K-3II High res mode ??

Qwntm · 06-30-2015, 07:50 PM

So a few questions for K3II owners.

1.) Anyone use the K3II high res mode to shoot a waterfall or moving water and what was the results?

2.) Anyone use the K3II high res mode with a 10x ND filter for landscapes and did it work?

I had a K3II for a week, but the not turning off bit made me nervous so I sent it back. I'm thinking of trying it again, but I was wondering if the High res mode would work in these two landscape scenarios. Thanks.

Adam · 06-30-2015, 08:22 PM

You can't use pixel shifting if anything's moving.

Qwntm · 06-30-2015, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Adam

You can't use pixel shifting if anything's moving.

Even if you want the water to blur in a waterfall shot or the sky and water to blur in a 10X ND shot?

I'm trying to understand why it wouldn't work if it won't.

jimr-pdx · 06-30-2015, 08:30 PM

It's an interesting question. You can do it but results will be curious, and noise would improve with four exposures. Any shrubbery would look poor perhaps, but water itself on a fairly long exposure..?

Someone is bound to try soon in any case

Qwntm · 06-30-2015, 09:03 PM

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

It's an interesting question. You can do it but results will be curious, and noise would improve with four exposures. Any shrubbery would look poor perhaps, but water itself on a fairly long exposure..?

Someone is bound to try soon in any case

As soon as I get a working K3II and a waterfall, I'll let you know...

I don't see how a the high res mode could blur things any worse than a 10 second exposure could with a 10x ND filter. But I prefer actual results to thought experiments, and my brain hurts thinking about it.

LensBeginner · 07-01-2015, 12:02 AM

You'd probably get pixel-grid patterns, due to the nature of the beast, and not (not only) a uniform blur, esp. at tge edges of the waterfall, where you might have a water spurt in one exposure and not in the others: hey presto! checkerboard effect... :-\

stevebrot · 07-01-2015, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

Someone is bound to try soon in any case

Let's hope so! We have so much falling water around here, it would be a nice feature.

Steve

Unregistered User · 07-01-2015, 01:57 AM

So you want silky smooth water with high detail?

Edgar_in_Indy · 07-01-2015, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

So you want silky smooth water with high detail?

No, I think he wants high detail in the static parts of the scene.

I also suspect that it will not work well in the water areas of the picture, based on the strange artifacts I have seen in other sample images where foliage has been moving in a breeze. Perhaps if somebody didn't mind spending some time post processing the scene, they could do a single, regular long exposure for the waterfall, and then do a pixel-shift image, and then copy the waterfall into the pixel-shifted image.

Qwntm · 07-01-2015, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

So you want silky smooth water with high detail?

Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days?

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ----------

Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter....

And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp.

stevebrot · 07-01-2015, 10:24 AM

Originally posted by Qwntm

Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days?

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ----------

Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter....

And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp.

Yep, that is the use case and those sorts of subjects are common enough in this part of the world.

BTW...really like the photo from Anthony Lakes...

Steve

rrstuff · 07-01-2015, 10:52 AM

This could work fine if you average a couple dozens of short, high-resolution, exposures.

Unregistered User · 07-01-2015, 02:29 PM

Originally posted by Qwntm

Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days?

---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ----------

Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter....

And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp.

I was making a joke but I guess that did not quite get through so sorry for the confusion. Maybe a language barrier or cultural difference.

My bad.

Qwntm · 07-01-2015, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Tjompen1968

I was making a joke but I guess that did not quite get through so sorry for the confusion. Maybe a language barrier or cultural difference.

My bad.

No worries. A smiley face

would have helped understand the intent... I just took it as assumed lack of knowledge, which probably isn't too far from the truth usually.

AlexThorpe · 07-01-2015, 06:34 PM

From what I hear my dad just finished putting in a waterfall at his house in time for his annual 4th of july party, and I'm bringing my k3-ii and a tripod with me so I should be able to test this out. Don't think it's too large of a waterfall or a lot of moving water but could potentially be useful for purely scientific reasons.

06-30-2015, 07:50 PM	#1
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856	K-3II High res mode ?? So a few questions for K3II owners. 1.) Anyone use the K3II high res mode to shoot a waterfall or moving water and what was the results? 2.) Anyone use the K3II high res mode with a 10x ND filter for landscapes and did it work? I had a K3II for a week, but the not turning off bit made me nervous so I sent it back. I'm thinking of trying it again, but I was wondering if the High res mode would work in these two landscape scenarios. Thanks.

06-30-2015, 08:22 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,593	You can't use pixel shifting if anything's moving. Adam PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide \| Site Help \| My Photography) PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

06-30-2015, 08:24 PM	#3
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam You can't use pixel shifting if anything's moving. Even if you want the water to blur in a waterfall shot or the sky and water to blur in a 10X ND shot? I'm trying to understand why it wouldn't work if it won't. Last edited by Qwntm; 06-30-2015 at 08:24 PM. Reason: typoes

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
How do you see the K-3ii vs K-5iis?	Conqueror	Pentax DSLR Discussion	11	01-27-2016 07:12 AM
Excited about K-3II?	Mikesul	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	13	06-16-2015 11:06 PM
New K-3ii	vict	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	8	05-22-2015 01:05 AM
Specs of K-3II	Daikokuya	Pentax News and Rumors	780	04-26-2015 06:05 AM
Korean 27" High Res Displays	Tom Woj	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	08-20-2012 07:43 AM

06-30-2015, 08:30 PM	#4
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	It's an interesting question. You can do it but results will be curious, and noise would improve with four exposures. Any shrubbery would look poor perhaps, but water itself on a fairly long exposure..? Someone is bound to try soon in any case

06-30-2015, 09:03 PM	#5
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856 Original Poster	Originally posted by jimr-pdx It's an interesting question. You can do it but results will be curious, and noise would improve with four exposures. Any shrubbery would look poor perhaps, but water itself on a fairly long exposure..? Someone is bound to try soon in any case As soon as I get a working K3II and a waterfall, I'll let you know... I don't see how a the high res mode could blur things any worse than a 10 second exposure could with a 10x ND filter. But I prefer actual results to thought experiments, and my brain hurts thinking about it.

07-01-2015, 12:02 AM	#6
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	You'd probably get pixel-grid patterns, due to the nature of the beast, and not (not only) a uniform blur, esp. at tge edges of the waterfall, where you might have a water spurt in one exposure and not in the others: hey presto! checkerboard effect... :-\

07-01-2015, 12:09 AM	#7
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by jimr-pdx Someone is bound to try soon in any case Let's hope so! We have so much falling water around here, it would be a nice feature. Steve

07-01-2015, 01:57 AM	#8
Unregistered User Guest	So you want silky smooth water with high detail?

07-01-2015, 05:11 AM	#9
Edgar_in_Indy Veteran Member Join Date: May 2010 Location: Indiana, USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,685	Originally posted by Tjompen1968 So you want silky smooth water with high detail? No, I think he wants high detail in the static parts of the scene. I also suspect that it will not work well in the water areas of the picture, based on the strange artifacts I have seen in other sample images where foliage has been moving in a breeze. Perhaps if somebody didn't mind spending some time post processing the scene, they could do a single, regular long exposure for the waterfall, and then do a pixel-shift image, and then copy the waterfall into the pixel-shifted image.

07-01-2015, 07:51 AM	#10
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tjompen1968 So you want silky smooth water with high detail? Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days? ---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ---------- Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter.... And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp.

07-01-2015, 10:24 AM	#11
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by Qwntm Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days? ---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ---------- Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter.... And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp. Yep, that is the use case and those sorts of subjects are common enough in this part of the world. BTW...really like the photo from Anthony Lakes... Steve

07-01-2015, 10:52 AM	#12
rrstuff Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2013 Location: Pasadena, CA Photos: Albums Posts: 1,126	This could work fine if you average a couple dozens of short, high-resolution, exposures.

07-01-2015, 02:29 PM	#13
Unregistered User Guest	Originally posted by Qwntm Really? I don't spend that much time around here, but is the general level of photographic knowledge assumed to be that low these days? ---------- Post added 07-01-15 at 08:56 AM ---------- Something like that for the 10 stop neutral density filter.... And like this for the moving water, with all the stuff that's not moving really really sharp. I was making a joke but I guess that did not quite get through so sorry for the confusion. Maybe a language barrier or cultural difference. My bad.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-01-2015, 05:42 PM	#14
Qwntm Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Eastern Oregon Posts: 856 Original Poster	Originally posted by Tjompen1968 I was making a joke but I guess that did not quite get through so sorry for the confusion. Maybe a language barrier or cultural difference. My bad. No worries. A smiley face would have helped understand the intent... I just took it as assumed lack of knowledge, which probably isn't too far from the truth usually.

07-01-2015, 06:34 PM	#15
AlexThorpe New Member Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: Michigan Posts: 19	From what I hear my dad just finished putting in a waterfall at his house in time for his annual 4th of july party, and I'm bringing my k3-ii and a tripod with me so I should be able to test this out. Don't think it's too large of a waterfall or a lot of moving water but could potentially be useful for purely scientific reasons.