download site for free windows 7 compatible stacking software program + docs

[petercfischer]

well met, this is our first post here so please bear with us as we no doubt make numerous errors during the course of this exercise.

after spending some time surfing about the net our efforts have come to no avail, or perhaps a qualified success. while we have uncovered some prospects few fulfill all of the criteria. the object of the quest is to discover a website to download a free stand alone program version [not a limited time test edition iteration] of stacking software which runs on windows 7.

so far only one alternative has surfaced, but as this program proclaims its suitability only for XP + vista there are serious doubts as to its viability/ functionality on the newer operating system. in the past this critical deficiency has doomed all learning efforts constrained by this digital technical feature.

part of the requirements of a satisfactory search outcome is there are copious instructions/user manual resources also "free' available for download directly linked to this particular iteration of the program. experience indicates the 2 are inseparable + mandatory requirement if there is any hope to become proficient with a new tool before the end of the present millennium. while trial + error form the crux of the learning process blind attempts to utilize buggy user interfaces [or overcome a lack of functional ones altogether] adds a dimension to the learning curve we can now do without.

we bring to the table a working knowledge of many different task specific programs, in other photographic [and non-photographic] domains [hence we are computer literate]. the inputs are personally collected @ the macro level [using different methodologies/ protocols] so the requisite use of manual level skill sets further implies a reasonably workmanlike understanding of the underlying principle involved.

we thank you in advance for any direction in this pursuit, as well offer our help in your endeavours as a return in kind for your aid in our undertaking.

petercfischer

[FrankMi]

Peter, first of all, welcome to CiC!

It you are referring to Focus Stacking, the basis of stacking software is the ability to programmatically combine the sharpest objects from a series of images having been shot with a range of focal points with minimal artifacts. With software that supports Layers and Masks, it is possible to manually align multiple images and mask just the sharp objects from each image to create a focus stacked result. Doable, but it would be a time consuming PITA. Although I don't use Gimp, I believe it is free and does support layers. There is a reason they charge for focus stacking software. Hope this helps but the manual approach is not a trivial one!

[petercfischer]

thanks for your reply.

yes, am aware GIMP can do a rudimentary job using its layers [better now it supports 32 bit floating point color @ the internal processing level] but you're correct in suggesting it would take a tremendous amount of manual aligning++, which is unlikely a workable solution. perhaps in the case of a small number of input in a series using a blend plugin, but on the whole it would seem unworkable.

your observation regarding the justification for charging for this focus stacking software application is interesting on the grounds the job is handled programmatically makes me wonder actually since that is the reason for software: reducing repetitive tasks to an automated stepwise progression towards a defined outcome. there are any number of free programs available which can take time interval shots of the night sky, track + merge them, filtering out most of the noise; even producing varicolored merged output if the input was such [the software merges sharpens amalgamate + aligns the inputs, but doesn't add extra values, i.e. colors per se]. whether these are merged as sharp points of light or light trails is a matter of the time interval between inputs as stars tend to mover across the heavens. it is already under consideration if this avenue proves fruitless.

the availability of the above programs leads us to believe we have not discovered the source for the tool, rather than the fact the tool doesn't exist - or we have made some other search error. otherwise, if supply were based on demand alone, it may simply be as more users are interested in recording astronomical objects with the gear they have @ slower shutter speeds etc. than other natural objects @ the macro level [with the requisite additional investments in lens + lighting when reverse mounting is excluded as a collection method].

granted while it also requires some new photographic skill sets it doesn't take a large niche interest group to justify the efforts of those programmers whose passion it is to solve challenges of this nature, distributing the outcome freely to the commons.

gotta keep shakin' those bushes it seems...

[James G]

Peter, I'm, not completely sure what you may be looking for...
But from my own experience with stacking software I use "Combine ZP" ( http://hadleyweb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/) for general photographic purposes. It is free, and relatively simple to use, and runs without issues on my system (Windows 8 Pro)

As regards software for astrophotography, I am only just starting to try things out.

I have experimented with the following free software which may be of interest but you have probably already identified these through your own web searches ...

Registax 6 ( http://www.astronomie.be/registax/ )

Deepskystacker ( http://deepskystacker.free.fr/english/userguide.htm )

Iris ( http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/us/iris/iris.htm )

James

[petercfischer]

ah super james, we've had luck with 'deepskystacker' in the past too. this was one of the prospects to employ for this task, the other suggestions are much appreciated and bear investigation.

couple of queries before we delve in...the program we referred to as one possibility for this stacking project is called Combine ZM which maintains only xp + vista compatibility. are we talking the same program or is there a bigger difference than the ZM/ZP identification tags? our research suggests user reviews also maintain it functions/achieves the task, but somewhat to much more unwieldy in accomplishing it than pay for license alternatives.

how is you experience learning + using this tool?

we have limited command of technical german, especially in the computer domain - but overcoming this challenge may not be insurmountable + while slowing down the skill acquisition process considerably could provide positive ancillary benefits. admittedly we are paranoid about approaching hacked websites as a sources of downloadable software. free or otherwise.

we look forward to any clarification you can provide in this regard. are you suggesting the code in the zip file is clean + is simply installed after the unzip process with easily available tools or is there more involved. can you attest to this personally or is it a supposition on your part? the risk of system corruption with all the concurrent frustration involved in cleanup + restoration raise red flags of concern.

peter

[James G]

Peter,
my understanding is that CombineZP is a later incarnation of the original CombineZM software.

The code is probably somewhat dated, but is free, and as far as I can tell entirely stable. I have reinstalled it successively for Vista, Win 7 and then on Win 8.
I have had no problems using it, and experiences no system glitches or impairment. I have also uninstalled it successfully on occasion using standard processes and as far as I can tell no artefacts remained

Arguably the interface is not as sophisticated as Zerene or Helicon which are not free, but there is are significant options to vary/select a stacking algorithm. (which is not available in Photoshop CS)

The only drawback to its use is that it does not process raw/native formats from the camera, so I pre-process my CR2 images in ACR /PS6 to reduce noise and correct lens distortion, and then output to 16 bit tiff.

Hope this helps.

[petercfischer]

james: thank you for your aid. again we seem to have achieved partial success. we downloaded the ZP files [kept a copy of the link] with no issue. it installed itself in the same explorer folder which allowed the program to be initiated. attempts to copy the zip file, copy it from the download folder of copy the contents were foiled, no doubt by the on-board security. there is English help attached to this older version which will get us going. attempts will be made to workaround the install block for the contents of the zip file, especially as the operating system would like to oblige but our efforts are blocked by another authority [even though we run this computer as administrator]. perhaps you experienced similar frustration + know of an easier work around which might obviate waste of time + effort on our part otherwise we thank you for the partial success of the first stage of the install. perhaps the fact the help files are in English in this iteration will accelerate the learning curve providing better outcomes than updating the ZP program to the latest version.

1 step forward, 2 steps back...then sideways like a crab - but there is movement!

[DanK]

I have no idea whether Combine ZP can be made to run under Windows 7 because I stopped using the Combine software some years ago. However, if you have Photoshop, it will align and stack images. This functionality has been present at least since CS5, I believe. If you don't have that and are serious about stacking, my recommendation is that you buy Zerene Stacker. the personal version is only $89, and there is currently a 20% discount at http://zerenesystems.com/cms/stacker/docs/purchasing.

[petercfischer]

Dan, thank you for your suggestion. we avoid photoshop like a plague as it comes with a complete ecosystem which should be avoided as much as possible in our opinion. this is not a denigration of the software itself, whose advances we remain abreast + informed of, just the group think which tends to adhere to its implementation. there's a plethora of software tools available nowadays.

the other alternative you mentioned has been considered but fund expenditure is hierarchically allocated here: hardware is first, its maintenance and/or optimization of same by alternate means follows up directly and software alternatives to accomplish, accentuate or magnify similar outcomes rounds out the top decision making criteria. we just ordered an aid to further ensure the focus is optimized as much as possible.

there is definite price to pay with non-commercial software sources...the outcomes are really buggy sometimes. however all choices inherently arrive complete with balances to consider. sometimes the most creativity is found in the cracks of the application's programmed solutions, exploiting the unique weird as presented or maximizing the positive results in solving an unexpected bug's behavior.

we do this as much for the satisfaction of controlling the tools' influences as being amazed by the unexpected interactions with the variables presented during the course of the creation process itself. there is a real sense of gratification in the genuine spontaneous smiling experienced upon resolving a challenge in a beneficial way @ every step along the way. a necessary counterbalance to the frustration often experience during the exercise.

ya, we know...

[DanK]

we do this as much for the satisfaction of controlling the tools' influences as being amazed by the unexpected interactions with the variables presented during the course of the creation process itself. there is a real sense of gratification in the genuine spontaneous smiling experienced upon resolving a challenge in a beneficial way

To each his or her own. I have done stuff with computers where the satisfaction was getting things to work, but in the case of stacking, I just want to create photos, and I hunt for the tools that will let me do it best and with the least headache. And I put enough value on my own time that paying for something like Zerene seems like a real bargain.

If you are having trouble installing Combine, see whether the context menu you get by right-clicking on the .msi file gives you the Windows "run as administrator" option. Sometimes (for reasons that I don't understand), having administrator status is not enough to execute some programs with full functionality under Windows 7, and you have to tell Windows explicitly to use your administrator status in executing the program. this works with some executables, but I have never had to try it with msi installer programs.

[petercfischer]

clear dan. no disagreement with your position. perhaps the description of the issue was not clear though.

both combine zm + zp install + initiate on 2 different w7pro computers - further functionality or limits thereto remain to be experienced as time permits. there is an extra zip file which we have also downloaded from the source site which is purported to address certain bugs (?) which we wish for obvious reasons to install as well [obviation of frustrating bugs if they have already been annoying enough to have been reported to the programmer alone would warrant the patch be applied].

the system refuses to allow a copy of the zipped file be placed into the program folder [as instructed], or the unzipped constituent files into the folder either; even when the security program has been employed to scan the zip to ensure there are not offending files inhibiting the process. we mention we are signed in as administrator only to anticipate this as a cause for the issue as there is not opportunity to clarify this when the pop intervens, it merely suggests there is no authority to complete the action [only offering to skip /cancel the implementation options - neither of which accomplishes anything if executed].

this is mystifying

[Glenn NK]

To each his or her own. I have done stuff with computers where the satisfaction was getting things to work, but in the case of stacking, I just want to create photos, and I hunt for the tools that will let me do it best and with the least headache. And I put enough value on my own time that paying for something like Zerene seems like a real bargain.

Considering that:

1) The investment in photo gear is far larger than the cost of a stand alone stacking program (or any other PP software);

2) In the digital realm we no longer have the high cost of buying and processing film (I now put the funds towards good workable software knowing that, overall product is better and costs less).

I've concludes that the relatively low cost of readily available and very workable software such as Zerene or Helicon seems (to me at least) to make the use of "free" software somewhat counterproductive.

As Dan has alluded to, there are situations where solving a difficult problem is satisfaction enough, but when I want results (why else spend so much time and money taking the images in the first place), I'm not up to the task of saving a few shekels (or rubles? ).

Glenn

[FrankMi]

I have been repeatedly reminded by the results obtained for the effort involved, that all too often, 'Free Stuff' is worth every penny I've paid!

[petercfischer]

seem have given the wrong impression in this thread. whatever...we, like all other photo folks, have spend many dollars chasing our digital dreams. of course we continue to do so, resigned to the fact ever more gear and storage space accumulate the longer we pursue this passion.

we are addicted to the process/production over the outcome. our premise: the world presents us with the opportunity to collect input, they're momentary particle illuminations of specks slices in time here or there...we do not take picture - they are given to us. we need to only find + appreciate them.

we have been exposed to the reviews on both zerene + helcon. would be interested to hear any number of remarks/opinions regarding:

in a head to head comparison which would be easier to use, would one prove more flexible than the other [from user interface to actual hands on processing steps + procedures]

our experience is there is an approximate 40 hour learning curve involved in achieving minimal/acceptable functional creative abilities in any new software program: is one quicker to learn to command than the other [why ?] or are there more gains in power/flexibility to justify for the extra time invested to achieve initial functional command or later by broader features either

since we find [if the past is any indicator] we spend equal amounts of time in post processing as in actual collection of input will either prove more productive than the other on a per unit basis

our experience has taught us to develop an 'adjustment protocol' [a number of them actually to optimize program contributions] so we tend to use more than one program generally to process inputs in post [the specific series dictated to some extent by the output format chosen] - some programs perform better functions in monochrome processes, other shine in realistic output while 'art' 'creative' 'graphically influenced' productions demand strength is areas more specific to the bent of the particular creative goals per project demanding specific program abilities



do either of these programs lend themselves better to one or another protocol perhaps?

does either one shine over the other optimizing one type of input [plants, bugs, macro object studies] and if so, which in your opinion performs best in which creative domain?

thanks in advance for your inputs,

petercfischer

[DanK]

Peter,

There have been many comparisons of Helicon and Zerene. You can google it and get plenty. Also, if you search this site with the keywords Helicon and Zerene, you will find almost 30 earlier threads. So, there isn't a need to replicate that again. If there are specific questions the earlier threads don't answer, please post those.

However, I think you may be misunderstanding stacking software. Specialized stacking software like Zerene has one function only: to stack images. All the rest of your editing you do in whatever software you prefer. It makes absolutely no difference whether you want to turn the image into B&W, for example.

I've posted a simple Zerene workflow previously: Focus stacking workflow: Lightroom and Zerene.

I suggest you download a few demo copy and try it. There are many options, but the simplest possible method ("stack all_PMax") is often fine. There are excellent tutorials on the Zerene website for doing more complicated things.

Dan

[petercfischer]

dan, thank you for your timely response. the CiC searches etc. will be undertaken [information regurgitation not required]


please correct any no misunderstanding which may exist:

the purpose of the stacking software: provides a singular function in stacking a number of identically composed individual photos with the outcome merged into one exhibiting the accumulated images distilled such that the final exhibits the best fit of the various contributing inputs. the inputs all feature different focal points within the display and as such exhibiting different areas as best 'in focus'.
this is particularly helpful in macro work where the depth of field is such the whole input is rarely crisp but the amalgamation of the contributors each featuring a different area in focus provides the final display where those contributing 'in focus' areas have been 'digitally stitched together' or 'blended' providing the final display where all constituent parts appear in focus.
while it can be applied to any similar inputs [landscapes, object studies, etc.] macro/close-up photography is the main application [there is also no difference as to color scheme of input].


the workflow references in our post have to do with our own procedures, we wonder how others have found the real world constraints imposed on them by the software. google reviews generally neglect those 'little' details: input format constraints [not accepting nef raw format input initially for example, outputting in either but not both 8/16 bit tiff[or other formats], using floating point color bits for their internal processing] or general procedural inflexibility [workflow must progress within the vendor's paradigms: color space etc.]. the latter can refer to the ability to take an interim 'save' in a format/timing of the user's choosing [often the software uses a native/particular format internally] so it may be exported to other programs for concurrent adjustment if the occasion warrants.

these flexibilities are related directly to our workflow habits which often specify particular programs @ certain points which exhibit better abilities to achieve desired outcomes specific to those particular constraints. we are looking for this sort of information if it is available as it makes more sense to acquire new software which fits most easily with established workflows. in our opinion, if possible, new software acquisition should enhance output not constrain the user's options to accommodate the vendor's predilections.

because we are new to this forum this may not be the right venue to pursue this type of information. in this case accept our apologies, in future we will simply utilize the site as a data search resource which may be the most efficient/effective application of everyone's energies.

petercfischer.

[FrankMi]

Peter, you appear to delve significantly deeper into manipulating the technical aspects of post processing an image into the final result than I currently use. I would be very interested to see the benefits of your workflow. If the benefits are significant, it may very well be worth while to learn some of the techniques that you apply.

Right now I do Focus Stacking in CS5, mainly because I have done short stacks which are fairly easy to manually clean up the minor artifacts. I am hoping to delve more into macro work where short (8-12 image) stacks are not practical. Based on my research to date, would likely select Zerene Stacker over Helicon Focus owing more to their pricing structure than what appears to be very little difference in the process and image outcome of one over the other.

Do you have any examples of the SOOC and finished product that you could post?

[DanK]

Peter,

Some of the information you want is readily available on the vendors' websites. For example, your wrote:

google reviews generally neglect those 'little' details: input format constraints [not accepting nef raw format input initially for example, outputting in either but not both 8/16 bit tiff[or other formats]

workflow must progress within the vendor's paradigms: color space etc.

Zerene posts this information on file formats and color spaces, and much more, on its website, e.g., its FAQ. I got to this by googling Zerene color space; the second hit took me to their main page, which has a link to their FAQ. I assume that Helicon does as well, but I have had no reason to look.

Since you have said repeatedly that you have some sort of highly specific and specialized workflow, I doubt any of us can tell you much more than you can read online. My suggestion is that you read the documentation and then try a free demo to see how well it works with whatever your workflow is.

For my workflow, the answer is that Zerene is excellent, but you may have different requirements.

Dan

[petercfischer]

thanks to all who have aided in this query/conversation/exchange. excuses are due if we have given the impression there is some deep mystical workflow @ play here. because we constantly experiment in the hopes of optimizing any/all contributory processes as well as overcoming the inevitable operator/photographer errors the habit has formed over time to annotate these efforts.

otherwise it would be impossible to reliably recreate when we have discovered something which works better. more often the habit allows us to identify/isolate where efforts went askew to avoid them in future endeavors. we have also found this allows for the transportation of the benefits of the post process to the subsequent field collection efforts: there is the old axiom...garbage in garbage out. so the whole thing is a process, a pre/post creative process. hence the focus on the process not the outcome.

our problem is to get to the point where the output reaches expectations. as it does we'll share it. presently...ach well