1. Reikan Focal

Reikan FoCal Pro-torrent-fileserve.torrent DOWNLOAD (Mirror #1) @2023 by Casies. Proudly created with wix.com. Customer Service: Shop. Shipping & Returns. Fangeload.comWe are a company focused on finding the best solution for complex manufacturing Cnc simulator pro serial. Reikan FoCal Pro-torrent-fileserve.torrent e7e924a21c.

JRS:Thank you for your detailed response.I have no vested interests regarding this or another company's products.I know what to do with this kind of analytic data.The licensing restriction to 5 cameras is, from a user's PoV, dumb. As is the need for them to have my cameras seria lnumbers.

There is no way to justify it. YoIf they want to register what computers I use it on that is one thing, but for the individual camera serial numbers?

And if they want to go down that path why not lens serial numbers too?Regarding price: FoCal Pro is listed as £69.95 - which currently is US $107.86As to being 'negative' - I think 'skeptical' is a better description of my state of mind when I am considering a purchase, especially when there is a big promise involved. I take the same stance for every product I look in the gadget world and each week I feel like I have to get more skeptical.

In that vein, how would you suggest that Reikan focal control their license to avoid someone buying one license and then selling a service to MA everyone in the area's camera/lenses.BTW.what is the fear of registering the serial number? Sounds more like paranoia than anything else.but maybe I am missing something.If they are that worried that scads of amateur camera diagnosticians will be setting up shop to diagnose other people's cameras and lenses they need to rethink their business model.

There is nothing stopping people from doing the same with the SpyderCal or LensAlign products or buying resolution charts and setting up shop.If i lived near him I'd be happy to use Mr. Fox's shop to do the diagnostic work on my cameras as they know what they are doing, a guy at a local camera club?

Not something I'd be interested in.The fact remains: there is no justification for requiring me or you to hand over information about camera's we own, rent or borrow. I believe the license policy is to insure the end user is not in turn using the software as a service.

I don't think that's an unreasonable perspective since if I am making money with the software it's only fair they receive some compensation.5 bodies, with the ability to change out some serial numbers doesn't seem unreasonable, as long as the process to add new serial numbers or trade them is simple and foolproof. As far as offering it as a service, we are currently trying to find out what the license fee would be were we change to using this system.I only saw the results of one of my customers experience with it, (who happens to be an engineer) and was impressed by the level of information available as well as his results on two different bodies, enough so that we will be evaluating the software. I'm not sure being perfectly aligned is critical, because what the software is doing is comparing the results against itself. It basically sets an offset, takes a picture, analyzes it, and repeats the process. The output chart shows how it evaluates the results of each offset.

The D4 results were much more consistent, where as the d7000 results varied even with the same offset.We will be comparing the results with LensAlign to the results with this, to see if it is as good. If so it certainly appears easier. In that vein, how would you suggest that Reikan focal control their license to avoid someone buying one license and then selling a service to MA everyone in the area's camera/lenses.BTW.what is the fear of registering the serial number? Sounds more like paranoia than anything else.but maybe I am missing something.If they are that worried that scads of amateur camera diagnosticians will be setting up shop to diagnose other people's cameras and lenses they need to rethink their business model.

There is nothing stoppOing people from doing the same with the SpyderCal or LensAlign products or buying resolution charts and setting up shop. (The following has been edited for clarity of expression)If you are running a commercial service, like Mr. Fox is, buying a commercial license is both fair and appropriate.I have zero doubt that there are ways the FoCal software, once installed on a computer, can detect a camera's serial number and cut you off after 5 bodies have been used with it. As the program already appears to look at several other EXIF metadata fields if it can see the camera's serial number field there is zero need to share the serial numbers of the cameras used (whether owned, rented, borrowed, or loaned (I guess no one else here is an NPS or CPS member)) with the software maker.In an 'Age of Information' personal information is both valuable and powerful. It should be respected as such.

That is not 'paranoia', it is common sense. I believe Keith's analog works. The calibration unit does not limit the number of monitors any more than Reikan limits the number of licenses.The computer ID is read and sent to the calibration tool mfg. It is off the sensor, which may or may not also be the serial number depending on the computer mfg or if it it DIY.it is,however, as unique to that system as your camera serial number is to the camera.I am sure you are aware, camera serial number are machine readable by software, so make an idead way to link sw to the hw, just as calibration sw is link to a specific machine.A few months ago, I upgraded to the Spyder4, from the S3.

I sold the s3, with it's sw. The new user, and I, had a devil of a time as the sw would not install.even though I had removed that sw from my system.and there was no unregistered item associated with the sw. DataColor customer support needed to remove my computer I'd from their system, so the new user could install on theirs.BTW.the computer ID/serial being in the 'wild' is about as dangerous as your camera serial number being there. I keep my doors looked.and it seems to work just fine.Of course, if it is a concern to you, don't use it.but stop bad mouthing Reikan just because you are over sensitive on this issue. If you have valid concerns on the function and applicability on this product speak up.otherwise.

I have used the software extensively and found it be very useful. I have a LensAlign and it works well and was the first solution. My problem with the LensAlign is that I never got real consistent results with it. They are left somewhat to interpretation especially with narrow dof.

Alignment mattered a lot and I believe led to some of my inconsistencies. I also found it tedious to take a few shots, download them and look at the on photoshop and use filters to enhance the results to make them easier to interpret.Focal tends to eliminate the human errors. The target is easier to setup and align, especially with the live view and the target detection. The software can be run automatically and manually if you like. It is very repeatable. I got very consistent results.

In before and after shots with various targets I found that it really did improve my focus and for a long time I felt that was something I really did not need to do, as it should have been good from the factory. Well there are all kinds of manufacturing tolerances and so this product will help improve your focusing accuracy. Will this make you a better photographer? No but it will help you get the best images that you can that are in focus. The software will generate reports and tell you what works and what does not and can test the ability to repeat focus, can you do this manually? Yes you can but I doubt with as much precision.Their registration process is no less draconian than many other methods, at least you can run it on multiple computers and if you need more than 5 bodies registered than contact the author. I understand that he is just trying to prevent people from calibrating cameras for friends or as a business.

He spent a lot of time writing and testing the software, so I can understand that and now the registration process is handled by his server and not through emails, like it was previously. Registering a camera serial number is not giving away a state secret. Unless you strictly remove it from the exif then it is already out there. I see no danger in it, in fact registering computer id's is probably a little more dangerous as that gives a way of uniquely identifying your computer on a network.There are older threads discussing it's use.Alan. Ellis, I understand and respect your point of view. I find most of these device registration/licensing requirements an annoyance at best, often a hindrance, and sometimes a major obstacle. I could write a long tirade about the days I have wasted in obtaining working installations of MATLAB.The licensing restriction in FoCal will not impact me, since I will probably use it for only one or two cameras.

If you are interested in FoCal, but put off by these restrictions, why not write the developer and tell him why you are reluctant to use it? Maybe he will make a work-around for you, or (if enough people complain) maybe he will change the policy.I recently acquired a copy of FoCal, and have just begun to use it. So far I have run 'automatic' calibrations on a Nikon D800E, with 14-24mm and 24-70mm lenses.

For Nikon bodies, the process is not completely automated, because there are no public APIs for some of the remote control functions. This means that the user is prompted to manually change the AF Fine Tune settings. But the FoCal software controls the sequencing of the adjustment values, autofocus initiation, mirror up delay, shutter, plotting of results, etc. It uses a reasonably intelligent search algorithm to find a max in focus quality with a minimal number of trials. I ran the program on a Mac, running Win7 via VMware.

The user interface and documentation could be improved (with more clarity, better organization), but my calibrations ran without any glitches.Unfortunately for me, the results I obtained for my 24-70 produced a dilemma. The optimum Fine Tune values vary significantly with focal length: 0 at 24mm, -20 at 50mm, and 0 at 70mm. I may need to send the lens and camera to Nikon for evaluation. The plots that I obtained from FoCal are posted in this. Ps4 vr on pc. Note: the shots of the FoCal target that appear in this gallery are not the shots that I used in the automated calibrations. I forgot to mention one useful feature of FoCal that has not received much emphasis in the online reviews and comments.

Phase detection AF is not perfectly precise. If you initiate AF multiple times on the exact same target, you will get multiple focus results. The spread of values depends on the characteristics of the target, lens, camera, etc. When FoCal is running a calibration, it makes several measurements at each Fine Tune (Microadjust) value. If it sees a large spread in focus quality, it makes more measurements. If the spread is too large, it aborts the test and warns the user that something is amiss with the lens, or the test setup.

If the spread is reasonable, it moves on the the next adjustment value. At the end of measurements, it obtains a recommended adjustment value by making a statistical analysis and curve fit to the data.This method is likely to produce better results than most users will get from subjective comparisons of images made from LensAlign, SpyderLensCal, or homemade targets. The significance of this advantage (or the significance of focus tuning in general) is debatable, of course.

Reikan Focal

I like my shots to be sharp. When I put a focus point on a target I want and expect to have it be in focus. So over the past couple of years I have tried a number of methods.I wrote a post in my blog, about a year and half ago, talking about all of the ones I tried. You can see it here:I really liked the LensAlign system. I still do but then I came across the Reikan FoCal system. I bought the Pro version and wow it is neat. I believe it provides a much more reliable MA adjustment.

So I wrote a new blog about it, comparing it to the LensAlign system, discussing pros/cons, and providing some tips fro getting a good calibration on the FoCal system. It can be found here. I think a photographer's time is generally better spent making themselves aware of the interaction of color and light, framing and composition, working on seeing life, and their shooting technique as opposed to dwelling on the aspects this program seems to measure. Between two photographs of equal power the more technically refined photograph may be technically better but a technical quality is only worthwhile if it backs up a photograph that is emotionally expressive, expresses a strong idea, and a strong aesthetic sensibility behind it. This is true for all of the arts, not just photography.I've seen musicians, painters, and writers - as well as photographers - all get tangled up in the seductive mechanics of craft and lose sight of the bigger thing they are trying to get done. I am not immune to this myself.

But I'd rather make something a little ragged and right than perfect and dull. Of course if you can get your art technically perfect and with expressing great feeling, embodying a powerful idea, and beautiful that is an unstoppable combination: Coppola's 'The Godfather Part II' for example.

I think there is a middle ground here. I haven't looked at the product or review in the original post. But, I don't think there's any reason not to strive to have your equipment dialed in the best you can as long as it doesn't become the goal rather than the means to the goal. I used to know a guy who had a wonderful woodworking shop. It was equipped with the very best machinery and hand tools you could hope to acquire.

The problem was that he never built anything, he simply put together the best shop you could have. It took me a while to figure out that his hobby was the shop instead of woodworking. Don't go down that road. I would agree. The problem about making pictures is there is also a craft which should be mastered, and getting images sharp is an important part of that (when one wants them sharp).We do lens alignments here at the shop, and 75% of the bodies that are brought in have a problem.

It normally isn't a lens thing, it's a sensor plane thing. We can put the same lens on 3 different bodies and will get 3 completely unrelated results. One body front focus, one back focuses, one pretty good.The fact is manufacturing tolerances aren't that tight, and as camera sensors have improved, those flaws become apparent.

You do your art a disservice if you fail to insure your equipment isn't performing at it's optimum.Regarding FoCAL, we had an customer buy it and brought in results. I was impressed, and certainly appears easier and less prone to user error than other systems. No.My objections Does this system have a method of ensuring your camera is square to the target?If it does, great. If not it is a no go.The initial review I responded to says no hardware is needed beyond maybe a tripod. But you need a printer or access to one to print the target.Another member of this thread said to look at the other things this software can do.

Okay great: what exactly will do with that data?The thread starter failed to mention that you are required to register your cameras including serial numbers with the software maker. I see no compelling technical reason they need that information. What are they going to do with it? Who will have access to it? Why is he collecting that information?

It might help his business model but there is no value in that for me.I absolutely believe that tuning a camera's AF performance to specific lenses is critical. I do not believe this is the right product for doing that.I'd like to see a more critical evaluation of the product before spending money on it. No tool is perfect. JRS:Thank you for your detailed response.I have no vested interests regarding this or another company's products.I know what to do with this kind of analytic data.The licensing restriction to 5 cameras is, from a user's PoV, dumb. As is the need for them to have my cameras seria lnumbers. There is no way to justify it.

YoIf they want to register what computers I use it on that is one thing, but for the individual camera serial numbers? And if they want to go down that path why not lens serial numbers too?Regarding price: FoCal Pro is listed as £69.95 - which currently is US $107.86As to being 'negative' - I think 'skeptical' is a better description of my state of mind when I am considering a purchase, especially when there is a big promise involved. I take the same stance for every product I look in the gadget world and each week I feel like I have to get more skeptical.