Pentax/Camera Marketplace |
Pentax Items for Sale |
Wanted Pentax Items |
Pentax Deals |
Deal Finder & Price Alerts |
Price Watch Forum |
My Marketplace Activity |
List a New Item |
Get seller access! |
Pentax Stores |
Pentax Retailer Map |
Pentax Photos |
Sample Photo Search |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Today's Photos |
Free Photo Storage |
Member Photo Albums |
User Photo Gallery |
Exclusive Gallery |
Photo Community |
Photo Sharing Forum |
Critique Forum |
Official Photo Contests |
World Pentax Day Gallery |
World Pentax Day Photo Map |
Pentax Resources |
Articles and Tutorials |
Member-Submitted Articles |
Recommended Gear |
Firmware Update Guide |
Firmware Updates |
Pentax News |
Pentax Lens Databases |
Pentax Lens Reviews |
Pentax Lens Search |
Third-Party Lens Reviews |
Lens Compatibility |
Pentax Serial Number Database |
In-Depth Reviews |
SLR Lens Forum |
Sample Photo Archive |
Forum Discussions |
New Posts |
Today's Threads |
Photo Threads |
Recent Photo Mosaic |
Recent Updates |
Today's Photos |
Quick Searches |
Unanswered Threads |
Recently Liked Posts |
Forum RSS Feed |
Go to Page... |
Search this Thread |
08-02-2016, 05:04 PM - 1 Like | #1576 |
More, you don't especially need pixel shift to achieve theses results or even better. Dynamic range, all camera I think have a HDR mode anyway that allow for much more dynamic range than what pixel shift allow, this work handled even. At worst shoot 3 or 5 exposure and you can get 4 or 8 EV more of dynamic range. That much more that pixel shift provide. For Color deph and noise, nothing prevent you to take 4 pictures (or 32) on your tripod and stack them for improved quality. People have been doing that for astro shots for years. While it is not as automated, any camera firmware could be updated for it. And because there no limit to number of photos, there no limit to the noise reduction and improved color deph. None of what you described as being what we had already is what we have now. Pixel shift, the way Pentax does it anyway, is a game changer in so many regards and it does things that no current technique can reproduce. [EDIT] To clarify, the Foveon sensor actually changed the game this way before. This is really not that new but it does it at higher resolution with lower noise, better low-light response and less cost per pixel. To be fair, Foveon were the leaders here. Last edited by Logics; 08-02-2016 at 05:46 PM. Reason: Mentioned the Foveon as being first to market in this area. | |
These users Like Logics's post: |
08-02-2016, 07:49 PM - 1 Like | #1577 |
Game changer is something that will heavilly change the market, how people use their camera, approach photography as a whole. This is disruptive product. First iphone was a game changer it redefined the whole industry and now 3/4 of all the phones sold are basically iphones clones. Android was game changer because it allowed to get iphones clones for $100. In photography, smartphones were maybe the biggest change we have seen since digital but we also had seen quite big change that can be arguably a game changer: CMOS vs CCD, cameras with great video or mirrorless bodies with EVF. That changes that shaped the market. Pixel shift is just a feature among the hundred other features each camera has. Is it far better than a 50 iso setting? Is it better than a high burst rate or better OOC Jpegs? This will depend of each user but this isn't huge. Give a D810 or a K1 with the equivalent lenses to a good photographer he'll give you quite similar photographs from both. The biggest difference is the mount with the associated echosystem. Looking at the comparison of the DXO One camera versus the Super Raw it features, you can see the sort of improvement in high iso performance, color depth and dynamic range one can see with it. On the other hand, the difference between iso 100 and iso 50 on the D810 is about 0.4 EV of dynamic range. Significantly less, then the bump from having pixel shift. Anyway, as I said above, it is one feature that the k-1 offers that isn't widely available from other manufacturers. If you shoot much landscape or macro photography, it could be useful. | |
These users Like Rondec's post: |
08-02-2016, 10:51 PM | #1578 |
HDR mode does not actually change the dynamic range of an image per se, rather it gives the appearance of a higher dynamic range by mimicking within the picture what our brain does automatically. It makes the shadows not so shadowy (more exposure) so we can see details and the highlights not so highlighty (less exposure) so we can see more details but still, only 14-bit RAWs and 8-bit JPEGs. Whatever the technique, standard raws or pixel shift or HDR once you recorded the information the issue is what to do with it as prints 5-8EV and screen 8-10 EV with an upcoming standard for 12EV but anyway you export the final image as JPEG that is made for 8-9EV of dynamic range with the proper gamma curves. You can push shadows, tone down the highlight on your raw. Or you can apply a tone mapping curve... But the final product still limited to 8-9EV anyway. You use trick to stay in that range and give the impression of additionnal dynamic range and use the defficiancies of human vision to trick it. You can try for yourself, take a high iso setting with noise (say 6400 iso) on that K3 or K1, stack 64 pictures and see how the noise and color deph reduced. True but this is not about gaining megapixels. A 36mp image before PS is still a 36mp image after PS. Pentax pixel shift is about automated improved details and colour accuracy of a 36mp image (or 24mp in the case of the K-3 II). But pixel shift the way Sony does it, is somewhat like this. This method is superior to what Sony does but Sony's method is easier than this. Yeah, right. Like a pentaprism for eye-level viewing or auto focus, or programmed mode or SR or SMC or round aperture blades or oil resistant coating or trailing curtain sync or HSS or TTL or OTF metering or any other non-game-changing feature because it is just a feature like any other feature. Every innovation is a game changer because it introduces to the game a new rule which was not there before. Something that is game changing mean everybody want to upgrade and the what you can do drastically change. Pixel shift only improve still subjects but the world not still... That's why this is not a game changer. None of what you described as being what we had already is what we have now. Pixel shift, the way Pentax does it anyway, is a game changer in so many regards and it does things that no current technique can reproduce. [EDIT] To clarify, the Foveon sensor actually changed the game this way before. This is really not that new but it does it at higher resolution with lower noise, better low-light response and less cost per pixel. To be fair, Foveon were the leaders here. As an emulation, this is just that emulation. It bring far less for dynamic range than HDR, it is limited to stacking 4 pictures so it bring far less than old stacking features were you could stack hundred of image if you wanted. For sharpness again the same it bring far less than existing stiching technologies. Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-02-2016 at 10:57 PM. | |
08-02-2016, 10:59 PM | #1579 |
08-05-2016, 10:20 PM - 1 Like | #1580 |
I had a misunderstanding about what you meant here but let us not mix things up. Pentax PixelShift takes you from a 14-bit RAW to a 42-bit RAW. PS was not designed for dynamic range increase, but for detail and colour accuracy increase. With 42-bits of data at each pixel, that is a great deal of dynamic range. For stacking techniques where your camera saves all the exposures in one RAW file, (Pentax does not do that and I do not know any camera that does), sure. Stack as much as you want but the whole, “file too large for my workflow”, argument goes out the window. What you are speaking of is taking several pictures, saving them on a computer as a collection, then using software to create a EXR file or something of the sort. Been done since the dawn of cameras. (Yes, I have done a similar darkroom technique with negative/film; complex, difficult, time-consuming, error prone). PS allows you to do that in camera in one of two RAW formats. One file out of camera. Simpler workflow! BTW, PS does not keep 14-bit per pixel files; it keeps 14-bits per (R,G,B) per pixel per file and a 32-bit per pixel HDR file keeps 8-bits per (R,G,B,A) per pixel and a 48-bit keeps 12-bits per (R,G,B,A) per pixel, both less than a Pentax PS RAW, even if I told my K-3 to shoot 5 image brackets at 2ev difference. Pentax PS does quadruple the file size but you get completely accurate colour and intensity data at each pixel in one file with no approximation algorithm. Simplified workflow! And all these techniques require still subjects …UNTIL NOW with the Pentax K-1 (within obvious limitations). Again, a misunderstanding on my part. I was saying that Pentax's PS is a game changer and on the K-1 with motion sense technology, even more so. I was not saying that the K-! specifically is a game changer. I held out for the Pentax K-3 —still using my film camera for important shoots until the K-3— because it (and the K-5 IIs before it) was a game changer with no AA filter; vastly improving detail. Then the K-3 II came out and the PS was a game changer for me. I still stayed out of the game waiting for a high res FF and here it is. (I waited for the K-3 instead of the K-5 IIs because without an AA, I wanted higer res to help avoid moire). The K-5 IIs/K-3 were not the game changers; the lack of AA filter was. The K-3 II/K-1 are not the game changers; the PS technology (with motion sense) is. I Think the Sigma SD1 is a better camera than the K-3 but at 15mp images (12-bit per (R,G,B) per pixel) for US$2,000.00, versus the K-3 II 24mp + PS at $850.00 or the K-1 36mp + PS at $1,700; I'll stick with Pentax. To be honest, If I had enough disposable income to run two kits, I would still get it; simplified workflow! (But a full SD1 kit with battery grip and the holy trinity is about US$4k (without an S-TTL flash) and since I already have glass & two P-TTL flashes, a K-1 investment is only about $2.3k with battery grip, etc.). | |
These users Like Logics's post: |
08-06-2016, 02:26 AM | #1581 |
I had a misunderstanding about what you meant here but let us not mix things up. Pentax PixelShift takes you from a 14-bit RAW to a 42-bit RAW. PS was not designed for dynamic range increase, but for detail and colour accuracy increase. With 42-bits of data at each pixel, that is a great deal of dynamic range. If you take different exposures, you get much more information of that dynamic range because you record different part of the signal. But taking 5 pictures separated by 2EV each, you actually get 8EV of dynamic range. Pixel shift use the same strategy but for light frequency, not dynamic range. You can't have it all. Would you want both, then you'd get 4x5 = 20 image with pixel shift and different exposures. Last edited by Nicolas06; 08-06-2016 at 11:34 PM. | |
08-08-2016, 02:28 AM - 1 Like | #1582 |
As for OpenEXR, the HDR file format developed and used by ILM (and most others) boasts, Originally posted by OpenEXR: “OpenEXR's features include: Higher dynamic range and color precision than existing 8- and 10-bit image file formats….” Originally posted by OpenEXR: 32-bit floating-point TIFF is often overkill for visual effects work. 32-bit FP TIFF provides more than sufficient precision and dynamic range for VFX images, but it comes at the cost of storage, both on disk and in memory. Originally posted by OpenEXR: ILM decided to develop a new HDR file format with 16-bit floating-point color component values. Since the IEEE-754 floating-point specification does not define a 16-bit format, ILM created the "half" format. Half values have 1 sign bit, 5 exponent bits, and 10 mantissa bits. For linear images, this format provides 1024 (2^10) values per color component per f-stop, and 30 f-stops (2^5 - 2), with an additional 10 f-stops with reduced precision at the low end (denormals). So using EXR at 32-bit integer, we get (signed) 10-bit per (R,G,B)+T per pixel (the pixel is either visible or invisible) or (unsigned) 8-bit per (R,G,B,A) per pixel (the pixel has 256 levels of transparency from invisible to opaque). Still not better than 42-bit unsigned (R,G,B) or 48-bit unsigned (R,G,B,A). Otherwise, we increase luminance drastically (dynamic Range) by sacrificing shadow colour significantly for 16-bit float. Or, we can choose to not sacrifice colour by going to 32-bit floating point. not to mention, more processing power needed for floating point colour components. tl;dr → Bracketing and storing in a HDR format over using one large 42-bit PS PEF/DNG either creates ① large sets of files (original bracketed shots plus post-processed composited HDR int file) with less dynamic range, complicating your workflow or ② a large set of files (original bracketed shots) plus one final image (post-processed composited HDR fp file) with colour detail lacking in the shadows but immense luminance detail (dynamic range), requiring intense processing power, complicating your workflow. Last edited by Logics; 08-08-2016 at 02:36 AM. | |
These users Like Logics's post: |
Bookmarks |
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it! |
auto, base, camera, company, compression, d810, design, dr, electrons, fa, hardware, iso, k-1, k-3, lenses, pentax, pentax body, pentax k-1, pentax news, pentax rumors, photos, pre-order, risk, sensor, specifications, timelapse, trip, vs |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax K-3 II Officially Announced | Adam | Pentax News and Rumors | 1014 | 07-03-2015 10:55 PM |
Pentax K-S2 Officially Announced | Adam | Pentax K-S1 & K-S2 | 12 | 05-23-2015 06:49 AM |
Pentax K-30 Officially Announced! | Adam | Pentax News and Rumors | 245 | 09-12-2012 08:32 PM |
Pentax K-5 Officially Announced | Adam | Pentax News and Rumors | 533 | 03-06-2012 05:45 AM |
K-5 Firmware 1.02 Officially Announced | Ole | Pentax K-5 & K-5 II | 50 | 01-20-2011 10:05 PM |