Any automatic align processes more powerful than Photoshop Layer Auto Align?

[earlybird]

Hi,
 Are there any automated image content alignment process that are more powerful or comprehensive than Photoshop CS6's Auto Align Layers feature?

 I occasionally attempt an impromptu focus stack where manual blending is preferable to the automated systems I may have opted for. I prefer to use a tripod and lock up the mirror for best practice, but I sometimes make unplanned focus stacks when I encounter the opportunity, and have to rely on working quickly while hand holding the camera.

 I like to use Helicon or Zerene and they have automated alignment features and parallax compensations that work well, but sometimes my subject moves too much and I can not supply the automated processes with source material that is useful.

 For example; when working handheld and making closeup pictures of a small animal, I begin by focusing on the eyes, and then try to collect supporting data with sharp focus on the rest of the body. If the creature turns it's head but its appendages stay still I continue the process but I know the automated systems will have difficulty, and I anticipate blending manually.

 This type of exercise does not always result in a clean blend, and I think that any improvement in aligning the content on the stack of layers would help improve my rate of success.

 Photoshop CS6's Auto Alignment feature is very useful, but I wonder if there is something that attempts to be even more comprehensive.

 Thank you for any suggestions you may offer.

 

 

[rdonson]

The latest release of PS is 21.1.3 (subscription).  It's possible that it's improved since PS CS6.   I use it for focus bracketing and I'm happy with its results.

There may be other software that is better but it may depend on what your use of Auto Align is. 

[stockjock]

I believe Zerene and Helicon have an options setting that would permit you to increase the amount of change from image to image that they will attempt to compensate for.  But if you are manually shifting your focus on a moving subject like a bug, particularly hand held, it is probably unreasonable to expect any software to align your photos.  One thing that might help is if you used a camera that supported focus bracketing.  I like the Fuji cameras for that.  Sony doesn't support it.  Unless something has changed, the Nikon implementation really requires you to be tripod mounted to be useful.  I don't know about Canon or Olympus.

[earlybird]

These processes seem interesting but it seems like they are only implemented in products that composite the source into a flat file before you may see the results of the alignment processing:

"...The software uses SIFT and RANSAC" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoStitch

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf



 

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

These processes seem interesting but it seems like they are only implemented in products that composite the source into a flat file before you may see the results of the alignment processing:

"...The software uses SIFT and RANSAC" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoStitch

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf

PTGui uses those methods, and can output a layered TIFF.

[earlybird]

Thank you very much for this information.

[kers]

These processes seem interesting but it seems like they are only implemented in products that composite the source into a flat file before you may see the results of the alignment processing:

"...The software uses SIFT and RANSAC" from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AutoStitch

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf

http://matthewalunbrown.com/papers/iccv2003.pdf

With helicon focus you can export tifs of each layer and can compose it in photoshop into a multi-layer document.

In ptGui you can stitch the not moving parts and leave the focal length variable.( since you change it while focussing)
A a start choose a long telelens focal length to begin with, and set a,b and c to zero - not variable.
ptgui is made for panorama's, but you can use it as a general stitching program; it takes some time to get into it, but it is rewarding and well made.

[tsinsf]

Sometimes manually aligning the layers works better. If you stack the layers, deselect (using the eyeball)  all but the bottom two. Change the top layer from Normal to Difference, and then you can easily use the move tool align the layers. Change back to Normal mode. Work your way up the layers repeating the process. What I have found doing manual alignment is that it is almost never possible to get a perfect alignment. One part of the photo will be aligned, but another will be slightly off. If you align the slightly off layer, then the other part becomes un aligned. I'm not sure what causes this. Lens movement from wind? Tripod movement? Who knows?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

With helicon focus you can export tifs of each layer and can compose it in photoshop into a multi-layer document.

In ptGui you can stitch the not moving parts and leave the focal length variable.( since you change it while focussing)
A a start choose a long telelens focal length to begin with, and set a,b and c to zero - not variable.
ptgui is made for panorama's, but you can use it as a general stitching program; it takes some time to get into it, but it is rewarding and well made.

Yes. The reason I mentioned PTGui is that one has a lot of manual control over the layering and feature matching process. Wherever the program cannot get a good alignment, e.g. because some things moved relative to each other, one can eliminate control-points on parts that are relatively out of focus or not relevant for the focus layer, and add control-points where they do contribute. One can even use different parts from one image by using a copy of the image and do feature matching on different parts.

PTGui also uses better interpolation algorithms than Photoshop for the rotations, translations, and magnifications it has to do for each layer. Because it would be a non-standard use-case for a Panostitcher, one needs to use some specific settings for the task at hand, like those that Pieter mentioned. The manual settings are real lifesavers for when the automatic process doesn't suffice.