This decides how fast the stacked image is refreshed. They can be found under “Preferences/-Miscellaneous/CachingĪ setting that “Set output display interval when stacking” that can be set to some Uncheck these two options if you want the stacking toīe done a little faster. The options are “Cache unaligned screen images” and “CacheĪligned screen images”.
It takes for Zerene to do the first stack. Pictures of the unaligned and the aligned screen images. Stacker there are some settings that can speed up the (first) stack. If you click through and make a purchase, I will earn a commission The cross eyed stereo picture above of a pyrite with reflections in the prisms could not have been done in Helicon and was well worth the time it took stacking in Zerene Stacker.ĭisclosure: This is affiliate links. In other cases, such as making a stereo picture of a transparent subject I use Zerene Stacker. When speed is important, I tend to use Helicon Focus. I use both Helicon Focus and Zerene Stacker and intend to continue to do so. Zerene Stacker does not change its performance significantly using a fast-internal drive for the photos. It is obvious that Helicon Focus gains from using hardware acceleration and having the photos on a fast-internal hard drive. For a large stack of 849 TIFF photos Helicon stacks 1.3 to 8 photos per second and Zerne Stacker 0.7 photos per second.
For a medium stack of 102 JPG photos Helicon Focus stacks 5 to 12 photos per second, Zerne Stacker 0.7 photos per second. Helicon Focus is faster than Zerene Stacker. With the external drive I measured 21 minutes and 31 seconds, this could be due to some normal variation or be a small but not significant increase in speed using the internal hard drive. This is a little more than 0.7 pictures per second and consistent with what was measured in example 1 above. It took 21 minutes and 10 seconds with the pictures on the internal drive. Having the photos on the USB 3 external drive did not increase the stacking speed. This is approximately 8 pictures per second. With hardware acceleration and having the 849 photos on the PCIe SSD internal hard drive I measured 1 minute and 43 seconds. This is approximately 1,3 pictured per second. When the pictures were on the external drive it took 10 minutes and 47 seconds. This is approximately 3 pictures per second. It took 4 minutes and 43 seconds with the pictures on the internal drive. I started the timer when the program started to load the photos and stopped the timer when the picture was ready. Because the stacking programs have differences in how they handle the pictures I wanted to time the entire process from loading the pictures to final stack. The stack consists of 849 TIFF photos 114MB each. The second example is the photos I used to make the crossed eye stereo of the pyrite mineral above. More pictures use more computer time to stack, so for large stacks time is more important. Cross eyed stereo of Pyrite, Photo Jörgen Hellberg I could not with any significance measure a difference between having the pictures on the hard drive or on the external drive. Zerene StackerĪfter loading the pictures in Zerene Stacker, stacking them using PMax I measured 2 minutes and 41 seconds stacking time or more than 0.7 photos per second.
With hardware acceleration I measured a little less than 9 seconds stacking time or approximately 12 photos per second. Helicons other methods was almost identically fast. I choose method C because it is the method that is most comparable to one of Zerene Stacker methods – PMax. Helicon FocusĪfter, loading the set and then stacked them using method C I measured a 21 second stacking time or more than 5 photos per second. The stack consists of 102 JPG photos 3MB each. The first set is this picture of three pollen grains. Using hardware acceleration can significantly speed up the stacking process but is not necessary. For this test I have used my old GeForce GTX 980. Helicon Focus can use OpenCL hardware acceleration.
0 kommentar(er)
