# Ghost L4 male molt (Time Lapse 4x Video)



## Precarious (Jan 24, 2011)

My babies are growing up.

Just happened to catch this...

Soundtrack by Precarious


----------



## PhilinYuma (Jan 24, 2011)

This is really impressive, Precarious! Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to "film" it! It is interesting to note that the new ghost instar molts through the head of the old skin rather than through the thorax like most mantids that I have observed. Does anyone know of other mantids that do this?


----------



## Precarious (Jan 24, 2011)

PhilinYuma said:


> This is really impressive, Precarious! Thanks very much for taking the time and trouble to "film" it! It is interesting to note that the new ghost instar molts through the head of the old skin rather than through the thorax like most mantids that I have observed. Does anyone know of other mantids that do this?


Hey... you're right. I wonder if it has to do with the impressive headpiece?


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 2, 2011)

Yeah man, I really appreciate you uploading this kind of stuff. It's so clear I feel i'm almost in your room. I can grab a shot in focus at these magnifications with a load of crappy ones but your panning is real smooth. Lovin' it, no motion sickness with your vids B) 

Watching your vids over the last few months has really made me consider upgrading my DSLR to get HD video rather than buying a new lens. Please drop the lowdown on your rig or point me to where you have already.

I wanna see hundreds of nymphs crawling all over your camera next


----------



## Precarious (Feb 2, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> Yeah man, I really appreciate you uploading this kind of stuff. It's so clear I feel i'm almost in your room. I can grab a shot in focus at these magnifications with a load of crappy ones but your panning is real smooth. Lovin' it, no motion sickness with your vids B)
> 
> Watching your vids over the last few months has really made me consider upgrading my DSLR to get HD video rather than buying a new lens. Please drop the lowdown on your rig or point me to where you have already.


Thanks! I'm trying to use more tripod lately which helps a lot.

Here is the lowdown:

The camcorder is a Canon HF200. Really great camcorder. No complaints. Has good macro features I enhance with a cheap 10x diopter filter. Camcorder was $400 refurbished. Diopter was around $40. That's about the best you can hope for with a consumer model. There are no real macro lenses for camcorders, only lens filters, so you will never get the quality you'll get from a DSLR. You will always get distortion toward the edges and diffusion of highlights.

My DSLR is the Canon T2i with EF100mm f/2.8 Macro USM lens. T2i is a really great body. Max resolution completely kills HD 1080p which is another reason a camcorder will never compare. Approx. megapixel value of HD 1920x1080 is only 2 megapixels! So even at full HD you will never get as much detail as an 18 megapixel DSLR. Of course, a DSLR will have a larger, better quality sensor, as well as a better lens and auto compensations for light which should make HD shot on a DSLR look better than camcorder HD.

The lens is really nice too; auto or manual focus, USM (ultrasonic motor). No image stabilization in the lens, but there is a model above that does. You'd get more usable freehand shots with image stabilization. This macro lens only goes down to 1:1, so actual size of the sensor. Wish I could go a little big closer but resolution is high enough you can crop without losing too much.

All that being said, this video was shot with the camcorder. Why? When I got the T2i I was initially very excited that it shoots HD video. I soon discovered there are major differences in shooting video with a DSLR. First off, camcorders are designed so you can hold the camera and zoom with the same hand. DLSR zoom controls are on the lens. More importantly, autofocus on a camcorder continually adjusts to the subject. DSLRs only autofocus when shutter is depressed halfway. In other words if you are shooting footage of a moving subject even if it moves slightly forward and back you will need to continually adjust even when autofocus is enabled, and autofocus will often go completely out of focus and even change light settings before finding the sweet spot.

This may be all well and good when shooting normal situation, but when shooting macro, with its unavoidably shallow depth of field, it becomes a nightmare. To be honest, I haven't explored video too much yet on the DSLR so there may be some tricks I'm missing. If anybody has any advice or suggestions please let me know. I really don't know much about photography as this is my first DSLR.

A focusing rail mounted on a tripod could help compensate for this, but you would still need to be making constant adjustments. I'm used to doing this by moving subject or camcorder physically closer or farther. I'll just have to start experimenting and see how it works with the DSLR. I imagine the only real difference will be changing zoom.


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 2, 2011)

Cheers for the detailed info, some good points to consider before splashing the cash. Couple Q's - When panning at high magnifications with the HD camcorder, is actual movement reduced because the shooting distance is increased or does it feel the same as the DSLR in that regard? Do you move less to pan the same distance? I'm imagining it as kind of twisting the camera rather than moving it through space.

There are stacks of ingenious people playing with the DIY dolly type of track system if you are wanting something smooth and although I can't find it now I did find a German site with tones of macro footage with the MPE 65mm, all DIY slider stuff, just no bugs.

Cheap and funny but effective:

There are loads of options if you want to spend money but I like the idea of making one out of a kids wooden train set or something.

I have a really budget set of Macro slider rails that ain't that great but they do give you a decent range of movement with a DSLR on a tripod or ball head, although you really need a geared tripod for vertical movement as they don't work well at extreme angles with weight on them.

None of them would be as fast to pick up, or grab shots with as the camcorder tho.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 3, 2011)

Funny! Believe it or not my setup is even more ghetto than that. All I have is a cheap tripod with a pistol grip head (I recommend this style head. This is how I pan when using the tripod). I pretty much have to control focus by moving the subject. To aim down I extend one of the legs and weigh it down so it doesn't tip.

To get really low I just sit the camera on stacked Xbox games and pan down by wedging something under the back of the camera!

That's how I shot most of this: Heterochaeta occidentalis Subadults (Videos)

Sometimes I lay the tripod on its side with the camera resting on something at the height I need. It's the only way I can get steady portrait shots.

For this molt video I had the camcorder on the tripod. The net cage the Ghost was in was sitting on top of a larger wobbly net cage. I had the flap open with the camera pushed in. I had a length of cord wrapped around the net cage and the camera to keep them pushed together and to help keep it steady. I then balanced two $10 florescent lights on top. You can see I added the lights after the opening of the video.

Haha! Hey, whatever works.

Instead of spending money on a good focus rail I may just invest in this:

*StackShot Macro Rail*

http://www.cognisys-...t/stackshot.php

Camera movement is definitely reduced, as it is with a DSLR in macro. All the movements are so small. It's an acquired skill for sure. Just maintaining focus is a real challenge. You're dealing with a DOF that is only a matter of millimeters so panning generally involves moving the subject while adjusting distance to maintain focus. The idea being you want to maintain that distance or you lose focus.

I think you'd have limited success using a tripod for this unless you can also adjust the subject's distance. Actually changing the angle of the camcorder to pan changes the distance very slightly as well so you lose your DOF.

If the mantis is on my hand the pans are just me moving my hand while watching the view screen making sure I maintain the proper distance.


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Feb 3, 2011)

I just learned so much my head might explode, Thanks for the info on what works on the cheap.

I just have a Fujifilm HD250012MP18X Optical Zoom Double Macro SLR-Style Camera that I need to get more used too,,,  inch: :lol:


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 3, 2011)

It looks like a stable and accurate bit of kit but I still have trouble understanding how changing the distance between the sensor and the object is able to give as good a stack as just changing the focus while maintaining the distance.

I suppose it's all about the overlap.

It seems expensive until you look at the prices on a quality manual rail.

I recently tried my first couple of stacks with just 2 frames, i'll post with some chinese nymph pics when I have gone through em all.

Glad to see i'm not the only geek even if some people don't like progress


----------



## Precarious (Feb 3, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> It looks like a stable and accurate bit of kit but I still have trouble understanding how changing the distance between the sensor and the object is able to give as good a stack as just changing the focus while maintaining the distance.
> 
> I suppose it's all about the overlap.


I've tried stacking by changing focus and I now understand that you have to do it by incrementally moving the point of focus rather than refocusing. When you refocus you're actually changing the zoom which changes the width of the field or even perspective if the change is too extreme. Sometimes that still works with stacking but it's very unpredictable.

However, if you stack using images with the point of focus progressing into your subject these slight changes are a.) predictive and b.) in order of closest to farthest. This allows the algorithms in the software to better figure out how to make good use of the material. Does that make sense?

I've stacked up to about 6 images with varying degrees of success. In the process I discovered that since the software uses layer masks to accomplish the task it makes complete sense that you'd want the images in order from closest to farthest. If you are familiar with working with layers in Photoshop you'll see what I mean. You can only see portions of the lower layers that are not blocked by the layers above it. So when the images (layers) are in order an object emerges in slices representing the DOF in each shot. If they are out of order that screws everything up. And if they aren't consistently incremented you can end up with a portion in mid field that is out of focus with areas of sharp focus before and behind.

The other advantage of using StackShot is creation of 3D models based on information gleaned from your stacks.

Just a little gimmicky bonus, but helps to demonstrate how exacting incremental stacks are.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 3, 2011)

And one more for good measure...


----------



## angelofdeathzz (Feb 3, 2011)

I'm very impressed! Did either of you take classes to get to this level or is it more hit and miss till you get good results over time?

Is there any free software out there to mess around with stacking? for a newbie with no skills like me.

My camera does have continuous shot (13 frames per sec) but I guess that won't help with stacking from what I'm reading.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 3, 2011)

angelofdeathzz said:


> I'm very impressed! Did either of you take classes to get to this level or is it more hit and miss till you get good results over time?
> 
> Is there any free software out there to mess around with stacking? for a newbie with no skills like me.
> 
> My camera does have continuous shot (13 frames per sec) but I guess that won't help with stacking from what I'm reading.


I just teach myself whatever I need to know. I do that with everything; music, art, video, etc. For me that's what works best. I feel my way around a bit then figure out where I'm lacking. I'm really good at researching things I'm passionate about and I'm not afraid to experiment. If you compare the videos I was making back in June versus recent ones you'll definitely see the progression.

You can do stacking in Photoshop CS4 or higher. It's not as good as programs made specifically for stacking but unless you're using an automated system, or at the very least a focusing rail, you won't have any success anyway. You will almost always need to correct some anomalies either way so if you're not proficient in Photoshop I'd imagine it could get very frustrating. It's by no means an exact science.

If you set your camera to manual focus and use continuous shot while advancing your camera on a focusing rail you might have success.


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 4, 2011)

Precarious said:


> I just teach myself whatever I need to know. I do that with everything; music, art, video, etc. For me that's what works best. I feel my way around a bit then figure out where I'm lacking. I'm really good at researching things I'm passionate about and I'm not afraid to experiment. If you compare the videos I was making back in June versus recent ones you'll definitely see the progression.
> 
> You can do stacking in Photoshop CS4 or higher. It's not as good as programs made specifically for stacking but unless you're using an automated system, or at the very least a focusing rail, you won't have any success anyway. You will almost always need to correct some anomalies either way so if you're not proficient in Photoshop I'd imagine it could get very frustrating. It's by no means an exact science.
> 
> If you set your camera to manual focus and use continuous shot while advancing your camera on a focusing rail you might have success.


Yes, thanks that does help a bit to understand but does that mean that if an algorithm was designed for a static distance it 'could' perform better? Infact the reason I got the canon 100mm macro was exactly that, the front element doesn't move at all, it's all internal. I was thinking that the canon remote control software would be great for it as you can shift the focus just a tiny bit with the onscreen button but it seems to let you move hardly anywhere or too much, no way to set a distance and repeat that step that I can see. It wouldn't be hard to implement into there I don't think, at least for the canon peeps that is.

It ain't exactly easy but I do beg to differ that it must be automated or on a rail to stack effectively.

I didn't believe it at first until I saw it. Two gents with the online names of LordV and Morfa come to mind.

You have to 'ground' yourself somehow and get comfy so you can rock gently to create the movement. 3 - 8 frames seems the sweetspot but I don't know how much digital pixel pushing is involved afterwards...

I know LordV tends to just use a beanpole or broomstick vertically through his left hand while resting it on the ground and also holding his camera, flash is on a bracket also. So far I only have some practice stacks of 2 and 3 frames and i'm sure it's possible, just real tricky although my trial for Zerene Stacker ran out so i'm using Pshop on my girlfriends Laptop. Never did gel with Pshop even if it can do anything.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/lordv/collections/72157625605991209/

It does mean however that your setup time is practically zero which is killer if you can gel with the freestyle, erm, style.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 4, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> Yes, thanks that does help a bit to understand but does that mean that if an algorithm was designed for a static distance it 'could' perform better? Infact the reason I got the canon 100mm macro was exactly that, the front element doesn't move at all, it's all internal.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Do some experiments with your Canon and see if it works.

All I know is I've done quite a bit of experimentation. I've tried keeping the camera static on a tripod and simply moving the autofocus point of focus from closest to farthest point. VERY limited success. Again, likely because the perspective changes slightly as the lens zooms to focus.

Changes in perspective cause all kinds of artifacts (shadowing, halos, etc.). The stacking apps are very particular. They are designed to do a very complex task with minimal coaching, but they are 'dumb'. They don't understand what they are looking at. All they can do is follow the algorithm. So if you are not using a focusing rail or automated system you will get artifacts. No two ways about that.

The algorithms are set up to do precision work and the most logical way to assure images easily interpreted by an algorithm is to advance the rig by a set increment.

If those guys can somehow pull it off freehand they have some kind of superhuman ability that allows them to hold the camera steady and adjust it a matter of millimeters while somehow balancing and depressing the shutter button. Have you tried this? I use a tripod and I still need to use a remote shutter to get good results. The majority of photos in the link you supplied do not look stacked. Very shallow DOF. Stacking is used to overcome shallow DOF. It seems the only stacked shots are the raindrops on feathers. The few insect shots I saw that he mentions stacking (I didn't go through all of them) look like he must not have used more than 2 or 3 images at most. And I'll bet if you contact him he will admit he used a tripod for the stacked shot.

So I guess it depends on how detailed you want to get.

When I think of stacking I'm thinking of images like this:







by Michael Reese Much using CombineZP, which is FREE!


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 4, 2011)

Hey man, those are some super inspiring stacks, the hair is so clean and sharp. I did attempt a couple of stacks with what I think was called CombineZM but I might be wrong, unless CombineZP is new version.

Over the Christmas hold I tried Zerene Stacker as it was being used by a few people who's work was really motivating to see. I tried to get a little too close and pushed the aperture way too far at about f20 with a couple of extension tubes and reverse lens so the starting images were far from perfect but they were handheld. I took about 10 or 15 shots and picked out 4 that kind of covered most of the eye. Be gentle though, it's my first stack. Now my trial for ZS ran out and won't let me have another go so i'm defo on the lookout for something free to tinker with for the moment.






I have learned a lot since and now I can finally change the aperture without taking the whole setup off, it's way faster to zone in on the spot.

Sorry if that link didn't contain his hand-stacked stuff, I was at work on a break and didn't really look hard at it, just found his flickr link and presumed.  

I have to make another logon for the macrography site as I have no clue what my details are but i'll look for the examples I mentioned as I really would love to find them again. I think I have a couple on my computer downstairs but I don't really want to post other peoples work if I can link to it.

As for if they were really stacked them from handheld shots, I dunno, I was taking their word. Maybe I was taken in as it's the only forum I have ever perused for any length of time where I never saw an argument, ever. That alone is odd as heck.  

They are more like 1-2x magnification so i'm sure it's a tad more forgiving than the groovy fly eyes you posted. I think but i'm pretty sure there was one of an ant on some blades of grass covered in drops of water, all crystal clear. I remember being really humbled as there were no dreaded halos at all.

This of course brings up the important point of just how much post processing was actually done, some people's 'straight out of the camera' is via adobe camera raw with a ton of colour/noise adjustments and whole bunch of sharpening.  

Anyway dude, all this has got my creative juices flowing so, i'm gonna have another go. I have photoshop at my disposal as long as I wait for my girlfriend to stop drawing charicatures and let me have a go. I find Photoshop a bit intimidating as there is 50 ways to do anything and just learning what all the tools do takes hours but pixel gimp doesn't let you work in layers in anyway I can understand.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 5, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> Anyway dude, all this has got my creative juices flowing so, i'm gonna have another go. I have photoshop at my disposal as long as I wait for my girlfriend to stop drawing charicatures and let me have a go. I find Photoshop a bit intimidating as there is 50 ways to do anything and just learning what all the tools do takes hours but pixel gimp doesn't let you work in layers in anyway I can understand.


Yes, CombineZP is the newest version of CombineZM. I've never used it myself but I'll have to try it out if I get StackShot. I'm still debating whether or not to make the investment, but it's not much more than a good focusing rail so I guess I should.

By the way, that fly photo was made using a $40 focusing rail. See his rig HERE. Of course, it was a dead fly. This guy lives in my town. I should probably look him up.

No worries about the link. Doesn't matter. There's stacking and then there's STACKING. I think it's most effective for super-macro scientific images. I'd love to be able to work at that level but I can't really afford an MP-E 65mm. That thing is like a microscope for your camera! (Oops! I said I wouldn't show you more toys to buy. Sorry.)

Stacking isn't easy. That's for sure. You really have to plan it out and set up a rig dedicated to the process. The few I did using freehand shots required a lot of correction in Photoshop. But most attempts didn't work at all because the subject or camera had moved. That's the big advantage to an automated system. Execution is much faster and more accurate than you could ever do manually.

Hey, I started shooting video with the T2i and it looks 100x better than the camcorder. Focusing is a pain like I thought it would be, but it was a pain when I started with the camcorder too. I'm going to have to stop relying on autofocus and get more hands-on. Judging by the clarity it will be well worth it. It totally kills the camcorder.

Don't be afraid of Photoshop. You don't have to know how to do everything and you may not even need to use many tools. If you start with a good photo you don't have to do much. Generally, this is all I do; Rotate and crop the image as necessary, adjust contrast/brightness, then saturation/vibrance and 'save as'. Then I resize for posting and 'save as' again. I may go in with the clone tool to fix blemishes or spots of dust on the lens too. If you are just prepping photos that's all you really need to know how to do.


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 5, 2011)

Hey, I said intimidated, not scared B) 

I have basic understanding of tools and adjustment layers and what is possible but until pretty much the last couple of days, selections and paths were the block for me. The subtle differences between selections, actually making that the selection and why paths exist is a little less alien.

I found the pic I mentioned actually by accident (earwig not an ant)and I was quite off the mark, it was 50+ frames, very not handheld. He has a few of upto 8 frames at around 1-2x and a couple of 10x springtails that quite clearly show 2 frames is pushing it even for a trained macro ninja.#

Link

http://www.photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7298

He still has the cleanest stacks I have found regarding halos, do you think he may post process much?

There's another guy who openly admits to going to town with photoshop but his work does really stand out, some has a surreal kind of 'too real' or plastic wrap vibe to it.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11799

Looking more into expensive manual sliders (only looked at cheap ones before), the stackshot really does look like the most flexible and accurate option, i'm surprised by this as I didn't really take it seriously when I first saw a vid of it a few months back.

I mean, come on, it looks crazy daft overkill to anyone not down with the concept of stacking. I wanna be stealth if I have to take pics outside, now everyone would be asking what the heck the lump on your tripod is and pointing out the freak :huh: 

I'm appreciating the moving camera process much more now but I still hold out a lot of hope for the focus ring approach for lenses that do not extend/rotate when focusing. Do you think the halos are avoided with good technique and great shots in deep stack or something that is always touched up after? It would be really helpful to understand why the stacks of 50+ frames without halos, don't have em.

This was the most helpfull link if you haven't trawled the net for all the juicey stacking stuff already.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11799

I stacked the frames of my L1 Tenodera but only had pairs to work with, pointers and opinions welcome.

http://photomacrography.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11799

Some full frame shots of eyes would be really cool, flickr has a few crackers but i'll stop dropping links now.


----------



## Precarious (Feb 5, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> Hey, I said intimidated, not scared B)


C'mon, ya big chicken. Photoshop won't byte.  

Sounds like you already know more than enough to get the job done. If you need to know how to setup stacks I'll fill you in.

Wow! A lot of valuable info in that first link. Thanks.

I think the halos depend on lighting, and contrast between background and subject, but I'm just guessing.

Your last 3 links where all of the too-real macro shots. I don't know. I think that guy's style ruins it for me. Looks like a digital painting. Impressive for sure but a little too unnatural for my taste.

I'll be posting some nice pics of my adult male Mega Mantis soon. They came out really good. I've been experimenting with creating collages of multiple macro shots to create big panoramas.

Here's a preview...


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 5, 2011)

That's stunning man, I came back to post this link but it seems your waaay ahead of me :lol: 

http://www.smallworldexplorations.com/

I was looking at photobox prices earlier, these would look awesome life size or across a 3 monitor desktop. I look forward to seeing more, that's floating my boat :boat:


----------



## Precarious (Feb 5, 2011)

Slinkytreekreeper said:


> That's stunning man, I came back to post this link but it seems your waaay ahead of me :lol:
> 
> http://www.smallworldexplorations.com/
> 
> I was looking at photobox prices earlier, these would look awesome life size or across a 3 monitor desktop. I look forward to seeing more, that's floating my boat :boat:


That gigapixel thing is cool! I bet they are crazy expensive though.

The Mega Mantis pic was easier to make than you would guess. I like the results using macro images. I haven't seen anyone else do this yet. I just kinda figured it out.

1. Just take multiple shots as close as you like with each progressing across the subject. Try to maintain perspective by moving the camera along a plane parallel to the subject. Make sure you leave overlap between shots. Combine them in the proper order as different layers in Photoshop CS4 or higher. Make a copy the Background layer, then delete the original (this process won't work with a layer designated as background).

2. Select all the layers by holding down the shift key as you select each of them. Under 'edit' select 'auto-align-layers'. Leave the pop-up set to 'auto' or make a selection. This should line all the photos up into a continuous image. If it doesn't look like what you expected 'undo' then go back and try different methods tll you find one that works.

3. Under 'edit' select 'auto-blend-layers'. Select 'panorama' as the blend method. Your layers should now seamlessly blend into each other. That's it!

You may have to do some corrections if some elements didn't line up exactly and crop just to the portions of the image you like. Flatten image, color and contrast correct and you're done.

By the way, this is also the method for stacking in Photoshop. Instead of selecting 'panorama' select 'stack images'.


----------



## warpdrive (Feb 6, 2011)

if you boys don't stop this right now then I'm gona have to buy some new toys. :lol: 

Harry


----------



## Precarious (Feb 6, 2011)

warpdrive said:


> if you boys don't stop this right now then I'm gona have to buy some new toys. :lol:
> 
> Harry


Whatever you buy, get 2 and give one to me. :innocent:


----------



## warpdrive (Feb 6, 2011)

Precarious said:


> Whatever you buy, get 2 and give one to me. :innocent:


I can't even afford to buy one, never mind two.  

but I do have an extra kidney. maybe I can sell that.

I was going to try to save up for the 7D, but you may have changed my mind on the T2i...

do you feel it is missing any feature or some lack of something? I never rented it and never tried it at all.

Harry


----------



## Precarious (Feb 6, 2011)

warpdrive said:


> I can't even afford to buy one, never mind two.
> 
> but I do have an extra kidney. maybe I can sell that.
> 
> ...


See, and I though we were friends.






Like I've said before, I really don't know much about photography and this is my first DSLR so I'm a n00b. :blink: 

Looks like 7D has faster shutter speed capability right out the gate but T2i can be upgraded to do the same if you plan on doing super high-speed shooting. Other than that I think all it really has over the T2i is high-speed continuous burst. Must be something that makes the 7D twice the cost of the T2i though.

Check the specs:

T2i

7D


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 6, 2011)

Hey warp, found some super interesting stuff last night about magnification and sensor size. Turns out that a smaller sensor doesn't give a better DOF is all things are constant, it's other reciprocals that change to seem like this. I can't find the link as it was last night but I did copy the text.

It's from that stacking guy I linked to already, turns out he teaches algebra.

"I agree. There's been a lot written about sensor size, both as postings in our forum and as some long web pages appearing on other sites. But the information is scattered around, most of it's hard to read and interpret correctly, and there's a fair smattering of outright errors.

Here is my version of the short story, for your consideration and review.

Sensor size does not affect image quality if you're talking about equivalent images. That means same illumination, same camera position, same field size, same exposure time, and same DOF. That is, the pictures look the same even if the subject is moving.

The larger sensor allows to collect more light, giving less noise, but only by changing to a non-equivalent image by using a wider aperture, exposing longer, or using brighter illumination. The larger sensor also requires the use of longer lenses (to get the same field size at the same camera position), which allows the use of a larger diameter aperture to reduce DOF and increase sharpness.

On the other hand, the smaller sensor naturally comes with a shorter lens, which allows to easily get in closer, which gives more of a "wide-angle macro" appearance and also works better with auto-focus.

Which one works better depends on what you're doing. If you have time to set up and can afford either a longer exposure or brighter light, then you can get a quieter picture at same DOF from the larger sensor. If the smaller sensor gives you too much DOF even when it's wide open, then you need the larger sensor with its longer/wider lenses. If you need to work fast and easy, and the DOF and noise of the smaller sensor are acceptable, then the smaller camera is better.

There are other issues such as ability to change lenses and ability to shoot through eyepieces.Perhaps the most confusing aspect is that to get equivalent images, different sensor sizes require different settings for ISO and f-number. The smaller camera's f/8 is roughly equivalent to the larger camera's f/22, while the smaller camera's ISO 64 roughly matches the larger camera's ISO 400. This confusion often leads to false hopes that the larger camera will give more DOF because it provides bigger f-numbers. It won't."

and Precarious, finally I have found an explanation of the halos or radial smearing and it's perspective change from the start and end of the stack due to the movement of the pupil in relation to the sensor and the subject/focus plane. It moves on to describe rigs that would minimize this involving telecentric lenses and finally the theory clicked with what I understood about the airy disc and mechanics of why the DOF changes with aperture.

Again, sorry for not linking but it's too juicy not to post, trying to just post the essential nuggets pertinent what we discussed already.

"To avoid radial smearing, all images in the stack have to be converted to a common scale even in the out-of-focus areas. Consider a detail that is equally sharp in two adjacent frames. You're showing a change in magnification of roughly 0.4% (0.004) from frame to frame. If that detail is at frame center, no problem. But if it's at frame edge, say 1000 pixels out, then it'll move 4 pixels from one frame to the next.

The scale change can be reduced by using a longer lens. It can be reduced all the way to zero by using strange optics called "telecentric on the object side". That's a useful technique for stack-and-stitch with deep subjects (example HERE), but otherwise it's not worth the trouble. Stacking forwards versus backwards is a minor difference in most cases. Generally it is safest to start with whichever end has the smallest field of view, so that all the other images will cover the whole area when they get rescaled. If you start with the end that has the largest field of view, then the others only cover part of the area when they get rescaled. That produces streaky margins, which of course can be cropped off, but in rare cases it can also degrade the accuracy of alignment.

It is not a good idea to have frames out of sequence. Most of the software packages work by aligning frames 1 and 2, then 2 and 3, then 3 and 4, and so on. This works well when sequential frames are very similar. But if say frames 2 and 4 were adjacent focus planes, while frame 3 is very much different, then it can happen that this stepwise alignment leaves 2 and 4 not fitted well with each other, resulting in echos or streaks.

Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't."


----------



## Slinkytreekreeper (Feb 6, 2011)

Warp, the 7D has a wireless flash controller onboard, it's only really an issue if you plan to shoot high magnifiation with multiple of camera flashes. The cameras are super tempting for clear macro footage but I think the MPE65 will be my net purchase, it's the reason I went canon. You guys don't make it an easy decision tho.


----------

