Super resolution by pixel shifting in future Pentax cameras

**Rondec** · 02-08-2015, 01:21 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

I don't see a good reason why you couldn't do this with in-lens stabilization. You'd need to re-align the images so the process wouldn't be quite the same, but I don't see any other impediment? Maybe the camera can't control the in-lens stabilization?

There is software that combines multiple handheld images into one with higher resolution, or grabs multiple lower res frames from video and mashes it into one higher resolution frame. Some pretty neat processing is possible, I'm not sure of how the computational costs relate to in-camera processing power though.

If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying.

kadajawi · 02-08-2015, 01:24 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Rondec

If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying.

By having the lens move. You take several photos, this time the lens moves. Has the same effect as having the sensor move, just that it is not as precise.

BrianR · 02-08-2015, 01:33 PM

Originally posted by Rondec

If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying.

In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this?

Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way.

Gimbal · 02-08-2015, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?)

It has to, otherwise it wouldn't work as a stabilizer either.

---------- Post added 02-08-2015 at 09:54 PM ----------

As for the 12Mp suggestion, there is now way I would be interested in such a low resolution camera. If you want 12Mp, down sample and there you go. The other way around though, up sample, does not work that well.

Supakatti · 02-08-2015, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by geo444

.

before Olympus... was Hasselblad :
www.dpreview.com/articles/4410648565/hasselblad-unveils-pixel-shifting-200mp-h5d-200c-ms

and before Hasselblad... was Apple first ? :
Apple aiming to use image stabilization to create high-resolution images: Connect

No, before... was Astrophotography, where Turbulence and Guiding Errors randomly Shift your Pixels !
plus the Stacking techniques that : -1) increase the Resolution and -2) decrease the Noise
see those guys doing fine Mars, Jupiter and Saturn pics with just WebCams !
The Software since 2001 : www.astronomie.be/registax/

and also DeepSkyStacker Drizzle :
DeepSkyStacker - Technical Info

I'd like to remind of Nokia808PureView. A smartphone with 41MP 1/1.2" CMOS sensor camera and Pureview oversampling technology. Released in 2012.

Mistral75 · 02-08-2015, 02:32 PM

And, as already stated, do not forget the forefather: Ricoh RDC-7

http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/support/brochure/pdf/rdc7.pdf

regbaron · 02-08-2015, 02:46 PM

A firmware for the K-5,K-511,K511s would be most welcome.👍

ClinchShots · 02-08-2015, 02:56 PM

just at least do it for the newer tech in the K5IIS K5II and K3

that would be more then enough for me

cfraz · 02-08-2015, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this?

Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way.

As far as I can tell, the ability to control the sensor movement with precisely known micron-scale distances in Pentax's system came with the development of the K-3's AA simulator. And one would need to move the sensor known distances at the pixel-size level in order to deconvolute the resulting image files.

I don't think in-lens stabilization systems know how many pixels of correction they are applying, just that it corrects the right amount for lens movement. The lens doesn't even know the number of pixels in the camera, as far as I know. So at the least, lens-camera communication would have to be added to 1) allow lens correction element movements of known image distance on the sensor, and 2) know when it's OK to move to the next position in sequence.

**Rondec** · 02-08-2015, 03:00 PM

Originally posted by BrianR

In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this?

Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way.

Just for some reason, I think the lens stabilization element wouldn't have as precise control and that it would vary by lens. But I don't really know. Maybe Canon and Nikon will add this soon, although considering that there are a lot of lenses without optical stabilization maybe it wouldn't be as big a deal.

dngr · 02-08-2015, 03:32 PM

Originally posted by IsaacT

Could you imagine if Pentax packed the new FF with something like 40-50MP and then threw in this sensor shift pixel multiplier? Those would be huge images! I would love to get those home after a long shoot and wait for awhile for them to load in LR! Worth the wait, 2015

Heck, think of the possibilities with the 645Z!

D1N0 · 02-08-2015, 03:34 PM

Originally posted by dngr

Heck, think of the possibilities with the 645Z!

That has a fixed sensor.

JinDesu · 02-08-2015, 03:37 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

That has a fixed sensor.

Newly introduced! Pentax 645Z interactive Gimbal system! It talks with the camera to move the camera in precisely 1 pixel in each direction!

dngr · 02-08-2015, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by D1N0

That has a fixed sensor.

Ah, my bad. Carry on!

Kunzite · 02-08-2015, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by JinDesu

Newly introduced! Pentax 645Z interactive Gimbal system! It talks with the camera to move the camera in precisely 1 pixel in each direction!

Perhaps the camera will send an electric jolt through its grip, contracting your muscles just enough to move the camera the required distance

This "super resolution" thing could be done in a 645z mkII without a full SR system - perhaps using piezo elements. But so far there's no signs of it happening.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
For Sale - Sold: Pentax KX and ME Super film cameras - both in very good condition	HenrikDK	Sold Items	6	06-09-2014 05:04 AM
In-Mouth Cameras: The Future of Food Photography?	RioRico	Photographic Technique	2	10-15-2011 05:07 PM
Pixel pitch and lens resolution	surfotog	Pentax Medium Format	4	06-09-2011 12:01 PM
Future laid out by Pentax -- no full-frame	rparmar	Pentax News and Rumors	158	10-23-2008 06:35 PM

02-08-2015, 01:21 PM	#61
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by BrianR I don't see a good reason why you couldn't do this with in-lens stabilization. You'd need to re-align the images so the process wouldn't be quite the same, but I don't see any other impediment? Maybe the camera can't control the in-lens stabilization? There is software that combines multiple handheld images into one with higher resolution, or grabs multiple lower res frames from video and mashes it into one higher resolution frame. Some pretty neat processing is possible, I'm not sure of how the computational costs relate to in-camera processing power though. If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying.

02-08-2015, 01:24 PM - 1 Like	#62
kadajawi Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2010 Posts: 2,799	Originally posted by Rondec If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying. By having the lens move. You take several photos, this time the lens moves. Has the same effect as having the sensor move, just that it is not as precise.

02-08-2015, 01:33 PM	#63
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	Originally posted by Rondec If the sensor doesn't move, how are you going to get multiple images? I guess I just don't understand what you are saying. In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this? Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way.

02-08-2015, 01:48 PM	#64
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by BrianR Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) It has to, otherwise it wouldn't work as a stabilizer either. ---------- Post added 02-08-2015 at 09:54 PM ---------- As for the 12Mp suggestion, there is now way I would be interested in such a low resolution camera. If you want 12Mp, down sample and there you go. The other way around though, up sample, does not work that well.

02-08-2015, 01:59 PM	#65
Supakatti Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Tuusula, Southern Finland Photos: Albums Posts: 135	Originally posted by geo444 . before Olympus... was Hasselblad : www.dpreview.com/articles/4410648565/hasselblad-unveils-pixel-shifting-200mp-h5d-200c-ms and before Hasselblad... was Apple first ? : Apple aiming to use image stabilization to create high-resolution images: Connect No, before... was Astrophotography, where Turbulence and Guiding Errors randomly Shift your Pixels ! plus the Stacking techniques that : -1) increase the Resolution and -2) decrease the Noise see those guys doing fine Mars, Jupiter and Saturn pics with just WebCams ! The Software since 2001 : www.astronomie.be/registax/ and also DeepSkyStacker Drizzle : DeepSkyStacker - Technical Info I'd like to remind of Nokia808PureView. A smartphone with 41MP 1/1.2" CMOS sensor camera and Pureview oversampling technology. Released in 2012.

02-08-2015, 02:32 PM	#66
Mistral75 Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2009 Location: Paris, France Posts: 7,526 Original Poster	And, as already stated, do not forget the forefather: Ricoh RDC-7 http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/support/brochure/pdf/rdc7.pdf

02-08-2015, 02:46 PM	#67
regbaron Forum Member Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 92	A firmware for the K-5,K-511,K511s would be most welcome.👍

02-08-2015, 02:56 PM	#68
ClinchShots Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2012 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery Posts: 437	just at least do it for the newer tech in the K5IIS K5II and K3 that would be more then enough for me

02-08-2015, 02:58 PM	#69
cfraz Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Oregon, USA Posts: 521	Originally posted by BrianR In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this? Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way. As far as I can tell, the ability to control the sensor movement with precisely known micron-scale distances in Pentax's system came with the development of the K-3's AA simulator. And one would need to move the sensor known distances at the pixel-size level in order to deconvolute the resulting image files. I don't think in-lens stabilization systems know how many pixels of correction they are applying, just that it corrects the right amount for lens movement. The lens doesn't even know the number of pixels in the camera, as far as I know. So at the least, lens-camera communication would have to be added to 1) allow lens correction element movements of known image distance on the sensor, and 2) know when it's OK to move to the next position in sequence.

02-08-2015, 03:00 PM	#70
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,650	Originally posted by BrianR In body SR moves the sensor around, letting you grab slightly offset images. In lens stabilization can move the projected image around letting the sensor grab slightly offset images. On the surface they seem pretty equivalent for an application like this? Does in-lens allow the same degree of control? (I'd expect?) Maybe the camera has no input in what this generation of in-lens stabilization does (I've no idea!). I understand there are small optical penalties with swinging the stabilization element around, but we're really looking at tiny distances relative to what either stabilization system should be capable of (same problem with in-body, but sub-pixel shifts are tiny). Much of the heavy computing can probably be skipped as you'd be sampling images in a pre-determined way. Just for some reason, I think the lens stabilization element wouldn't have as precise control and that it would vary by lens. But I don't really know. Maybe Canon and Nikon will add this soon, although considering that there are a lot of lenses without optical stabilization maybe it wouldn't be as big a deal.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-08-2015, 03:32 PM	#71
dngr Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Victoria/Great Lakes Photos: Gallery Posts: 691	Originally posted by IsaacT Could you imagine if Pentax packed the new FF with something like 40-50MP and then threw in this sensor shift pixel multiplier? Those would be huge images! I would love to get those home after a long shoot and wait for awhile for them to load in LR! Worth the wait, 2015 Heck, think of the possibilities with the 645Z!

02-08-2015, 03:34 PM	#72
D1N0 Pentaxian Join Date: May 2012 Location: --- Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,802	Originally posted by dngr Heck, think of the possibilities with the 645Z! That has a fixed sensor.

02-08-2015, 03:37 PM	#73
JinDesu Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2011 Location: New York City Photos: Gallery Posts: 5,638	Originally posted by D1N0 That has a fixed sensor. Newly introduced! Pentax 645Z interactive Gimbal system! It talks with the camera to move the camera in precisely 1 pixel in each direction!

02-08-2015, 03:39 PM	#74
dngr Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Victoria/Great Lakes Photos: Gallery Posts: 691	Originally posted by D1N0 That has a fixed sensor. Ah, my bad. Carry on!

02-08-2015, 03:43 PM	#75
Kunzite Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Romania Posts: 15,132	Originally posted by JinDesu Newly introduced! Pentax 645Z interactive Gimbal system! It talks with the camera to move the camera in precisely 1 pixel in each direction! Perhaps the camera will send an electric jolt through its grip, contracting your muscles just enough to move the camera the required distance This "super resolution" thing could be done in a 645z mkII without a full SR system - perhaps using piezo elements. But so far there's no signs of it happening.