really shows what the program can do. The builders of the scene had a bit to do with it, as well. Pete- Is the ship listing from the wetting incident? It looks to be a bit below waist height.
Mark, It's listing because it's near the edge of an image shot with a 12mm lens. On my third test shot, which had a subject depth from about 6 inches to about 60 inches, Helicon (with a series of shots at f/8) did NOT perform as well as a single image shot at f/22. Again, this was with the 12mm, which has incredible depth of field all by itself. My conclusion: Helicon performs beautifully over a great subject depth, but not as well as a lens that is functioning within its design limits with less subject depth. That's sort of a duh!
Nice ones Pete! That writeup in NSR got me to thinking. But I think I'd have to get a better camera to make it worth the investment...
I think you need a camera with manual focus, at a minimum. As I'm at the high end, I don't know at what level manual focus is available.
Unless I am missing something, one thing is for sure. Helicon does not work with a macro 60mm Nikon lens. The framing is changed each time you focus on manual.
Mark, Have you solved this problem? I'm not familiar with that particular lens, but the macro I do have should work if I use the focusing ring only. I haven't used it much recently, as a 12-24mm zoom will do most of the same stuff, and easier.
Mark: Can't you just change the focus when in manual mode? The macro lens takes other than closeups. Stay cool and run steam.....
