Talk:Focus stacking

First post
(added header) --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but can someone please find a photo that doesn't strike terror in to the hearts of people with arachnophobia? That may sound a bit harsh but a picture like that can cause the user to immediately close their browser window.

Thank You

Mishaneah (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree, it scared the shit out of me. I dont care how good a photo of a spider it is, it is scary.
 * Ive disabled the photos for now. If any editors or the person who took the photo are offended, know that it is not to insult you but rather to avoid people like me with arachnophobia to view wikipedia without fear of seeing spiders. I do this under the "Be Bold" paradigm.


 * Sincerly
 * Chris Vighagen


 * Be bold ... but please be careful. If the spider image is to be removed, it should be removed properly so the lead isn't a non-sequitur (the diatom images were also removed). But I think this needs to be further discussed and some consensus reached before the image is removed. I have no idea what WP policy is on this, but if removing images (or anything else) could be done simply because they made some readers uncomfortable, an awful lot that most readers consider useful could disappear. The same image appears one other article, and was a featured-picture candidate a while back, so I doubt its removal can be justified for the reason given.


 * In any event, an article must reflect consensus, and I don't think we yet have consensus for removing the spider image. Let's wait to hear what other editors have to say. JeffConrad (talk) 08:36, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * We would need to get a suitable replacement. The spider photo is part of a series that makes up a Wikipedia featured picture (see nomination -- warning! spider images!), so I'm loathe to replace it with something of lower quality. I'm sympathetic to the point being made by Chris Vighagen, as I'm sure s/he avoids spider articles vigorously, but be aware nothing is going to be done without a good replacement.  howcheng  {chat} 23:45, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd add one thing: a replacement should include an individual image as well as the composite image, to illustrate the shallow DoF that obtains from the former and the benefit of the combination. JeffConrad (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sympathetic to the request, but I think this needs to be specially made - the image does illustrate focus bracketing very well, with a simple, easily understood narrative - head sharp, abdomen sharp, and when these (and other images) are combined, everything's sharp. To illustrate focus bracketing that well required a good choice of subject - the wolf spider's hairs make a pattern of light and dark that show what's in and out of focus clearly - as well as a depth of field sufficiently narrow to make for big contrasts. The image we have was specifically made to illustrate focus stacking; respect for the original creator says we need something equally good to replace it. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect from Extended depth of field
Extended depth of field redirects here, but focus stacking is only one means of achieving it. For a quick fix, perhaps we could add a stub article or disambiguation page that includes some of the other techniques (e.g., wavefront coding, plenoptic cameras). JeffConrad (talk) 03:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

->>> Have a look at www.focus-stacking.ch —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.104.150.146 (talk) 21:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

File:Focus stacking Tachinid fly.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Focus stacking Tachinid fly.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on April 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-04-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 18:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it done?
The technique section doesn't give detail on how to adjust focus without moving the camera. I have a Canon EOS 500D. I could write a procedure out with images if someone knows the best method. I have a wireless remote and tripod. Here is the english manual in .pdf: --Canoe1967 (talk) 14:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * http://pdisp01.c-wss.com/gdl/WWUFORedirectTarget.do?id=MDMwMDAwNDI4MDAx&cmp=ABR&lang=EN

Confocal Z-stacking
Shouldn't there be a section on Z-stack (focus stack) in Confocal Microscopy as this is a fundamental technique used for this important branch of microscopy? Briefly, a confocal microscope uses a beam splitter and pinhole aperture that only passes in-focus light, automatically masking out of focus information; then, to form a complete image, the microscope scans in the Z axis until a complete image stack is formed. Sub-sections would include Laser Confocal and Visible Light Confocal methods. Reference Wikipedia pages are:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_laser_scanning_microscopy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confocal_microscopy

Xiao-zi : 小紫 18:09, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xiao-zi (talk • contribs)

A section on Nokia smartphones EDoF be included
Nokia's adopting EDoF technology for it's cameras in it's new symbian running smartphones like X7, E7, C7, 701 etc., due to less lens costs, slimmer phones, easy to use cameras, etc. Shouldn't an section be included on this? http://thehandheldblog.com/2011/04/29/edof-camera-nokia-auto-focus/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sourabh.khot (talk • contribs) 12:23, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You could add it. I don't know much about the terminology. Others will probably only clean up any edits you make as opposed to removing them.--Canoe1967 (talk) 19:13, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

File:FocusStack BrightFieldLightMicroscopy DiatomaceousEarth.jpg to appear as POTD soon
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:FocusStack BrightFieldLightMicroscopy DiatomaceousEarth.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 6, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-12-06. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng  {chat} 04:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

"range of focus"
The last edit had the edit summary "Removed "digital" from "digital image processing" because it has been done with film and optics. DOF relates more to a lens and imaging system than the final image; so DOF was replaced with "range of focus" where appropriate".
 * I am going to revert both these edits: This article up until now is about the digital processing technique, and taking the word "digital" out without talking about other ways of achieving this result is not really helpful (eg removing 'digital' from a paragraph talking about 'computational' techniques).  I am interested in the non digital ways of achieving focus stacking and would welcome a section on such techniques, then  the article can be rebalanced to talk in general terms about the process and discuss both the digital and 'analog' techniques.
 * I can see the logic of using the term "range of focus" as opposed to DOF, but the term doesn't appear to be used widely and is not actually inheriently a better description without more explaination (ie not self explanitory). If one isn't familiar with the idea of DOF then "range of focus" isn't quite right either "depth of focus" might be closer - but better I think to use standard terminology whose definition on the en.wiki page does actually describe what is meant here too. --Tony Wills (talk) 10:10, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My notes regarding changes (subsequently reverted by another editor) that I made to this article follow.
 * "Focus stacking" is not a strictly digital concept, but the term for the technique may be new. The term "focus stacking", itself, does not imply uniqueness to digital, the references don't exclude the possibility of non-digital implementation, and they don't imply that it is always digital.  Original work requiring focus stacking to be performed digitally seems to conflict with Wikipidia policy.  In Reference 1 (Malin Space Science Systems...), there is no term "focus stacking"; but the content could have changed; it's easy enough to find "focus stacking" amongst the MAHLI pages (see Reference 6, MSL Science Corner...).  They happen to be using a digital system.  Reference 2 (Johnson) is strictly about digital cameras.  I'm pretty sure the term "focus stacking" doesn't even appear anywhere in Reference 3 (Ray, 2002) where "multi-plane scanning" is discussed, and "scanning" is not unique to digital.  Reference 4 is a forum about translating "focus stacking" to a French term.  Reference 5 is redundant to Reference 1.  It should not be surprising that there is a flooding of current discussions that are digitally oriented, in a world where everyone is encouraged to 'publish something', and where the most-used tools are software and digital computers.
 * The word "computational" does not mean "digital", nor does it appear in any of the references I was able to access.
 * Removing the word "digital" helps to keep our minds open to other possibilities, so that somebody who is knowledgable about other possibilities can add good content to the article.
 * Although I didn't know what it was called, I've had experience with focus stacking using film and optics, and also using digital images and a computer. I've seen results from others in the 1970's that have used film and optics, so I think someone with more of an academic background in this subject could explain film techniques better than I, and include references. The short paragraph that I can write about my experience may not be appropriate for a wikipedia article because I have no reference to original research, a book, or even a magazine article. Based on what I have done or seen, here is one paragraph that I could write (enclosed with single quotes)...
 * 'Focus stacking can be accomplished by taking two or more film pictures, each focused at different planes. A mask can be prepared for each film that blocks out all but the useful parts of the picture.  The print is made by exposing the enlarging paper with each film-mask combination, in turn.  Blending, if desired, might be possible by spatially fading mask section boarders.  For a very simple case of two film pictures where half of one image is useful and the other half of the other image is useful, dodging can be used in place of masks.'
 * Focus stacking applicability to DOF...
 * During a preliminary study to improve the article on "Depth of field", I came across the "Digital techniques affecting DOF" section therein. The section includes a link to "Focus stacking" and other techniques.  I currently have very little understanding of the other techniques and whether they somehow relate to DOF.  And, although I haven't noticed anything anywhere that shows that the DOF equations apply to those other techniques, they are so far out of my realm of understanding I wouldn't attempt to change the use of DOF to describe their effects.  However, my reading of the literature regarding DOF and focus stacking strongly influences an understanding that focus stacking does not affect DOF as described in the references.
 * During a preliminary study to improve the article on "Depth of field", I came across the "Digital techniques affecting DOF" section therein. The section includes a link to "Focus stacking" and other techniques.  I currently have very little understanding of the other techniques and whether they somehow relate to DOF.  And, although I haven't noticed anything anywhere that shows that the DOF equations apply to those other techniques, they are so far out of my realm of understanding I wouldn't attempt to change the use of DOF to describe their effects.  However, my reading of the literature regarding DOF and focus stacking strongly influences an understanding that focus stacking does not affect DOF as described in the references.
 * 1. DOF -  The first paragraph in the en.wiki page on DOF needs to be changed so that it more clearly describes what the references convey.  Currently, the DOF article's first paragraph discuses "an image" and gradual degredation about the "plane of focus".  Both ideas are consistent with the references; but inconsistent with the idea of merging multiple images into a single image resulting in multiple planes of focus (focus stacking).  If the editors consider this and other uses of DOF to have a place in Wikipedia; it should be clear to the reader that the different uses of the term "DOF" are not consistent with each other.
 * Are there disagreements regarding the optical phenomenon? Are there added scientific meanings?  Is "DOF" used in common discourse because it, in and of itself, seems to be a good way to describe various observations (as in this "focus stacking" article)?  Is it used in marketing as a psuedo-scientific term? etc. I think it is necessary for the answer to all these questions to be obvious from a reading of the article on DOF.
 * 2. depth of focus -  I've known this to relate to the image field (behind the lens) for a single image and the en.wiki page and references support this understanding.  Therefore this phrase would not seem to apply.
 * 3. range of focus -  I, myself, was lulled into trying to be like DOF (shame on me).  I feel that "of" is not nearly as correct as "in", so "range in focus" would be a better term than the "range of focus" term proposed earlier.
 * 4. range in focus -  My second choice
 * 5. object range in focus -  This is my first choice; it answers the 'is it object-space or image-space?' question up front.
 * Perhaps there are more ideas from others? If not, it is recommended that the changes be unreverted and the term "range of focus" be replaced with "object range in focus".

Edmarchant (talk) 22:33, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that the term "focus stacking" is in use by other fields that try to produce images with an extended "in focus" region. This article certainly started out, ^, as an article specifically about the digital processing techniques commonly known as "focus stacking" (although different implementers use other terms too).
 * The term DOF is being used more loosely than an optics mathematical definition of DOF and that needs to be addressed, perhaps in the DOF article (a lot like many scientific terms are used with a broader meaning in general usage, and a lot of words have been co-opted by science to have a very specific meaning with-in some narrow context). I also see previously on this talk page Confocal Z-stacking, which is from someone else also pointing out non-digital methods of creating a similar result in microscopy.
 * So I agree that although this article is about creating images with an extended depth of the scene in focus, the optical definition of DOF isn't exactly the same thing. There are objections to just making up a new term (eg "range in focus"), but we can of course just use normal language to describe the feature, eg "object range in focus", or "depth of the scene that is in focus", but it would be nice to find a term, other than DOF, that has been coined to describe this already.
 * Perhaps rather than starting to re-write this article (which has always been about a digital processing technique), we could start by looking at another comment above on this talk page Redirect_from_Extended_depth_of_field, that mentions the Extended_depth_of_field article redirect, and create a new article at ^ that talks about the idea more generally and has sections on each technique, pointing to articles in specific areas if they already exist. --Tony Wills (talk) 01:59, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The phrases "depth of the scene that is in focus", "scene in-focus region", or "object range in focus" each seem acceptable to describe what is affected by focus stacking. One of these should replace the use of "depth of field". The words "scene" and "object" seem to be interchangeable and I don't know which would be more clear.
 * Thank you for the link to the original version. I can only imagine the basis for this article's assertion that focus stacking is solely a digital process, and none of the references state that focus stacking is generally a digital process.  The assertion that focus stacking is limited to digital processing seems to be original research.  For example, my own deduction that digitization has made focus stacking more readily available to the average person, would not be suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia because it is forbidden original research.  Bias existing from a Wikipedia article's beginning does not make it any more desirable, or set a precedent.  It could be argued that the first version of this article, having no reliable sources, should not have existed.  At this stage, the article should be kept open to all other methods by removing the digital bias that does not exist in reliable sources.
 * Before we make more articles, redirects, or other Wikipedia things, we should make this article conform to the Wikipedia guidelines.
 * Edmarchant (talk) 17:05, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we are talking a little at cross-purposes. I was trying to say that *this* article is (and has been from the start) about the digital process of focus stacking.  I am saying nothing about whether 'focus stacking' techniques are indeed an exclusively digital process or not.  To me it is not so much that this article asserted that 'focus stacking' is a digital process, as much as it is stating that the thing described in this article is the digital process known as 'focus stacking'.  This article can simply be renamed if the name is inappropriate.
 * So there are two questions.
 * 1) Is 'focus stacking' the general term used for techniques involving combining multiple in-focus layers (ie do we have literature using the term 'focus stacking' to mean the digital techniques and literature using the term 'focus stacking' to mean using other technologies to combine such layers) ?
 * 2) Is it better to create a general article about the concept of combining multiple in-focus layers and link it to the more specific article on doing it digitally, rather than re-purposing this article to be about the general concept ?
 * My preference would be to create a more general article, with sub-sections about each technology, and links to more expansive articles on each technology (eg this digital one). I fear that trying to rewrite this article as a more general one will of necessity require pruning material about the digital techniques otherwise it would be a rather unbalanced article (or a very long one if similar quantities of info are available about each technique).
 * If it is obvious or can easily be demonstrated that 'focus stacking' is not just the term used for the digital technique, but also used in those other fields, then I would rename this article to something like 'digital focus stacking' or whatever term is shown to be generally used.
 * In summary: We seem to both agree
 * a) DOF isn't quite right here and should be reworded.
 * b) There are other 'combining multiple in-focus layers' technologies/techniques that should be described.
 * We have yet to form a consensus about whether there should be one article, or one main one and links to specific ones. And what it or they should be called. --Tony Wills (talk) 12:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Both phrases "the digital process known as 'focus stacking'" and "'focus stacking' is a digital process" indicate that "focus stacking" is a digital process. Perhaps what was intended was "'focus stacking' implemented as a digital process".  But, an explicit statement of this thought seems unnecessary. The list of software is sufficient to show that there may be digital implementations and where to look for them.
 * Maybe you would like to change the title to "List of Focus Stacking Software"; the article already has some nice background material: Then replace "is a digital image processing technique" with "can be accomplished using digital image processing techniques" or, more succinctly, "can be accomplished digitally".
 * Both your questions will be answered, and your preferences should be formed, by your objective study of reliable sources. Apparently neither of us have seen a reference that is "...using the term 'focus stacking' to mean the digital techniques...".  Obviously this article was originally written according to someone's personal point of view; it was inappropriate and unfortunate that references were not included at that time, but we can proceed nonetheless.  This article's content may not be relegated to digital-only unless there are reliable sources to back that up.  To do so could encourage the proliferation of multiple small articles, each talking about the same thing from different perspectives:  All points of view need to be consolidated so the users of Wikipedia see those different points of view in one place.
 * Your first and second bullets may be appropriate for a textbook, they are not appropriate for Wikipedia. Consult the various Wikipeda Policies and Guidelines.  As it is written, this article is completely unbalanced; your concerns about balance, article size, and pruning are not warranted.
 * When on the forefront of software development it might seem that writing a Wikipedia article might be the best vehicle for one to get the information out; it is not appropriate. You might want to consider writing an informative pamphlet, a book, a blog, or ??.  Then you can do some of the original research that suites your preferences.  For a Wikipedia article, it is the objective study of reliable sources, and the Wikipedia Policies and Guidelines that will guide a team toward the best strategy to deal with the content, various processes, techniques, titles, etc for Wikipedia articles.  Sometimes it is difficult for those very immersed in the details to step back and see how their work fits into an encyclopedia; and one could consider oneself fortunate to get "help" from another person's viewpoint even though one may initially feel that they don't want it.
 * As discussed, we decided that we should use normal language instead of "depth of field"; it was suggested that the phrase "object range in focus", "scene in-focus region", or "depth of the scene that is in focus" could be used to describe that which is affected by "focus stacking". There was no response,  I'd like others' thoughts, ideas, and alternate suggestions on this.  After someone finds a term that has been "coined", it can replace the normal language that we decide to use.
 * BTW, another error was noticed. In the caption for the bright field microscopy picture: "Top right are the contributions of each..." should read "Top right are the contribution masks of each...". Or, change the three pictures to match the text and delete the parenthetical "(black is...".
 * Edmarchant (talk) 00:50, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Software
I think that RegiStax should be added as software using focus stacking. As I understand they use focus stack for planetary photos enhancenment --Guilloip (talk) 15:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Doesn't Seem to Have a Reliable Reference
I couldn't find a reliable reference for "focus Stacking".

Refs 1 (Malin Space Science...), 3 (Ray 2002), 5 (Malin Space Science..., again), 7 (Hovden, Xin, Muller), 9 (Avizo User Guide; (actually Amira User's Guide)), and 10 (GUI to combine photos...) don't mention "focus stacking". I don't currently have access to ref 2 (Johnson 2008).

Ref 4 (Afficher le sujet...) seems to be some sort of blog to come up with a french name for "focus stacking".

Ref 6 (MSL Science Corner...) includes a "range map" (not mentioned in this article) as part of their focus stacking procedure.

Ref 8 (Focus Stacking Made Easy...) shows how to do it with Photoshop; but Adobe (Photoshop) calls what they're doing "Image Stacking".

It appears that this article has 'caught on'; there are several youtube videos showing how to do "focus stacking". Is this article a hoax, original research, or what? Wikipedia is not the place to spread misinformation or original research, so perhaps this article should be deleted. Does anybody have any insight?

172.56.7.74 (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I've added to the citation a brief quote defining the technique from (Johnson 2008). It's from a section he titles "Stacked Focus". He doesn't say a great deal more about it, but uses the next two picture-heavy pages to demonstrate the technique using Helicon Focus. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Adobe uses the term for Photoshop, Nikon, Olympus, Canon, Shutterstock, and 850,000 others including many trusted magazine publishers...


 * The article was started mid 2007. Here is a book from 2003 with a definite reference, though it is the only book can be confirmed older than the article through Google. If it was a hoax, the only effect would be anonymously coining a new name for the technique. Apparently it was once a technical term in information science, although what exactly it was referring to I am not sure... ~ R.T.G 20:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Focus stacking on android

 * Interesting discussion here. Yug (talk)  12:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Focus stacking vs Focus Bracketing
The fly picture is used in articles when describing both these methods, but presumably it is only the result of one of them? In an article about cameras https://camerajabber.com/which-cameras-have-built-in-focus-stacking/ I received the impression that focus bracketting is where a number of shots with varied focus are taken and then recombined using photo editing software to achieve a variety of effects, whereas photo stacking is an in camera process that also makes use of multiple source photos and specifically generates from them a single image with a wide focal depth (everything is in focus). But reading this article it seems that post processing is still required. Can someone clarify? Do some cameras perform the whole of photo stacking to produce a single image with large depth of focus? Or is photo stacking simply the post processing process to create an increased depth of focus from a set of bracketed shots? FreeFlow99 (talk) 15:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)