There is no need to be rude GonzoG, I appreciate the work done. It does not mean there is no ground to improve though. As a beginner with qDD I have a "fresh" experience that perhaps could be useful (the
out of the forest approach). I have no other way to help this project. Perhaps my experience is not valuable for some and that is ok too. And we can disagree as well without being rude or twisting the contributions.
1) exactly, what you call "a fact" is true under LV, but under camera properties there are again the same options (or quite similar) under "focus and metering". I was clearly talking about the "focus and metering" section, were is a fact that AF-S, AF-C, AF-A, M(fixed)and M options exist. I wrote "camera options" not "Lv". A confusion? well, that was exactly my point. There is ground for confusion if we just say "put your settings on AF-S". I did not know there were
two sections with the same AF-S option, and apparently the most important is the Lv. A mistake? perhaps. Needing more experience? for sure. But this could happen to others as well, then my approach was to help other beginners that could fall into the same confusion and be aware of the more than one section with an AF-S option. Here comes an idea, but please do not make fun or use rude language if you disagree... I used the qDD settings that enable Lv automatically when connected to the camera. It works great. I used a USB cable, so no idea if this is feasible with wireless etc. But perhaps just as the application recognized my Nikon and set Lv by itself as soon as turned on when already connected, perhaps the routine could include an instruction that sets Lv/AF-S mode on as well. I am speculating since I do not know if all Nikons use that mode for Lv. But in case they do, then this could be automatized by linking it with the Lv streaming form the camera. It would be one more step that works on its own without the user messing it up by setting other options. Or perhaps adding that instruction then we press "Focus stack" if the camera is a Nikon (assuming they all use that setting for focus stack).
2) There are people unable to resist a critic. I am not sure you are one of them but it seems you confused my intentions of providing a personal experience (n=1) for the chance it may be helpful for others, with somehow not even appreciating the hard work of Zoltan. If that is the case, it is so wrong as in fact I did had the privilege of receiving Zoltan's direct support on this issue by email, he was very patient with me and all the issues were solved together. I also shared the very same recommendations with him in case they are of any use. He was welcoming and had a positive response exchanging emails during a couple of hours. Following his guide I discovered some of my errors. So again, this shows that at least on my experience there was an information quite direct and helpful on the emails but somehow missing or not as clear in the manual and the application itself. Of course I read the manual and it is great. But it does not mean it cannot be improved. As a living project it is a dynamic sync between the app and the manual. More the manual is clear, lesser would be the need of case by case support. As others have shown in this very same forum, even requesting a step by step tutorial for focus-stacking, it seems there is some ground on the focus stacking section of the manual for improving and/or completing. Sometimes just changing some wording, or adding just a phrase can help a lot. It is not a must do, but just a recommendation with my best intentions. Just like my finding that for OpenSuSE Leap, qDD could not run on its own libraries until adding libtbb2. No need to be harassed for trying to contribute. I did not know as well about the different accuracy between the two FP approach v/s Current/FP approach or how many focus steps (10) are significant for most Nikon lenses etc.
3) You confused or twisted but at least made fun of what I said about the focus point buttons. There are two sections with focus points on the main focus stack window. The one on the right, with the buttons with titles of "Start" and "end", having Current, FP1 and FP2 options. If you read my post without making fun of it, you will notice I did agree with that part. The confusion was noticed from the lower left section of the layout, with the two buttons without titles but just a single number inside "1" and "2". After reading on the forum, the manual and the support of Zoltan, I figure it out what they were and specially their direct relationship with the FP options on the buttons for the top right section. Needing more experience or a mistake? perhaps but this can happen to other beginners as well. Therefore, my intentions were as simple as to suggest to replace the labeling of the two
lower left buttons that have only a number as label, for "FP1" and "FP2". Of course the manual helps but when you need to explain what "1" states for somewhere else, it means that the layout or the design of the app has areas that could improve since it has not reached a self explanatory status. A critic? yes, it is a button with only a number on it. But the critic is not to Zoltan or yourself but to a specific issue with the label design of these buttons. There is a huge difference between criticizing a product or an action, from doing it to the person that made the product or the action. If you do not separate the two, you will feel "attacked" every time your product or action receives a critic. Of course there will be areas impossible to make self-explanatory on the application. But just a number as a button label, leaves space for improvement since it can lead to confusions and it is not self explanatory. "Consistent" means the way a subject is referred is constant on all the sections of the design. "FP1" on the upper right section is not the same as "1" on the lower left section. "FP1" on both sections, the buttons as well as the options on the right that refers to these buttons, would be consistent. Gonzo, you may disagree with me, and I am fine with it. It is not the big deal. But it does become when you make fun of people investing their time in trying to help others with the only way they can: sharing their experience in case it matches theirs. Precisely because they like the work done on the project by Zoltan, you and who knows how many other contributors. A recommendation is just that. You can agree or not, but there is no need to be ironic.
qDD is a great project. It has been a while since I have been wiling to try it and after Zoltan's help, I was able to use it and see its huge potential. I congratulate and I am very thankful to all the people involved. For those using linux with KDE, I did the focus-stack merging with the blending tool of Digikam that uses Hugin
http://hugin.sourceforge.net/ and Enfuse
http://enblend.sourceforge.net/. I had mixed results depending of the number of frames. Perhaps I should start the protocol for focus stack with a step of calculating the number of frames needed depending on lens DOF, distance range to the subject etc. It seems to me that this frame number is very critical for the best final result.
kind regards and keep the great work
gps