cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Image resizing and default images sizes in DPP4

dougsmit
Apprentice

When converting multiple (for me, up to ~250) CR3 files to TIFF, an option is provided to resize files and default values are provided that are not the same as the input images, last used value and not always the same.  I am seeking to understand why these defaults are selected by the software and is it better for me to accept them or make some change (back to the original size, for example).  I see the possibility that this relates to in camera lens corrections or IBIS and have not experimented with non-Canon lenses that do not have correction data (which is my next step).  I am producing a series of TIFF files to be focus stacked in Zerene Stacker which requires all images to be exactly (to the pixel!) the same size but will stack and edit successfully series that the DPP4 routine refuses or gives errors on some images.   This comes up most often when pushing the matter a bit beyond 'normal'.   Can anyone explain to me what is happening here and offer suggestions that might help (other than not try to shoot this sort of thing)?Canon R7 EF100mm macro, NiSi 49mm (+9 diopter) with added extension tubes, 250 images exposed using Focus Bracketing compiled in Zerene Stacker - here about 5x???Canon R7 EF100mm macro, NiSi 49mm (+9 diopter) with added extension tubes, 250 images exposed using Focus Bracketing compiled in Zerene Stacker - here about 5x???  

4 REPLIES 4

johnrmoyer
Mentor
Mentor

If distortion correction is enabled in the camera menu, then DPP will default to what the camera has done and possibly produce a different size image, but I see this mostly with wide angle lenses. Saving a recipe from DPP with distortion correction disabled and applying it to all of the CR3 files before converting to TIFF might prevent this.

I have never stacked 250 images. I have used hugin on my Linux computer for stacking when the alignment is not close enough for DPP. Hugin requires manually selecting points near the corners of each image and matching those points with the same object in the other images which is tedious. This image was stacked using DPP, but the lighting was not ideal.

 

Minolta Lens made in Japan MC ROKKOR-X PG 1:1.4 f=50mm, with Urth adapter for use on Canon, depth composite made on July 6, 2023Minolta Lens made in Japan MC ROKKOR-X PG 1:1.4 f=50mm, with Urth adapter for use on Canon, depth composite made on July 6, 2023

---
https://www.rsok.com/~jrm/

Thanks.  This seems a possible answer but it bothers me that I had so much trouble finding the information.  I was unaware of how to access this community until I filled out a survey asking if I had tried a number of resources including this one and provided a link to it.  I suppose it makes no difference in a practical sense to those who just want photos rather than to understand how those photo are made.  Stacks seem easy for solid objects but I run into trouble when out of focus areas create halos with 'see through' lacy plants.  Thanks for the reply.

I have not done stacks of small things. Stacks of flowers are difficult if there is any wind. DPP automatically disables some of the camera settings when stacking raw files. If planning to stack TIFF files exported by DPP, then I suggest applying the same recipe to all of the files before export.

DLO might enable diffraction correction, but I do not think that is a problem. It is distortion correction that seems to me to change the number of pixels in the image and the correction might vary with focus distance. I also disable peripheral illumination correction if I am planning to stack and only apply it to the composite image later if desired. I think it is best to also not do unsharp mask until after stacking.

In some cases, disabling noise reduction might be a good thing.

 

 

Prickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia cespitosa or maybe Opuntia macrorhiza) in Norman, Oklahoma, June 4, 2022, 8 images stacked by DPPPrickly Pear Cactus (Opuntia cespitosa or maybe Opuntia macrorhiza) in Norman, Oklahoma, June 4, 2022, 8 images stacked by DPP

 

Depth Composite Focus Stack8 images
ArtistJohn Moyer
F Number9.0
ISO100
Shutter Speed Value1/64
Focal Length18.0 mm
Camera Temperature32 C
Lens IDCanon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM
Field Of View63.8 deg
Hyperfocal Distance1.93 m

 

Castilleja indivisa (also called Indian Paintbrush) and Achillea millefolium (also called Common Yarrow) blooming in Norman, Oklahoma, May 27, 2022, 8 images stacked by DPP, https://www.rsok.com/~jrm/2022Jun05_birds_and_cats/2022may27_wildflower_IMG_9230-9237c.htmlCastilleja indivisa (also called Indian Paintbrush) and Achillea millefolium (also called Common Yarrow) blooming in Norman, Oklahoma, May 27, 2022, 8 images stacked by DPP, https://www.rsok.com/~jrm/2022Jun05_birds_and_cats/2022may27_wildflower_IMG_9230-9237c.html

---
https://www.rsok.com/~jrm/

dougsmit
Apprentice

Coleus RP RF400 with NiSi 49mm +9 diopterColeus RP RF400 with NiSi 49mm +9 diopter

Stacking images of the very small presents a different set of challenges than simple cloe-ups.  This Coleus flower shows weakness in the lower part of the stalk of the stamen making it look 'see through'.  This was 180 TIFF's assembled in Zerene Stacker.  I need to see what the effect would be with fewer input images at a greater spacing (higher number in Focus Bracketing).  I am unaware of a resource that helps select best aperture, spacing and use of other options when producing or assembling stacks.  DPP4 takes a long time to make this many TIFF's so if the result would be as good with fewer, it would be great.  

National Parks Week Sweepstakes style=

Enter for a chance to win!

April 20th-28th
Announcements