zerene focus stacker compared to helicon focus

#Zerene focus stacker compared to helicon focus manual#

Under what conditions would Zerene's slabbing support (I believe via third party add-ons) provide a pronounced advantage? I'd be appreciative if anyone can shed any light on how sub-stacks can even be used to enhance results.

#Zerene focus stacker compared to helicon focus manual#

I am guessing that slabbing is basically a convenience which allows one to work completely within the program and that the same thing could be achieved in Helicon by manual means.

Serene, for its part, supports slabbing (sub-stacks). From what I have gathered, some consider Helicon to have an easier workflow and also have a gentler learning curve, while producing comparable results to Zerene. The end results from either programme will be indistinguishable but their interfaces and workflow are different. Both do a very good job of stacking and offer the ability to edit the stacked images to correct any small stacking errors. We tested our final stacked picture with a picture obtained. Of the stacking programs Ive used, Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus, Helicon is faster, but Zerene often can handle stacks that cause problems for Helicon. There are two major specialist stacking programs, Zerene Stacker and Helicon Focus. The Helicon FB Tube can add focus stacking to Canon or Nikon Cameras. We tested this system and compared the results with several different software packages (CombineZP, Auto-Montage, Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker). It is therefore helpful to find a depth of focus table for your (macro) lens in. The system is inexpensive compared to high-end commercial focus stacking solutions. I will be purchasing, since my demos have expired largely unexplored, so want to make sure. In this manuscript we present a focus stacking system, composed of commercial photographic equipment. Which focus stacking software will be better to start with, Zerene or Helicon? My application will be macro, landscape and product.