Mic LaMarca,

I haven't had any problems activating Franzis software over the years -- perhaps something like security software is preventing files from being written &/or altered in the user folders? Some security apps have that sort of thing as protection against ransomware.

.
[ Mic LaMarca ],

When you REGISTER at Franzis, you get an ID and code that makes this a lifetime non-expiring product in today's giveaway.
.

Mic LaMarca, Once the software has been installed, a window is displayed where you re-paste the long registration code (sent to you via email). I believe that the 30 day trial applies if you don't put the registration code in. Once I'd put in the code, the software opened and I couldn't see anything to suggest that it was only a trial version. Hope this helps.

Mic LaMarca, you seem to be the only commenter who has said the registration is good for only 30 days. Can someone else confirm that their registration will be voided after that time.

MartyToo, You have to register with Franzis and feed the licence code into the software, then it's permanent

.
[ R Osborn ],

Try resetting your display resolution to NATIVE and font size to 100%, and reboot.

Some programs can't find the display if it's set otherwise.
.

.
[ WVE ],

When you REGISTER at Franzis, you get a personal ID ( use it once during installation ) and product serial number ( use it twice, once during installation, and again at first use ).

Don't confuse the two.
.

.
[ ricohflex ],

Yes, photographers have a rich history of trying to sharply focus on and capture as much as possible using imperfect equipment, and learning ways to optimize their savvy use of that gear to produce the photographer's desired results.

Likewise, this software takes advantage of digital image capture's ability to take an endless series of pictures, develop them to equivalent exposure values, and then combine the most in-focus parts of each, near to far, into one final image.

In other words, this software is one more empowering enhancement photographers can employ to accomplish the presentation image they desire, just as your tips and tricks regarding aperture and tilting lenses and tilting image-planes are enhancements over "normal" straight-forward photography gear use.

This offering today is for digital image processing, not film processing, and as such, goes way beyond the limits of mechanical gear manipulation, and enters into the infinitely unlimited arena of mathematics.
__________

A note about your generalizations:

-- There is MORE diffraction at wider apertures, but there's exponentially MORE image forming light, so there is RELATIVELY less non-image forming light at the image plane than there is image-forming light.

-- At narrower apertures, there's LESS diffraction, but exponentially LESS image forming light, so there is RELATIVELY more non-image-forming light compared to less image forming light at the image plane.

-- It's the RATIO of non-image-forming light to image-forming light that matters, not the amount of non-image-forming light.

-- A tilted lens does NOT increase the depth of subject field focus, it applies the existing available depth of subject field focus across the subject and across the image capture plane more to the photographer's intentions, as well as inducing perspective distortion where the viewer of the final presentation cannot observe the presentation image from an equivalent perspective.

-- Additionally, by the way, a pinhole produces an image with subject information equally in focus near to far for subject elements larger than the pinhole.
__________

Thanks for sharing reminders of how folks used to address the challenges of producing photographic images with sharp focus over any subject field the photographer wanted.

Let us know how this software works for you compared to your other ways of capturing and preparing a presentation image with enormous depth of subject field focus.
.

ricohflex,

"I expect that Photoshop CC will be able to do this too. "

Yes -- create.adobe[.]com/2019/1/29/focus_stacking_in_ph.html

Peter Blaise, Are you confusing noise with diffraction? There's more diffraction with a smaller aperture as the Airy disk gets bigger the smaller a hole the light goes through (the colour, i.e. wavelength, of the light affects it too, but to a smaller degree). For noise there's less noise if you have less light, but it's a greater percentage of that light. Note the light level changes with ISO rather than aperture - see below (but if you have a small aperture you might need to increase the ISO if it's dark).

You always get diffraction, but when it's under 2-3 pixels wide on the sensor you don't really notice it. It also only depends on aperture, not sensor size, so smaller sensors get affected at wider apertures (due to smaller pixels).
Airy disk diameter for green light, in um:
f/1.4 = 1.78
f/2 = 2.54
f/2.8 = 3.55
f/4 = 5.08
f/5.6 = 7.11
f/8 =10.15
f/11 = 13.96
f/16 = 20.30
Example pixel sizes:
24MP crop sensor (very common) = 4 um (diffraction blur will start being an issue below f/8)
24MP FF sensor (ditto) = 6 um (diffraction blur will start being an issue below f/16)
My cell phone (note f/1.8 lens) = 1.22 um (lens is fixed aperture, so you're good)

However as you make the aperture smaller you'd, if nothing else changes, get the same amount of light as the camera will adjust the shutter speed to give a correct exposure. So if the camera said 1/500 and f/4 and you changed to f/16 you'd get 1/30th and the same amount of light. Although you will get less light if the ISO increases, perhaps as you wanted to keep the shutter speed reasonable. Not an issue here as you're using a stationary object and camera.

BTW noise averages out as the square root of the light, so:
100 photons - average noise 10, 10% is noise
10,000 photons, average noise 100 (10x as much) but only 1% is noise (1/10th as much)
The camera will add another small amount of noise, but very small in comparison.

.
[ JohnL ],

Thanks to revisiting this and expanding the discussion.

Diffraction happens when light goes over the edge of the aperture and changes direction from participating in accurate image formation, to becoming non-image-forming light.

There is more aperture edge in wider apertures, and there is less aperture edge in narrow apertures.

Therefore, there is more diffraction when using wider apertures, and less diffraction when using narrower apertures.

That's non-image-forming light.

Let's explore image-forming light.

There is way-more image forming light when using wider apertures, versus way-less image forming light when using narrower apertures.

Therefore, the non-image-forming-light from diffraction when using wider apertures is overwhelmed and not discernable on the image plane compared to the way-more image forming light reaching the image plane.

Conversely, the non-image-forming-light from diffraction when using narrower apertures overwhelms and is discernible on the image plane compared to the way-less image forming light reaching the image plane.

Yup, that's what I first said, in summary:

"... It's the RATIO of non-image-forming light to image-forming light that matters, not the amount of non-image-forming light ...".
__________

Thanks for exploring the other stuff.

But let's not think that long exposures at narrow apertures are in all ways equivalent to short exposures at wide apertures as if the same amount of light collects to produce the same ultimate total exposure, when in actuality, there are other differences with wider apertures and shorter exposures, versus narrower apertures and longer exposures.

However, your "noise = the square root of the light", or translated in approximation, "non-image-forming light = the square root of the image-forming light" explains why we can't as easily discern the greater diffraction from wider apertures on the image plane -- because there's way-more image forming light on the image plane, as I original posted.

Thanks for sharing.
.

Peter Blaise, I think I disagree and would say (well, quote): "If the opening is much larger than the light's wavelength, the bending will be almost unnoticeable. However, if the two are closer in size or equal, the amount of bending is considerable, and easily seen with the naked eye".
Do you have some handy maths on your side, I don't have anything that I'd even like to type out?

Peter Blaise, I'd say the angle of bend depends on how the wavelength of light relates to the aperture, but this probably isn't the place to keep going. Have a great day!

.
[ JohnL ],

Do you have a lens that has a 400-700 nm aperture size such that a light wave hitting one edge also hits the opposite edge of the aperture?
__________

My point is that "Airy disks" are ALWAYS there, just overwhelmed by the significantly greater image-forming light arriving through wider apertures, and those same "Airy disks" are more discernible when there is less image-forming light at narrower apertures, but those "Airy disks" are always there nonetheless.
.

.
[ JohnL ],

Editing is an art, and in context, many authors are ambiguously brief in one sentence, especially when they know that they are publishing an entire book.

Let's edit that quote to be precise:

"... If an aperture opening is much larger than any light's wavelengths, the bending of any light at the aperture's edge will be almost unnoticeable because overwhelming proportion of unbent, so to speak, light dominates our observation. However, if the aperture opening and the light wave are closer in size or equal, the amount of bending is considerable, and easily seen with the naked eye ...".

Light waves present as dimensions of 400-700 nm.

An aperture of the dimensions would be better thought of as a diffraction grating, or even a shutter.
__________

The important reason to keep these discussions going to resolution, so to speak, it to reinforce what can be expected, and what cannot be expected, from the software promises offered here at GOTD, which we can better understand if we are accurate with our understanding of the gear we use before we even present their digital product to the software begin offered.

In other words, if we misunderstand our camera gear, and misunderstand what we can control, and misunderstand how to control our digital image capture, then how can we understand and control whatever we expect form our software?

Thanks again for exploring.
.

Peter Blaise, The size of Airy disks is a well-known and trivially measurable number. They get bigger as aperture gets smaller. Ask any Astronomer, as star images really show them off (at least in good quality Telescopes). Also see the Rayleigh criterion.
Also apologies for my double posting, I thought my first post got zapped as it didn't appear yesterday and still wasn't there this morning...

.
[ John L ] ,

Let's take a 50mm lens aperture through measurements of aperture circumference, where light will be "bent", and if it hits the image plane will not contribute to the intended image, versus aperture area, where light will form the intended image:

50mm lens
f/stops _ diameter _ circumference _ area _________ ratio
13 f/1.4 __ 35.71 __ 112.20 mm _1,001.78 square mm __ 11%
12 f/2 ____ 25.00 ___ 78.54 mm __ 490.87 square mm __ 16%
11 f/2.8 __ 17.86 ___ 56.10 mm __ 250.45 square mm __ 22%
10 f/4 ____ 12.50 ___ 39.27 mm __ 122.72 square mm __ 32%
_9 f/5.6 ___ 8.93 ___ 28.05 mm ___ 62.61 square mm __ 45%
_8 f/8 _____ 6.25 ___ 19.63 mm ___ 30.68 square mm __ 64%
_7 f/11 ____ 4.55 ___ 14.28 mm ___ 16.23 square mm __ 88%
_6 f/16 ____ 3.13 ____ 9.82 mm ____ 7.67 square mm _ 128%
_5 f/22 ____ 2.27 ____ 7.14 mm ____ 4.06 square mm _ 176%
_4 f/32 ____ 1.56 ____ 4.91 mm ____ 1.92 square mm _ 256%
_3 f/45 ____ 1.11 ____ 3.49 mm ____ 0.97 square mm _ 360%
_2 f/64 ____ 0.78 ____ 2.45 mm ____ 0.48 square mm _ 512%
_1 f/90 ____ 0.56 ____ 1.75 mm ____ 0.24 square mm _ 720%

Note: I am NOT saying the % ratio is the % of diffraction on the image plane versus the image forming light, I am merely showing how severely the image forming light diminishes as the aperture narrows, way more than the edge circumference diminishes.

Diffraction happens at an aperture's edge.

- There less edge at narrower apertures,
- there's more edge at wider apertures.
- therefore, there's more diffraction at wider apertures.

Non-image forming light hitting the image plane must be proportionately significant compared to the image forming light in order to be discernible.

- There's more image forming light at wider apertures,
- there's less image forming light at narrower apertures,
- therefore diffraction is more discernible at narrower apertures.

What I first said, in summary:

"... It's the RATIO of non-image-forming light to image-forming light that matters, not the amount of non-image-forming light ...".

The "Airy disks" are always there, just not discernible at wider apertures, because they are overwhelmed by the image forming light.
.

.
[ thomas non ],

When you REGISTER at Franzis, you get a personal ID ( use it once during installation ) and product serial number ( use it twice, once during installation, and again at first use ).

Don't confuse the two.
.

thomas non, usually with Franzis, the serial code is also the same as the registration code. Try it.