[Logics]

…Some waiting time and I looked into Harper's Bazaar magazine. Full of images, …comercial images for some kind of product…. …Most of them are made with a full frame camera…. All these images have got intensive work done in some computerprogram to make them look excellent. That is also where the most image quality enhancement can be made next to having a great camera. The work flow with files from pixelshift is way to complex to be used in any professional way.

…but outside of hobby photography I don't see it getting popular. [COLOR="Silver"]

Pixel shift means a lighter workflow. No more Bayer Transform Approximation algorithms, no more maze, moire artefacts, “should I use AMaZE or AHD2 or VNG4?” Each pixel has full colour and full luminance values with no more guesswork and calculations so the worst part of the workflow is gone!

---------- Post added 07-15-2016 at 12:03 AM ----------

"Everybody" is relative. The camera market is shrinking every year. We are in a case of diminishing returns.

A 8MP is enough for most use because you can't basically see the whole picture and at the same time resolve smaller details than what a 8MP shot with you eyes. Even at cinema, for picture of 15meters wide, this is 4K, no more than 8MP. Many modern movies have 2K master for special effects. I don't see people complaining.

A 15m screen from 15m away is equivalent to a 10×8in image from 10inches away. 8Mpx is more than enough, usually. What's your point? It is the same as a 6×4in print from 6inches away (which requires more detail than a 5inch smartphone held 16inches from your face).

---------- Post added 07-15-2016 at 12:41 AM ----------

It is called smartphone and not a PDA because the key feature of the device, like it or not is the chip that allow the device to be connected, to take phone call, send an receive text... If you let people choose between having only the PDA capabilities (display agenda, take notes and so on) or have only communication capabilities (phone call, text, mails, chat) or only picture/video capabilities most people would focus on the communication part.

“If you let people choose…” Actually, the tech world does let people choose; my brother-in-law choose the PDA capabilities (he got an Android® tablet), my mother-in-law choose the phone (she bought a clamshell phone), and I choose the full monty (and got an Android® smartphone, a.k.a., full-featured PDA with communication, just like the Palm Pilot® Treo®).

[MJSfoto1956]

Pixel shift means a lighter workflow. No more Bayer Transform Approximation algorithms, no more maze, moire artefacts, “should I use AMaZE or AHD2 or VNG4?” Each pixel has full colour and full luminance values with no more guesswork and calculations so the worst part of the workflow is gone!

To be 100% accurate: you can still get moire with Pixel shift. It's still a matrix. No different than a porch screen. But it is true that transformation-induced moire is eliminated.

Michael

[falconeye]

Each pixel has full colour and full luminance values with no more guesswork and calculations so the worst part of the workflow is gone!

For my taste, this is a too pixel-centric view.

One should not forget that our own eyes don't capture color information at full resolution or anything close. Therefore, for an optimal viewing experience of the final art, there is no point in capturing full colour information at every pixel.

[Nicolas06]

It's not just about printing big. The surfeit of megapixels allows a fair degree of cropping when one can't get close enough to a subject, or one can get another photo from the original - two for the price of one. It's fun finding pictures within pictures. Here's an example (I have better ones, but I'm darned if I can find them right now). I apologise that it as taken with another brand of camera (which I bought when Pentax did not have a FF, 36 Mpx body), but it illustrates my point. At least, my granddaughter has the sense to own a Pentax!

I will admit that WA and UWA in Pentax land are not that sharp, at least the small primes. (8-16 and 18-25 from sigma are no issue). But you can typically do that, maybe to a lesser extent, but still.

50-135, at 80mm



A 100% crop, 600mm equivalent on FF, no sharpening, contrast or whatever postprocessing. You could make it look better.



While 100% crop quality (here 1200px) would be quite limited, if your lens is sharp and your technique is good, you can drop to half width, half heigh in both directly and still get a nice picture typically. Past that or if your technique is soso, that might not be possible... But the FF suffer from the same issue. If the technique is not up to the standard, the issue remains.

With the 35ltd or the FA77, I have lot of margin to play with !

---

Last edited by Nicolas06; 07-17-2016 at 07:56 AM.

[Nicolas06]

A 15m screen from 15m away is equivalent to a 10×8in image from 10inches away. 8Mpx is more than enough, usually. What's your point? It is the same as a 6×4in print from 6inches away (which requires more detail than a 5inch smartphone held 16inches from your face).[COLOR="Silver"]

Typically, when you go to cinema, you don't get the feeling you look at a 10x8in image from 10inches away. But it would make no sense to stare at the screen from 2-3meters and percieve only a small fraction of the scene. And most people looking at picture don't do so with a 40x60" print staring at it from 10" or less. And many movies still use full HD master with mere 2MP...

For practical purpose 36MP is nice to have lot of margin to crop, reframe etc but not a requirement to print at any size. Even for 6x4meters. FF is nice for the high iso, the shallow dof while keeping an apperture the lens is great at... We got nice enlargement for quite some time already, from film and DSLR that were at time only like 8-12MP without much issues.

But I agree that a 12MP image, once reframed significantly may no longer have enough details. So you'd want at least 16-24MP without low pass filter and sharp lenses. You can get more, but that only a matter of diminushing returns. It may be worth for some than others.

For most of your clients if your are a pro shooter or people looking at your photos (familly members, friends on the web), they couldn't care less.

[Logics]

For my taste, this is a too pixel-centric view.

One should not forget that our own eyes don't capture color information at full resolution or anything close. Therefore, for an optimal viewing experience of the final art, there is no point in capturing full colour information at every pixel.

My point was not how wonderful it is for beautiful sharp pictures. The points you and Nicholas06 are making are perfectly valid. My point is that the workflow becomes easier and quicker when every pixel has accurate colour and intensity values without having to do Bayer transform approximations. Creating B&Ws from colour RAWs become easier and faster (and sharper, but who cares) when every pixel has accurate intensity information. My point is that the workflow improves and becomes less complex and faster with PS technology, not more complex and longer.

[Nicolas06]

My point was not how wonderful it is for beautiful sharp pictures. The points you and Nicholas06 are making are perfectly valid. My point is that the workflow becomes easier and quicker when every pixel has accurate colour and intensity values without having to do Bayer transform approximations. Creating B&Ws from colour RAWs become easier and faster (and sharper, but who cares) when every pixel has accurate intensity information. My point is that the workflow improves and becomes less complex and faster with PS technology, not more complex and longer.

I honestly don't get this workflow thing. If I don't use pixel shift, I can use any raw editing software in the market, it will work just fine or I can just use the JPEG.

I'll be able to take the picture without tripod in most cases and I'll have no issue with moving subjects. Again, it will just work, like it worked for all digital camera until pixel shift.

If I use pixel shift, I need a sturdy tripod, I need a scene without movement, I am quite restricted in the tooling I can use for the post processing. If I want to combine this with other features like focus stacking, HDR, panoramas, again this is much more complex.

To me it dirsturb a workflow more than it simplify it.

[biz-engineer]

Typically, when you go to cinema, you don't get the feeling you look at a 10x8in image from 10inches away. But it would make no sense to stare at the screen from 2-3meters and percieve only a small fraction of the scene. And most people looking at picture don't do so with a 40x60" print staring at it from 10" or less. And many movies still use full HD master with mere 2MP...

DSLR are a waste of money.

For most of your clients if your are a pro shooter or people looking at your photos (familly members, friends on the web), they couldn't care less.

That's why pro photographer make so much money since they don't need expensive cameras anymore. They get paid loads of money by shooting with iphones.

---------- Post added 18-07-16 at 22:38 ----------

If I use pixel shift, I need a sturdy tripod, I need a scene without movement, I am quite restricted in the tooling I can use for the post processing.

Unlike what's being said by marketing and reviewers; pixel shift with motion correction works even handheld versus when subject is moving. Camera algorithm measure the global shift between frame and align frames. I shot pixel shift handheld and I get more sharpness out than if I shoot a single shot with SR ON !

---------- Post added 18-07-16 at 22:43 ----------

Too bad people denigrate the techno and efforts deployed by Ricoh imaging for Pentax. That's how we kill a camera brand and get nothing in return. The user of the same brand shoots himself in the foot. I've never seem anyone getting royalties by the amount of downgrading high quality things.

---------- Post added 18-07-16 at 22:49 ----------

A 100% crop, 600mm equivalent on FF, no sharpening, contrast or whatever postprocessing. You could make it look better.

How many times did you post the same photo, Nicolas? This photo is rather old, I've seen it many time as material for explaining that resolution isn't needed to post at web size. Are you still doing photography or have you lost the passion for something else and replaced the photography hobby by a smartphone?

[Nicolas06]

That's why pro photographer make so much money since they don't need expensive cameras anymore. They get paid loads of money by shooting with iphones.

So if somebody say that a 24MP FF is enough for most pro uses, this is equivalent to say iphones are enough for most pro use. What a fantastic and realistic argument to protect the K1. In particular couting the numbers of pro owning a D750 or K1 or iphones for handling weddings, studio shots or action/sport...

Unlike what's being said by marketing and reviewers; pixel shift with motion correction works even handheld versus when subject is moving. Camera algorithm measure the global shift between frame and align frames. I shot pixel shift handheld and I get more sharpness out than if I shoot a single shot with SR ON !

You complain I show old pictures. But that's a picture and it get to the point. Why don't you illustrate your point?

That would be quite interresting to show the possibility to shoot a landscape handled in pixel shift and explain when it work well or not.

How many times did you post the same photo, Nicolas? This photo is rather old, I've seen it many time as material for explaining that resolution isn't needed to post at web size. Are you still doing photography or have you lost the passion for something else and replaced the photography hobby by a smartphone?

Do I post photos? You can check my flickr account in my sig. From time to time I add example to Lens sample archive or Lens club. But where can I check you photos? There 18 on your photo album, no link in your sig.

I don't think people should be forced in general to put their photos there to say something. I actually think your argument to counter a point you don't like is quite weak... Picture too old doesn't count... But the only thing it really point out is that heavy cropping was a long solved issue.

But if you complain about people not posting enough photos and when they do that they are old, then why don't you start with yourself?

[biz-engineer]

I actually think your argument to counter a point you don't like is quite weak...

Yes I'm weak. It's a battle of ego , who's right, who's wrong, who has the last word and win the argument , that's what photography is about (for some).

But if you complain about people not posting enough photos and when they do that they are old, then why don't you start with yourself?

I do, in the K1 section :-).

---------- Post added 19-07-16 at 08:18 ----------

You complain I show old pictures. But that's a picture and it get to the point. Why don't you illustrate your point?

Reading your general rhetoric (= smartphones are more than enough + shooting FA limited primes = contradiction), I was just wondering if you are more interesting in arguing than actually taking photographs.

[thibs]

Yes I'm weak. It's a battle of ego , who's right, who's wrong, who has the last word and win the argument , that's what photography is about (for some).



I do, in the K1 section :-).

---------- Post added 19-07-16 at 08:18 ----------



Reading your general rhetoric (= smartphones are more than enough + shooting FA limited primes = contradiction), I was just wondering if you are more interesting in arguing than actually taking photographs.

All of it... +1 (no, +5 at least)

[Zygonyx]

Best of all, Nicolas wrote somewhere he wasn't interested in K-1 anymore because of weak AF performance in the wake of DPR's highly reliable bike-test.

C'mon boys, this forum is so passionating that we like standing all the day long there
And in the end of the day, we hardly remember what we wrote in the morning

[thibs]

Best of all, Nicolas wrote somewhere he wasn't interested in K-1 anymore because of weak AF performance in the wake of DPR's highly reliable bike-test.

....

C'mon boys, this forum is so passionating that we like standing all the day long there
And in the end of the day, we hardly remember what we wrote in the morning

I think most of us know what, at least more or less, what we wrote. Some others either change their mind each post and contest they did or they do not show a single ounce of logic in any argument (or what is supposed to be an argument).
Strangely, most of the time, those never get a response 'cos those are ignored by half the forum

Would be fun to have a 'hall of fame' of ignored posters
Yes I'm ignored too, we all are the idiot of someone else, that's fine to me.

[Nicolas06]

Best of all, Nicolas wrote somewhere he wasn't interested in K-1 anymore because of weak AF performance in the wake of DPR's highly reliable bike-test.

C'mon boys, this forum is so passionating that we like standing all the day long there
And in the end of the day, we hardly remember what we wrote in the morning

I must have forgotten that, don't hesitate to show me... I must have some memory issues

[RonHendriks1966]

Would be fun to have a 'hall of fame' of ignored posters

I hope to be on the top of that list. I don't miss any of the idiots that ignore me


(if you can read this and feel insulted you forgot to put me on that list ......... )