[quant2325]

It will be three times as big as a normal raw file. (unless of course the result is a compressed jpeg).
A normal rawfile is 14bits per pixel of gray info, a full color version has 14 bits of red, green and blue for every pixel. So it's three times as large.

Here is the proof with photos shot with and without the technology using the K-3II: Sample Images?K-3 II | RICOH IMAGING

---

Last edited by quant2325; 05-01-2015 at 08:44 PM.

[Rondec]

You are still wrong! Here is the proof with photos shot with and without the technology using the K-3II: Sample Images?K-3 II | RICOH IMAGING

Yes. Looks like the files with pixel shift are 13 to 14 Megabytes, while the rest of the files are 10 to 13 Megabytes. Certainly not a huge difference in file size. Although these aren't raw files, but converted jpegs.

[JinDesu]

You are still wrong! Here is the proof with photos shot with and without the technology using the K-3II: Sample Images?K-3 II | RICOH IMAGING

He did say "unless it was a compressed jpeg", which is what Ricoh is providing on their site.

If it was RAW, it would be larger.

[rawr]

If it was RAW, it would be larger.

We assume. But lets see an actual pixel-shifted DNG to test that assumption.

Hopefully the guys who did the Ricoh sample pix were shooting RAW+JPEG. Maybe Ricoh will release the DNG's that match the JPEGs.

[quant2325]

We assume. But lets see an actual pixel-shifted DNG to test that assumption.

Hopefully the guys who did the Ricoh sample pix were shooting RAW+JPEG. Maybe Ricoh will release the DNG's that match the JPEGs.

It seems they were showing off different lenses with those photos as well as the capability of the camera in general. I really hope someone buys the camera and tests it out to answer the above questions. It is certainly counter intuitive to anyone hearing about this for the first time, but I guess Pentax figured out how to offer superior resolution without significantly increasing the file size. I really want the FF, but if it doesn't make sense from a cost perspective (I am not a pro) I may go with the K-3 II since it gives superior performance--more than I probably need--with the pixel shifting technology.

Ricoh is obviously giving a lot more for the money than similar Cannon or Nikon offerings, and now Pentax can claim better resolution. All of us know that, but the public still buys their Nikons with the kit lenses at COSTCO. Perhaps Ricoh will start getting recognition for offering more for less and increase the market share to a respectable level? A company with superior products shouldn't have a 2 percent market share.

[ElJamoquio]

We assume. But lets see an actual pixel-shifted DNG to test that assumption.

Hopefully the guys who did the Ricoh sample pix were shooting RAW+JPEG. Maybe Ricoh will release the DNG's that match the JPEGs.

You could do it either way. You could combine in camera and have the same size files or you could combine in post. If you combine in post you still have the option of compressing based on prior photo data, which means the files wouldn't be much larger.

So you could have anything between not-at-all larger and three times larger. Depends on what algorithm and workflow Ricoh wanted to use.

[Barry Pearson]

My big question is what sort of files will it produce and what software will be able to deal with these files? Are we talking jpg-only after in-camera synthesis? (There was a confusing sentence about this on the Ricoh page about it.) Or a RAW file, but not a Bayer RAW file? Will we able to use the results with the usual programs (Lightroom, etc) that work with RAW files and be able to have all the usual adjustments available to us? I'd love this technology, but at what cost in post-processing?

My fear now is that the non-JPEG option will not be Linear DNG. But instead will be 4 separate raw files that need the Pentax utility to process them.

1) The files shouldn't be much bigger, if at all. This is a completely different way of doing this than Olympus. You will get 48MP (or whatever) effective resolution without massive files.
2) The K-3II obviously becomes the sharpest APS-C camera on the market, assuming you are a landscape photographer (use a tripod). Your photos of the next Yosemite vacation (or macro of a still bug) will have enough sharpness to put large posters on your wall.
3) This technology will be massive for the pros once it hits the FF and medium format Pentax cameras. They use a tripod anyway, so using this technology for landscape photography is no big deal.

I assume the total size of the non-JPEG option (whether it is true raw or Linear DNG) will be about 3 to 4 times the size of a single raw file. Why not?

Ricoh is taking four pixels of each Bayer color filter array cell--twice as many green than blue or red--and aligning them (like one on top of the other). The file should have the same number of pixels. The difference is that each pixel now has full G,R and B data. This is completely different than the Olympus approach. Ricoh is not adding more cells.

True. They will supply 3 or 4 times as much data for each pixel, without increasing the number of pixels.

Yes, the same number of pixels, but three times as much data for every pixel. Thus the file will take three times as much space.

That is my guess. Or if they provide 4 unprocessed raw files, the total size may be 4 times the normal raw file size.

We assume. But lets see an actual pixel-shifted DNG to test that assumption.

Hopefully the guys who did the Ricoh sample pix were shooting RAW+JPEG. Maybe Ricoh will release the DNG's that match the JPEGs.

I hope they are DNGs, but fear they will not be.

I responded earlier saying I thought the camera would output a Linear DNG file as the non-JPEG option. I fear that it won't, but instead will be 4 separate raw files that need the Pentax utility to process them.

Could they avoid outputting 3 or 4 times as much data as a single raw file? Perhaps, with some clever (and somewhat destructive) compression that plays games with the relative values at a pixel and uses the differences. (I'm out of my depth here!) But to get the maximum benefit from the technology, I can't see how they can avoid putting 3 or 4 times as much data on the card.

We need more information! Waiting ... waiting ...!