Hi I'm new there. My problem is, that I can't load files, I still have
message "Can't open this file, it may be an unsuported format etc."
The files are .jpg, 8 bit, the some message if I try .tif, also 8 bit.
What is wrong?
Best regards.
wb

Hello, which Windows O.S. are you using?   Do you know if you have GDI+ on your
system?   Which method did you use to install CZ on your system?

Alan

Hi Nick,

Dummies guide follows:

1.  Load files
2.  Do Stack

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Nick Trotman" <npt@...> wrote:
>
> Dumb question for you.  This is my 1st post on the forum - I've been
> both Lurking and reading the back posts. As an incomplete beginner is
> there a "dummies guide" as to what to do before I down load anything
> and  let rip with the camera? and I take it it's OK to use Combinez
> with Vista is it?
>
> Right, back to the back issues of post ...
>
> Nick
>

Hi Alan,

I am new to the Software. Where can I find the Deep Stack Macro. It's
not in the macro menu. I am using the version built on Feb. 3rd 08

Andre, the latest versions of various macro sets are on my macro library web
page

http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/MacroSets/Index.htm

Some of the links here lead to another page about each macro set others lead
directly to the download.

1. Download a set

2. place it in the same folder as CombineZM.exe

3. Start CZM and use Load Macro Set on the Macro menu, chpoose the one you want

4. All available macros will be on the Macro Menu.

To get the standard macros back use Restore Standard Macros on the same menu.

Alan

Sorry about the delay with this version, but it takes a while testing
on 10 mega pixel pictures so I have decided to upgrade the PC and
have been backing up files lately.

http://www.hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CombineZM.exe

This test version has a rewritten version of the 'Find Detail'
function.   I have included two Do Stack type macros in this version
so you will need to click on Restore Standard Macros before using for
the first time.  The original 'Do Stack' is meant for stacks with
mainly crisp detail, the second 'Do Soft Stack' for those with more
soft areas.   With both macros it is possible to optimize the results
even further but that will be the subject of an article I intend to
write.

For the technically minded I have increased the number of parameters
that control Find Detail from one to three.   The first is as it
always was, a threshold which is set to avoid too much noise in the
picture.   The second param adjusts the size of the area tested
around each pixel, larger values mean softer detail will be found,
but this might include more halos.   The third parameter is quite
complex and I will leave it until I have written the article, I will
just say it controls various filters and methods used to select the
pixels.   A value of 0 for this param will make the function run a
little faster by using monochrome instead of colour.

It may be a while before I write the article as the new workstation
should be arriving in a day or two.

Alan

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Hadley" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> Andre, the latest versions of various macro sets are on my macro
library web page
>
> http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/MacroSets/Index.htm
>
> Some of the links here lead to another page about each macro set
others lead directly to the download.
>
> 1. Download a set
>
> 2. place it in the same folder as CombineZM.exe
>
> 3. Start CZM and use Load Macro Set on the Macro menu, chpoose the
one you want
>
> 4. All available macros will be on the Macro Menu.
>
> To get the standard macros back use Restore Standard Macros on the
same menu.
>
> Alan
>
Great. Thanks for the link. I hadn't noticed that the headline on each
of the macro sub-pages was clickable.
By the way, the path to some of the media files on the pages is
incorrect (doesn't load in firefox).
Andre
http://www.aguntherphotography.com

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Ux4" <ugottabkiddinme@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Nick,
>
> Dummies guide follows:
>
> 1.  Load files
> 2.  Do Stack
>

That seems simple enough Ux4 Lol!

Dear All,

I am very new here using the CZM tool.
although most of the shoots stitched with CZM are simply outstanding I
have find out that in certain condition, the output image show off
something wrong. It is certainly something related to the software
parameters that I don't know yet how to use.

So, here is the setup:
- Nikon D3 camera
- 12 Shoots at 12MP (4240 x 2836) in RAW, manual focus, manual
exposure, manual white balance
- Convert to TIFF 8 bit (all files with same identical processing)
- Load to CZM
- Do Stack

Here the page with the problematic image:
http://www.antoniodalbore.it/preview/2008/03/CombineZM/index.html

The result image is simply astonishing and perfect EXCEPT the area
deep far (see rear part of the background shoe) that seems like halo
or ghost image. Same problem in another border area (left arrow).
Any idea how to solve it?

Thanks,

Antonio D'Albore
www.antoniodalbore.it

I am not ignoring all of the recent posts and questions, but I am
struggleing with a bug in the program that was brought to my attention
recently, and affects me now on my new computer.   So I will try to
fix this one then answer all of your posts as soon as possible.

Alan

I intend to write an article soon explaining how to get better results with
some difficult stacks, maybe that will answer your question.   Watch out for
an announcement here soon.

Alan

----- Original Message -----

Dear All,

I am very new here using the CZM tool.
although most of the shoots stitched with CZM are simply outstanding I
have find out that in certain condition, the output image show off
something wrong. It is certainly something related to the software
parameters that I don't know yet how to use.

So, here is the setup:
- Nikon D3 camera
- 12 Shoots at 12MP (4240 x 2836) in RAW, manual focus, manual
exposure, manual white balance
- Convert to TIFF 8 bit (all files with same identical processing)
- Load to CZM
- Do Stack

Here the page with the problematic image:
http://www.antoniodalbore.it/preview/2008/03/CombineZM/index.html

The result image is simply astonishing and perfect EXCEPT the area
deep far (see rear part of the background shoe) that seems like halo
or ghost image. Same problem in another border area (left arrow).
Any idea how to solve it?

Thanks,

Antonio D'Albore

Hello David,

If you wish to load frames that are different sizes,

1. File->New  -  and load the first frame
2. Load the rest one at a time using File->Import Frame

You must load the frames in the correct order if you wish to use Do Stack,
far to near or near to far.

The size of all frames loaded is adjusted to the size of the first frame
loaded.   In extreme cases if you want to load a small frame first, don't,
load a large one instead (to set the size) then load all of the frames you
wish to stack then delete the large frame.

Alan

----- Original Message -----

Hello Alan,
  I am a bit dubious to mail after the last *boob*.
  Here goes, I stack 5 or 6 images, double click A,
  Save Rectangle As, the image size is 1588x1193,
  another stack and the size is 1598x1199,
  another stack  and size is 1599x1199,
  I  would like to stack the 3 images, but CombinZM
  Error frames must be the same size.

   Another little thing I have now noticed is that when you save after
stacking the program saves
  rectangle_New_Out 99999.
  You shut the program down, a little later you open
it up, stack  some images, then save rectangle_New_Out 99999. it has over
written the existing image,
  saved  rectangle_New_Out 99999 image.
  HOPE this makes some sense.
  I like the program allot.
  David

Peter I have been working on this problem lately and another and hope to
have a solution for both soon, watch the group for an anouncement of a new
release.

Alan

----- Original Message -----
From: triphly
To: combinez@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:03 AM
Subject: [CombineZ] High magnification issues (not hi res issues!)


Hi,

I've run into a problem using CombineZM that I don't understand. At
low microscope magnifications, the program works beautifully. However,
at high magnification, the images cannot be stitched together without
a significant amount of noise/loss of visual information.

I've posted an example of what I'm talking about:
http://tech.ph.groups.yahoo.com/group/combinez/photos/browse/9587

This isn't the worst example of this that I've found, by any means,
it's just something I'm working on now and is presently convenient to
post. If its not immediately clear what the difference is (or what the
solution might be) I can post better examples, that show the problem
more clearly.

I compare the same 18 images stitched together by CombineZM and
Automontage. Automontage doesn't have the problem exhibited by
CombineZM (although it yields a very soft image). The 18 images were
taken at about 125x, through a compound microscope(the same problems
occur through the stereo microscope at high magnifications (~60x and
higher). The original images are 5 megapixels resolution.

I've tried to customize a macro to handle these high magnification
images, adjusting all of the parameters (detail, island size,
highpass/lowpass filters) in a multitude of ways, through systematic
testing, but I haven't had any success.

I'd be very grateful for any insights... Can this problem be solved?
Thanks,
Peter

----- Original Message -----

From: Alan

To: combinez@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 9:05 PM

Subject: Re: [CombineZ] Difference by a pixel

Hello David,

If you wish to load frames that are different sizes,

1. File->New - and load the first frame
2. Load the rest one at a time using File->Import Frame

You must load the frames in the correct order if you wish to use Do Stack,
far to near or near to far.

The size of all frames loaded is adjusted to the size of the first frame
loaded. In extreme cases if you want to load a small frame first, don't,
load a large one instead (to set the size) then load all of the frames you
wish to stack then delete the large frame.

Alan

----- Original Message -----

Hello Alan,
I am a bit dubious to mail after the last *boob*.
Here goes, I stack 5 or 6 images, double click A,
Save Rectangle As, the image size is 1588x1193,
another stack and the size is 1598x1199,
another stack and size is 1599x1199,
I would like to stack the 3 images, but CombinZM
Error frames must be the same size.

Another little thing I have now noticed is that when you save after
stacking the program saves
rectangle_New_Out 99999.
You shut the program down, a little later you open
it up, stack some images, then save rectangle_New_Out 99999. it has over
written the existing image,
saved rectangle_New_Out 99999 image.
HOPE this makes some sense.
I like the program allot.
David

---

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.518 / Virus Database: 269.21.7/1325 - Release Date: 11/03/2008 13:41

I am planing to get manfroto 454 micro positioning plate,
http://www.manfrotto.com/Jahia/site/manfrotto/pid/3226

As of now I have tested CombineZ manually focusing on the 105mm macro
lens. Will it be better using micro positioning plate & stack/shoot
with its precise moments every 2mm or 4mm.

The confusion I am facing is that when I manually focus the lens the
camera to subject distance remains constant only the lens
magnification is changed slightly.

Whereas using this plate moments the lens+camera distance will change
& the result many not be satisfactory.

Anyone tried this, is it recommended or not?
Before ordering I want some confirmation that it works.

Ranjan

Hello David, I would guess that the frames were resized differently, in a
different order, starting with a different one or more than once.

Alan

People using microscopes always alter the distance between subject and lens.
People using a camera can do this or focus the lens, in the real world I
don't think it makes a lot of difference, though there may be slight
differences in theory.

Alan

Thanks Alan,
So would you say that both will work but a micro positioning plate is
not necessary to do the stack, its just a different way of shooting &
in some cases a better way to precisely focus.

I am in 2 minds now, should I get it or not?

Ranjan


--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> People using microscopes always alter the distance between subject
and lens.
> People using a camera can do this or focus the lens, in the real
world I
> don't think it makes a lot of difference, though there may be slight
> differences in theory.
>
> Alan
>

I think it depends on your subject.
If you use the micropositioner, the camera/lens will stay at constant
focus and therefore constant magnification for the whole subject.
This means your stack will not have any perspective.  That is, parts
of the subject that are farther away will not appear smaller like a
normal scene view.  This might be OK for you.

If you want a normal perspective scene view you should stick with
changing the lens focus.

Bruce

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Ranjan Sharma" <ranjan2001@...>
wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Alan,
> So would you say that both will work but a micro positioning plate
is
> not necessary to do the stack, its just a different way of shooting
&
> in some cases a better way to precisely focus.
>
> I am in 2 minds now, should I get it or not?
>
> Ranjan
>
>
> --- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <alan@> wrote:
> >
> > People using microscopes always alter the distance between subject
> and lens.
> > People using a camera can do this or focus the lens, in the real
> world I
> > don't think it makes a lot of difference, though there may be
slight
> > differences in theory.
> >
> > Alan
> >
>

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "bdphoto58" <bdphoto58@...> wrote:
> I think it depends on your subject.
> If you use the micropositioner, the camera/lens
> will stay at constant focus and therefore
> constant magnification for the whole subject.
> This means your stack will not have any perspective.
> That is, parts of the subject that are farther away
> will not appear smaller like a normal scene view.
> If you want a normal perspective scene view
> you should stick with  changing the lens focus.

The first part of this is correct, but the second part is not.  If
you focus with the micropositioner, the alignment process will make
scale changes that restore the natural perspective of the scene.
That perspective is determined only by the location of the entrance
pupil of the lens.  (The entrance pupil is just where the aperture
appears to be, as seen from the standpoint of the subject.)

In the end, it makes no significant difference whether you focus by
adjusting distance or by turning the lens focus ring.

> --- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Ranjan Sharma" <ranjan2001@>
> wrote:
> > I am in 2 minds now, should I get it or not?

The advantage to the micropositioner is only that it makes easy to
get small repeatable steps.  If you can get good enough steps using
the focus ring on the lens, then you don't need the micropositioner.

--Rik

Rik,
Do you mean the scale process in CombineZ will restore the
perspective?

Bruce

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Rik Littlefield"
<rj.littlefield@...> wrote:
>
> --- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "bdphoto58" <bdphoto58@> wrote:
> > I think it depends on your subject.
> > If you use the micropositioner, the camera/lens
> > will stay at constant focus and therefore
> > constant magnification for the whole subject.
> > This means your stack will not have any perspective.
> > That is, parts of the subject that are farther away
> > will not appear smaller like a normal scene view.
> > If you want a normal perspective scene view
> > you should stick with  changing the lens focus.
>
> The first part of this is correct, but the second part is not.  If
> you focus with the micropositioner, the alignment process will make
> scale changes that restore the natural perspective of the scene.
> That perspective is determined only by the location of the entrance
> pupil of the lens.  (The entrance pupil is just where the aperture
> appears to be, as seen from the standpoint of the subject.)
>
> In the end, it makes no significant difference whether you focus by
> adjusting distance or by turning the lens focus ring.
>
> > --- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Ranjan Sharma" <ranjan2001@>
> > wrote:
> > > I am in 2 minds now, should I get it or not?
>
> The advantage to the micropositioner is only that it makes easy to
> get small repeatable steps.  If you can get good enough steps using
> the focus ring on the lens, then you don't need the micropositioner.
>
> --Rik
>

I have just posted an update to CombineZM both here and on the
CombineZ web site.

This update includes an improved version of the Find Detail function,
it performs better with the softer parts of pictures.   If you
upgrade to this version be sure to click on Restore Standard Macros
to take maximum advantage of this.

I have updated the help files also and included a new page, which you
can read here as well:

http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/Manual/TroubleShootingDoStac
k.htm

Other changes are listed on the News page

http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/CZM/News.htm

As usual please report any bugs to me.

Alan

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "bdphoto58" <bdphoto58@...> wrote:
>
> Rik,
> Do you mean the scale process in CombineZ
> will restore the perspective?
>
> Bruce

Yes.

It takes a lot of words and several pictures to fully explain what
happens, so I won't try to do that here.

A brief summary is that perspective is really a matter of "what lines
up with what".

In each frame, perspective is determined solely by position of the
entrance pupil. Typically parts of the subject in front are seen at
somewhat higher magnification than those farther back. The alignment
process matches features that are focused in adjacent frames.  Then
it scales the second image as required to make those features line up
with the first.

The effect is that focal planes farther back end up getting scaled to
smaller magnification than those in front, no matter what scale the
images were at when they were shot.

If you keep that re-scale from happening, say by not running the
alignment process, then you're liable to get radial smearing
or "echos" of in-focus features.  The result looks sort of like what
would happen if you zoomed during a single exposure.

It's worth mentioning again that the ideal situation is when the
entrance pupil does not move at all throughout the stack.  In most
cases, any kind of focusing does cause the entrance pupil to move,
and when that happens, less movement is better than more.  Generally
you're better off to turn the focus ring at low magnifications (much
less than 1:1) and to adjust distance at high magnifications (much
greater than 1:1).  Magnifications in the middle (typical of
closeup/macro work) may work better either way, depending on details
of the lenses that can be hard to predict, but in the end result it's
seldom a big difference one way or the other.

--Rik

Have you tried the latest release of CombineZM, 13th March 2008,  on this
stack, the Find Detail function and hence the Do Stack macro which uses it may
give better results now.   If the original frames were several mega pixels you
could also try the Do Soft Stack macro as well.

Alan

colin le boutillier <colinleb@...> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I attach my latest picture given the Hadley treatment.  Harvestrman was
a
> very cooperative individual with a 2 mm long body; just waved one leg a bit
> between shots.  A 12 frame stack using Do Weighted Average  This
gave
> slightly better definition to the legs than Do Stack.  Given a bit more
> sharpening (too much for some tastes I suppose) and some general contrast
work
> in Photoshop.  Any ideas for doing it better gratefully received.
>
>
>
>
> Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! for Good
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

I am sorry for the quick update on the heels of the last but I found a
serious bug which affects stacks that will not completely fit into
memory, they cause a CRASH.   Probably something to do with the
release date the 13th.

Alan

I have just tried the 15 March CZM on a bunch of stacks that worked ok
with a version of CZM from a few months ago and they turn out horrible
now, loads of double images, much worse than the previous version.  No
problems with crashing, I have 2GB memory and only using about 5-8
images 1936x1288 pixels.

The reason I just changed to this most recent version was that the
same image in low and high resolution produces different results when
stacked, the low (1936x1288pixel) versions work fine but then the high
(3888 x 2592 pixel) versions worked fine for much of the image but
around some edges they suddenly lost all detail even though its
present in the individual stacked images.  actually when i just use 3
images containing these 'bad' areas they again work ok but when all
the images are together in the stack the detail vanishes.

--- In combinez@yahoogroups.com, "Alan Hadley" <alan@...> wrote:
>
> I am sorry for the quick update on the heels of the last but I found a
> serious bug which affects stacks that will not completely fit into
> memory, they cause a CRASH.   Probably something to do with the
> release date the 13th.
>
> Alan
>