iTunes Festival

It is the 7th edition of the Festival this year, and as always, it lasts the entire month of September. Since last year I have been watching its individual shows meticulously and with great pleasure. Needless to say, I'm watching it via all my Apple devices and computers, but its best appearance of all happens on my AppleTV connected to a Samsung HDTV. The show takes place in the London Roundhouse that has been converted for the purpose to an outstanding venue to accommodate the many acts (or gigs, to use the youth's jargon). Apparently this year about 20 million people requested free tickets to attend the live shows, which is more or less normal with the stars appearing this time, as are the likes of Lady Gaga (who kicked off the Festival this year) and Elton John. I watched the latter's show twice and I'm gonna have to watch it again and again before they take it off the air (or cable, to be more accurate). A genuine virtuose, still performing like time didn't pass by. Incredible pianist and singer. And with plenty of energy, he spent 1 hour and 42 minutes on stage! Gaga's gig was also performance-wise exceptional, if you like that sort of music it is. I have been amazed by the discipline and professionalism of the artists, and their humility too, regardless their stardom status. I love such pro's. Respect!

Last year I enjoyed for the first time on a show my favorite band Mumford and Son and watched for the first time as well the wünderkind Ed Sheeran, in an one-man orchestra performance. The most romantic voice and music money can buy. But also, Elbow and Emeli Sandé. We had seen all of them during the opening and closing Olympics ceremony by the time the Festival started in September 2012. The Olympics shows had catapulted many of them internationally and established them in the ranks of the best of Britain.

So far this year I have been impressed by a 22 year old kid, Tom Odell, whose voice reminds me the lead singer of Mumford and Sons, but his style is largely impacted by Elton John and Bowie too. Extremely romantic voice and lyrics. The kid plays the piano and does his best to sound like Elton John, but he'll have to spend a few extra performance hours to come any close to the great Artist (with a capital A).

The iTunes Festival is something for all ages. The production and its TV coverage are simply impeccable and one can watch the shows via an iPad app, AppleTV and iTunes on a Mac/PC. No excuses for missing any gigs. If not 'live', at least one has the opportunity to watch the shows after the fact, multiple times to his/her heart's desire. Even deep into the following month of October... and buy the records linked to many of the gigs.

Focus stacking cont'd.

A picture I made today by method 2 explained further on

Focus stacking (FS) is like 3D scanning. In such, human or other parts are scanned and images of virtual slices of the object are created at discrete positions along an imaginary axis. Software solutions could be further used to blend the obtained slice images into high resolution 3D virtual objects in which experts navigate to establish medical diagnoses or other useful 'stuff'. In FS, we similarly shoot a number of photographs of the same object, and like in traditional scanners, the frames are only sharp (and useful) on discrete planes perpendicular to the lens axis. Each such frame has a very shallow depth of field (DOF) that spreads incrementally in front and on the back of the focus plane. Shallow DOF is typical in macro photography where FS is mainly used for. Next, FS software maps out the blurred (out-of-focus) areas in each of the frames, and only keeps the sharp parts. By finally blending the latter together, a razor sharp photograph is obtained with a 'humongous' DOF (almost spectacular compared to conventional photography).

There are two ways to focus a camera on the aforementioned focus planes (incidentally, those same planes are parallel to the camera's CCD capturing element plane, if you haven't guessed it yet):

1. Keep the camera immovable on a steady tripod, pointing at the object, and use the lens ring to focus and shoot frames on a number of equally spread imaginary planes across the lens axis of the camera.

2. You focus at one extreme of the object (say, its front end), and then micro-displace the camera at new focus plane positions, for a discrete number of incremental steps, at which points you obviously shoot subsequent new frames, until you reach the object's other extreme (say, its back end).

I added those arrows on the 454's knob for better control

After all is said and done, (a) I still don't know which of the two methods yields better results, (b) whether indeed better results can be obtained by one of the two methods, and (c) what would be the reasons for possible differences in quality. If there are any differences, they must be the consequence of the blur/sharp region mapping algorithms used in the FS apps, right? I can only say that I tried both methods and found that the two of them equally yield great results. I should probably do a formal test with them, and systematically compare the results in a more formal manner. Until that is done, one thing I found to be true however:

To systematically focus on those incremental planes by precision turning of the focus ring, one does need indeed to tether the camera to a computer and control it with a dedicated app (like Helicon Remote). It's virtually impossible to obtain similar increments between focus planes by manually turning the focus ring. If you can manage to do it, then you're a champ. Also, the measurement scales typically depicted on focus rings are not terribly accurate to be used for such micro adjustments. For all practical reasons, only computers could manage this precision focusing properly. So, for method 1 you really need to tether your camera to a computer and control the shoot with an app. Furthermore, most people own cameras that are not readily supportable by the available tethering software (eg. Helicon Remote). So, you could really be left out in the cold...

Manfrotto 454 Micrometric Positioning Sliding Plate

To do 2 is much simpler. You mount a micro-positioning sliding plate like the one shown here on the head of your tripod, and then mount your camera on the sliding plate. After you focus your camera on one extreme of the object, and shoot a first frame, you slide the camera forwards (or backwards, depending which extreme you shot first) at regular increments by carefully turning the finger-tip control for precise micro movements; I used three entire revolutions of the knob in a few tests I did. It turned out to be fine. The larger the increments the less frames you'll have to shoot, obviously.

In other words, method 2 only requires you to invest in a sliding plate (plenty of solutions for a few bucks, less than 100 anyways) and any camera of your liking, without bothering about availability of tethering control apps. The FS you can eventually do with any dedicated app (available from free, via shareware, and a few good commercial solutions like Photoshop and Helicon).

Camera setup for shooting the coins

Of course, in case you have the proper gear supported by solutions like Helicon's, it's a much simpler and far more fine-tuned experience as you control everything from the computer, including all detail camera settings and shooting parameters. At the same time you can maintain the camera really amovible vis-à-vis the object and avoid the need for frame alignment later. Indeed, even using the sliding plate described above, a remote control to trigger the camera release button, and a super steady tripod like the 055XPROB I use, the resulting frames may still need to be further precision aligned for perfect results. The FS apps I use, Photoshop and Helicon Focus, are able to perform such alignments, but the lesser the need the better the result. I think...

Helicon Focus vs. Photoshop focus stacking

To clear things up beforehand, this is not an exhaustive comparison of the two as it would defeat the purpose. It's only about focus stacking, for which Helicon Focus is actually made, whereas for Photoshop it's only one of thousands of functionalities it otherwise offers. I'll only share my experience on the results of focus stacking based on a series of frames shot with my 5D Mark III and the Canon 100mm macro lens. The meerkat is a present I got on my latest b-day. The shots were programmed with Helicon Remote tethered to the 5D. I received Remote together with Helicon Focus Pro on an one year user license. The Photoshop is part of my Creative Suite 6 Academic Edition.

Helicon has plenty of functions and parameters to both, shoot pictures and post-process them. I used mostly its default settings. To understand how Helicon Remote works, you define the closest focus point, then the farthest, and it calculates the number of shots needed for best results between the two extremes, as well as the interval between two consecutive focus points. You can preview the results live (for Canon gear it can also show actual Depth of Field - DOF) and you can define the manual settings for exposure and speed, as well as the ISO setting, with their direct visual effect shown on your computer monitor. An additional Remote bonus is the ability to bracket exposure up to 15 different points and define the shooting parameters for each one of them individually (if you got the patience and know what you're doing, that is). I applied Exposure Bracketing for this demonstration and defined 4 bracket points with 1/3 diaphragm distance between them. Once all my shots were done (4 for Exposure bracketing for 9 focus points in all, that is 36 frames in total), I loaded them in Helicon Focus for post-processing and let Helicon do the rest. In honesty, I have no idea how they do HDR first and focus stacking next, I couldn't find anywhere where they explain that particular detail, so I asked them by email yesterday, but received no reaction yet... They seem to process all the frames at once. The combined result for HDR/FS out of Helicon Focus is shown on the left on the picture above (click for larger view). That of Photoshop is shown on the right.

Returning to Photoshop with the original 36 source files, I created 9 HDR files first with the Photoshop HDR function, whom I then combined via the Photoshop focus stacking (edit blend layers) function into a final shot. I'm not getting into details how to do this in Photoshop as the net is loaded with reviews and videos about this. Here I'm only comparing results.

The two final images, one from Helicon and one from Photoshop, I then opened in Lightroom and only corrected them for color balance by picking a gray spot in the meerkat's nose. The resulting pictures were combined together on a common canvas in Photoshop, and texts and arrows added subsequently in Voila. This could have been done in thousand different ways but that's how I did it. It's not important anyways.

As for the results...

Photoshop is far superior than Focus but it takes longer and is more complex to handle (unless one somehow automates the batch process in a script). Focus didn't quite handle the HDR effect properly, appeared less sharp, its color balance maybe appearing more pleasing to the eye at first sight, but in reality the Photoshop color balance is more correct as I compare my impression of the image with the real thing next to me as I write this. Worst of all though, the Focus stacking post-processing created this awful stain artefact on the meerkat face and blouse that is probably due to the processing algorithms, whereas the Photoshop rendering result is almost impeccable. It's also sharper and the HDR effect shows excellent dynamic with proper detail in both the dark and highlighted areas.

I can't stress enough how useful the Helicon Remote is though. This is an excellent tool that curiously enough they don't charge you for but offer it along Focus itself. I tried Focus without Remote and my results were appalling. You just can't get the right frames to blend without serious artefacts unless you use Remote. For them it's a necessity, for us it's a bonus. I had to pay for an annual subscription for Focus, but having seen what Photoshop does, I'll only use the Helicon Remote now to shoot the pictures and subsequently do the HDR and stacking within Photoshop. Kinda peculiar conclusion, but that's what I think. The fact that Photoshop didn't create the stain alone was good enough for me to abandon Focus for this FS purpose.

To be fair to Helicon, I am a novice in using Focus, and maybe there are tricks and hints and points to pay attention to, because of the stacking algorithms they use, to avoid the problems I had. But, problem is, I got no time to waste trying to find out. Photoshop does the job by design without 'special' hints and tricks, so why bother? Software Packages should perform as specified and not by wishful thinking... And do it simply without fuss, even for geeks like myself...

UPDATE: I'll be damned. Just moments after I posted that, I received the following email by Helicon Support. Enjoy:
--------------------------------------

Dear *******,

You have received an answer to your message (***********) from our support.

=================================================

No, Helicon Focus can only focus merge stack, at least in current version. So I would suggest to focus stack each exposure and then merge it HDR. Or, merge to HDR first and then focus stack. In the latter case please select HDR with global, not local operator. Otherwise artefacts on the resulting image are possible.

=================================================

Best regards,
Stas Yatsenko
Helicon Help Desk
http://support.heliconfilter.com
------------------------------------
You received this email as a registered user of one of the Helicon Soft Products.

--------------------------------------

So, it's either a huge coincidence or the guys at Helicon are continuously checking whatever is written about their products, real time! I am impressed! So, it was the HDR factor that brought about the stain on the Helicon result, then. Now you know. This of course changes the entire situation. I'll have to try what the say and come back to you. I'll use Focus with the Photoshop combined HDR files and then compare the two. More work. What else to do during summer anyways?

UPDATE 2: Here is the result, as promised, of focus stacking in Helicon Focus of the HDR files resulting from Photoshop. Eventually Focus didn't create the aforementioned artefact stains either. The problem was with Helicon's lack of information about combined focus and exposure bracketing. What a difference a proper Help file makes?! Actually, there's not much noticeable difference between the two after all.  In that case, maybe Focus is a more preferable solution to some folks because of the simplicity of use, and the many configuration parameters they provide. As for me, I dunno. I might use both just in case one is offering me better results than the other. For HDR related and exposure bracketing source files, I think I'll go Photoshop for the entire workflow from the start. For plain vanilla FS without HDR though, and since Photoshop takes somewhat longer, I might try Focus first, and if I don't like the result, try Photoshop next... Keep busy, in other words...

UPDATE 3: In posts like this one needs to be extremely fair and accurate. I therefore performed another test based on same source files again from another subject shoot (31 focus points in total), without exposure bracketing this time, to get HDR out of the way, that is. The result is shown here below. Click for a larger view. I have printed 'Fail' on the points where one method performed worse than the other. In this example Helicon Focus wins hands down. Like I said, one needs to try both methods in each individual case and keep the best results. Unless one is an expert on FS algorithms and, by simple inspection of the source files, one is capable of predicting which of the two methods will perform better... I'm not able to do that, not yet... 

Gentse feesten 2013

Gentse feesten 2013, a set on Flickr.

Gentse feesten 2013.

OmniGraffle Pro

I'm actually writing this as sort of a memory refresher for future needs in case I have to do something similar all over again. I've been fixing a Triple Play configuration, you see, at my son's apartment, and a few hours after I started, I got so confused and frustrated with the networking  and the cables surrounding me. It was the first hot day of the summer too, and without air cooling, I been sweating like a pig. After hours of work I got it all up and running, but I then thought, how about future maintenance? Imagine things change or need upgrades, how the heck am I gonna remember what I did ages ago? Or, how do I communicate to my son what I actually did if he needs to understand the role of a given cable, for instance, and what happens if someone pulls it off the socket? Eh? Simple queries really. The cables are usually so messed up (not to mention device power cables) and unless you know exactly what cable connects to what port you can be in real trouble. So, I decided to document what I did, as a matter of 'good practice', like we used to do as expensive consultants for customers long ago!

I use OmniGraffle Pro for simple diagrams, meaning objects connected to each other with simple lines. It's easy to do this in OGP as each object used (images, icons, the like) receives automatically connection points that act as magnets. Once a connection with a line is established at any of these magnet points, moving the object around on the canvas moves flexibly the connection lines with it. Very useful. Some people try to draw similar diagrams with Powerpoint instead, but the sheer absence of magnets in Powerpoint makes it really hard. 

In terms of objects OmniGraffle offers a large variety (object types and connection lines) and it's Mac version also offers a large collection of Apple artifacts. Problem is, what happens with other objects? Well, this is what I'll describe here to remember if I need to do this again.

As a matter of illustration, suppose I needed an image that looked like my own simple HDMI Switch, for instance. Here are the steps:

1. I go to Google images and put 'HDMI switch' in the search field. A myriad of images appear. I scroll around and pick one that looks almost identical with what I was looking for.
2. I drag and drop this image into Photoshop. Photoshop puts the image on its background layer. Double clicking it creates a new layer and background is no more. I want to get rid of all white space next, and create transparency instead. This can't be done when the image stays on the background layer.
3. After the image becomes a regular layer, I use the Magic Wand to select all the white space surrounding the object. I do the necessary to select it all. I then hit backspace, the white disappears, and is replaced by the transparency surface symbols. That's it.
4. If cropping needs to be done, I do that next. I then save the image as a PNG file that I know maintains transparency. It's a good image format that PNG, although for plain vanilla small size file format for the web, I'd still select JPG instead.
5. Job done. I drag and drop the newly saved image PNG onto the diagram and there you go. If now one object gets obscured by another and the latter maintains its transparency the result will be a lot more pleasing, as the obtained transparency will allow parts of the former (the obscured) to appear behind the latter (the obscurer)  in a more natural way, and not behind the white frame that a JPG format would have caused (even with strict cropping).
6. Another hint. Magnets are positioned on an object's  frame contour, and, unless you crop it close to the actual object, you risk to have your connections hanging in the air, at a distance (example: see the lines with arrows pointing to the Plasma TV above). In that case, you can create another new object with its own magnets (I prefer a text block), and position it inside the original object (see the white text 'HDMI switch' in the image to the right of the TV above). Connect next your lines with the magnets on that text object rather than the image's. 

I don't believe there's any object for all practical purposes that Google Search won't return, if you describe the criteria properly, that is. I was able to find pictures of the most improbable devices. Trust me on this. Amazing what these guys can go find for us to use. Good stuff. Now, in the unlikely event you can't find something, or you don't like the image Google served you with, then, all it takes is to shoot an image of the object by yourself. Put it against a white background (or any monochromatic so you can pick it up easily with reasonable small range pixel tolerance when using the magnetic wand), light it up well without shadows, shoot the frame and process it, and continue from step 2.