Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Photostacking

  1. #21
    DanK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    8,625
    Real Name
    Dan

    Re: Photostacking

    Quote Originally Posted by chauncey View Post
    OK, what is sensor shift...how does that work?
    sorry, I should have put a quote in post 18, which points you to the link in post 14, to make it clearer

  2. #22

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    4,511
    Real Name
    wm c boyer

    Re: Photostacking

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7POpid-e8U
    there are several that illustrate the same thing...by shifting your perspective a few pixels and merging
    them, you somehow achieve that super resolution. That's where I get lost.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Provence, France
    Posts
    988
    Real Name
    Remco

    Re: Photostacking

    Quote Originally Posted by chauncey View Post
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o7POpid-e8U
    there are several that illustrate the same thing...by shifting your perspective a few pixels and merging
    them, you somehow achieve that super resolution. That's where I get lost.
    The movements of the camera are so small that perspective shift is negligable. What happens is not so much that you move the image by a few pixels (although that in itself could increase resolution) but that you move it by x pixels plus a fraction. Which means that you sample in between the pixels of a single image. Thus, your stack of 20-40 handheld images will have a lot more information.

    By combining images which have shifts of (x + a fraction) of a pixel, you get around a fundamental limit described by the Nyquist-Shannon theorem. In short, you cannot capture details smaller than 2 pixels. Your stack of images has in effect put pixels in-between those of a single image, so your "2 pixels" in the stack are much closer than in a single image. Thus you can resolve smaller details.

    A final gain should be in the image noise: as you add the signals, part of the noise will cancel out, so the final image will have a higher signal/noise, or less visible noise.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    SE Michigan
    Posts
    4,511
    Real Name
    wm c boyer

    Re: Photostacking

    I discovered this morning that it is called the Drizzle Method, kinda explained...http://www.stark-labs.com/craig/arti...rizzle_API.pdf

  5. #25
    JohnRostron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    South Essex, UK
    Posts
    1,375
    Real Name
    John

    Re: Photostacking

    There is a related procedure relevant to landscape photography and that is to take several shots with identical exposure and focus, but each a few seconds apart. In Photoshop these can be stacked and then merged using median sampling. The consequence of this is to eliminate objects that only occur in one shot (typically people).

    John

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Cambridge, UK
    Posts
    492
    Real Name
    Peter

    Re: Photostacking

    There was a thread on this subject some while back -

    Stacking for noise

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •