[Rorschach]

The 'J' word?

Wash your mouth out with soap, young man!

Fortunately I am not all that young, which means I can dodge the punishment

[Oakland Rob]

Yeah, JPEGs out of the camera look pretty nice. Or just unadulterated ACR or DCU processed RAWs (one does have to sharpen them though).

But what you gain with PS if you don't do any post work with it is rather marginal. Start cutting out areas of movement with even a tripod, and certainly handheld, and it's even more marginal. It's a neat thing, but I'd expect it's like many of the cool features in most modern cameras, it gets used a few times and then ignored most of the time. As opposed to say some of the more tried and true stuff like bracketing.

Pentax has to accommodate those who DO use post processing and RAWs, however. Just as some people just dropped film at drugstore, some print their own. Some people never get past the kit lens and the most automated settings possible. Some are using freaky manual lenses in really bad lighting conditions with all manual everything. Different strokes, as they say.

[ffking]

Pentax has to accommodate those who DO use post processing and RAWs, however.

to use a K-1 for jpegs would be like using your Ferrari to do the grocery shopping - waste of money if that's all you're after

[aleonx3]

Add my voice here as well. What pixel shift gives you is something closer to "truth in data" as compared to a Bayer-interpolated merge. The result is higher detail capture for a given number of pixels as well as more accurate microcontrast and color tonality.


Steve

Add my voice to it as well. Neither Canon nor Nikon has that the PS technology and either will have to figure something else or duplicate it in some fashion. I see more exciting times ahead for Pentax users.

[Rondec]

Yeah, JPEGs out of the camera look pretty nice. Or just unadulterated ACR or DCU processed RAWs (one does have to sharpen them though).

But what you gain with PS if you don't do any post work with it is rather marginal. Start cutting out areas of movement with even a tripod, and certainly handheld, and it's even more marginal. It's a neat thing, but I'd expect it's like many of the cool features in most modern cameras, it gets used a few times and then ignored most of the time. As opposed to say some of the more tried and true stuff like bracketing.

Pentax has to accommodate those who DO use post processing and RAWs, however. Just as some people just dropped film at drugstore, some print their own. Some people never get past the kit lens and the most automated settings possible. Some are using freaky manual lenses in really bad lighting conditions with all manual everything. Different strokes, as they say.

My hope was that this feature would somehow help both jpeg and RAW shooters. Not sure if it will, but if there is a way to generate a TIFF file with this extra color detail without the artifacts, that would certainly allow for a lot more leeway with post processing.

The whole tripod thing is no big deal to me. I have found over time that shooting with a tripod improves photos dramatically when shooting landscapes and so I shoot with one as often as I am able. I certainly will use the feature frequently, as long as it really does add to the ability to get more detail/dynamic range/truer colors out of a given image.

[Rorschach]

to use a K-1 for jpegs would be like using your Ferrari to do the grocery shopping - waste of money if that's all you're after

Yet, that is exactly how I intend to use it if I get one. It is a matter of priorities, as there are others things in my life that are more worthwhile to me than several hundred hours per year spent at the computer doing PP. As someone said above, different strokes for different folks.

[jcdoss]

to use a K-1 for jpegs would be like using your Ferrari to do the grocery shopping - waste of money if that's all you're after

I would like to see the jpg files generated by a production camera, as compared to raw files, before I would make that assertion.

[normhead]

Yet, that is exactly how I intend to use it if I get one. It is a matter of priorities, as there are others things in my life that are more worthwhile to me than several hundred hours per year spent at the computer doing PP. As someone said above, different strokes for different folks.

I accidentally had my camera set to jpeg instead of raw a few days ago, it certainly didn't convince me that for every day files I need raw all the time. There are certain high DR images it wold be better, but, I had to make very minor adjustments using the jpegs and certainly not enough to tree the 8 bit colour rendition.

IN fact , most of the work was done, I just needed a few minor tweaks with the levels control, everything else was good.

[Sliver-Surfer]

to use a K-1 for jpegs would be like using your Ferrari to do the grocery shopping - waste of money if that's all you're after

A lot of Super-cars have racing mode and touring mode.

[stevebrot]

but if there is a way to generate a TIFF file with this extra color detail without the artifacts

I obviously don't have the camera in-hand ( ), but it is my understanding that in-camera PS development to TIFF is possible similar to that offered by the K-3 and K-3II.


Steve

[stevebrot]

A lot of Super-cars have racing mode and touring mode.

...and I have seen the occasional Ferrari in the Safeway parking lot...


Steve

[Winder]

diglloyd DAP - Pentax K3 II (APS-C) - SuperResolution: Zeiss Siemens Test Target (diglloyd.com excerpt)

"Tested with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Pentax K (about $899) because quality with the PENTAX smc FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited was unacceptable."

I get the feeling a lot of the older glass is going to disappoint on the K-1.

[clackers]

diglloyd DAP - Pentax K3 II (APS-C) - SuperResolution: Zeiss Siemens Test Target (diglloyd.com excerpt)

"Tested with the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art for Pentax K (about $899) because quality with the PENTAX smc FA 31mm f/1.8 Limited was unacceptable."

I get the feeling a lot of the older glass is going to disappoint on the K-1.

Why? What's Chambers' claim, Winder?


Elswhere, he has said:


"to my eyes, the Pentax K1 SuperResolution pixel shift mode will easily outperform Nikon D810 and Sony A7R II and Leica S. I suspect it will outperform the 50-megapixel Canon 5DS R and most if not all medium format systems as well (assuming lenses approaching Otus-grade can be had, Sigma may solve that). Without a doubt, the Pentax K1 SuperResolution mode makes it the finest black and white camera on the market (perhaps exception monochrome digital backs costing $25K or so).
I’m speaking about total quality—not just resolution, but per-pixel integrity, subtle tonal transitions, freedom from digital artifacts, lack of a “zipper effect” on fine thin colored lines, reduced noise, outstanding potential for black and white, ability to take aggressive sharpening.
In evaluating a SuperResolution image in DNG from the 24MP APS-C Pentax K3 II, I was stunned with the detail. So I upsampled it from 24 to 36 megapixels: I’d say the equivalent detail level using SuperResolution mode is about a 50% gain in pixel count. Which means the 36-megapixel Pentax K1 sensor ought to deliver per pixel detail equivalent to about 54 conventional megapixels. But in total quality sense, it may be more than that with some subject matter. Never before have I seen per pixel quality this good, from any camera. "

[jbinpg]

Nowhere did Chambers indicate that he took the time to dial in the 31mm AF.

[ffking]

A lot of Super-cars have racing mode and touring mode.

...and I have seen the occasional Ferrari in the Safeway parking lot...

no problem with that -the original analogy was about whether it was worth buying a Ferrari if you ONLY use it for grocery shopping - mind you, come to think of it, the point of owning a Ferrari is to be seen in it, so maybe a D5 or1D series would be a better analogy anyway