[carolina_sky]

That "Dead or Alive" photo. Wow! Pixel shift or not, that was one cool picture.

Thanks! I really appreciate that.

---------- Post added 03-13-16 at 07:15 PM ----------

I put one here just today: https://flic.kr/p/F53MhW

I use the PS variant of dcraw to pull apart the frames, and you can also use it with a threshold for detected motion to mask out the movement by using the part from the first frame. See this post: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/172-pentax-k-3/311865-pixel-shift-finicky-3.html

Thanks, I hadn't seen that thread, very useful. Will have to download PS dcraw and give it a try. The advice to always shoot one without PS is right on. I think I'll just give up trying to shoot PS for now with any LE shots.

[Zen4Life]

A few observations over the weekend testing PS on waterfall landscapes with the 15 Limited :

• The in-camera PS JPG completely eliminates all water movement artifacts. This was a pleasant surprise. You can also convert a RAW PS image in-camera and output to a TIFF and do your post processing on that.
• I could match or better the sharpening versus the in-camera generated JPG/TIFF by importing the PS RAW to the latest version of Lightroom and a sharpening amount of 100 with clarity adjusted to taste. There is probably some optimal settings that could be used in Lightroom for this.
• While Lightroom supports the merging of the 4 embedded RAWs, they DO NOT auto-correct any movement artifacts. It would be nice if Pentax worked with Adobe on "sharing" there movement artifact correction algorithms, we all know this will not happen.
• Improvement in detail, clarity, and sharpness can be seen in PS images inspected at 100% compared to the same non-PS image.
• Shooting landscapes without a tilt screen just sucks.
• I used the 15 Limited lens and have a feeling that PS would benefit more from using a sharper lens. Like the HD DA 21mm Limited or even the Sigma 17-50. And probably amazing with the Sigma 35mm, Pentax DA 50mm, and any of the macro lenses.
• The PS feature would definitely be a benefit for larger print sizes.

Bottom line, I would use the PS feature in most Landscape applications unless very windy. And if it was windy, I would shoot a RAW PS and convert to TIFF to see how Pentax's movement correction handled it.

[radeon7750]

You promised some full size samples...

[Zen4Life]

Ha, yes I did. That said, seeing as you can only see the difference at 100%, posting 100% crops would be a better option. I will work on that this week.

[carolina_sky]

I used the 15 Limited lens and have a feeling that PS would benefit more from using a sharper lens. Like the HD DA 21mm Limited or even the Sigma 17-50. And probably amazing with the Sigma 35mm, Pentax DA 50mm, and any of the macro lenses.

Bottom line, I would use the PS feature in most Landscape applications unless very windy. And if it was windy, I would shoot a RAW PS and convert to TIFF to see how Pentax's movement correction handled it.

I will have to go back and check the JPEGs from the second SD card. Unfortunately during my recent NYC trip I forgot to put the 2nd card back in.

Can highly recommend the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art and Pixel Shift. Use Live View for focus (otherwise the Sigma has weird focus issues) and the detail is exceptional.

[Oakland Rob]

While I have also noticed that the K-3II itself will "correct" for motion in PS images, I'm not at all sure it does so without sacrificing PS resolution throughout the image. In other words, I think it just detects movement, and then uses the non-PS first image, perhaps (probably?) in its entirety. So you end up with a usable photo, but not one that's any better than a regular shot.

But I couldn't really tell on the images I've shot heretofore, so this remains just a supposition based on what I've seen in my photos so far.

[VoiceOfReason]

I really can't wait to see what the K1 will do now.

[Zen4Life]

I will have to go back and check the JPEGs from the second SD card. Unfortunately during my recent NYC trip I forgot to put the 2nd card back in.

Can highly recommend the Sigma 18-35 F1.8 Art and Pixel Shift. Use Live View for focus (otherwise the Sigma has weird focus issues) and the detail is exceptional.

That appears to be a super sharp lens, is it compatible with full frame (K-1) ?

---------- Post added 03-15-16 at 10:40 AM ----------

While I have also noticed that the K-3II itself will "correct" for motion in PS images, I'm not at all sure it does so without sacrificing PS resolution throughout the image. In other words, I think it just detects movement, and then uses the non-PS first image, perhaps (probably?) in its entirety. So you end up with a usable photo, but not one that's any better than a regular shot.

But I couldn't really tell on the images I've shot heretofore, so this remains just a supposition based on what I've seen in my photos so far.

I should be able to tell with the set of photos I took because I took both PS and non-PS with the exact same settings. I will compare them and post the results.

[VoiceOfReason]

That appears to be a super sharp lens, is it compatible with full frame (K-1)

I have it and it is not FF compatible. It is a great lens though.

[Zen4Life]

While I have also noticed that the K-3II itself will "correct" for motion in PS images, I'm not at all sure it does so without sacrificing PS resolution throughout the image. In other words, I think it just detects movement, and then uses the non-PS first image, perhaps (probably?) in its entirety. So you end up with a usable photo, but not one that's any better than a regular shot.

But I couldn't really tell on the images I've shot heretofore, so this remains just a supposition based on what I've seen in my photos so far.

I think I found the answer to your question by reading :

Pentax K-3 II Review - Processing Pixel Shifted RAWs | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The water in the foreground is slightly moving. The PS OOC reduced some of the artifacting but you still see what I am calling "screen" artifacts shown as gridlike patterns in the water. What is interesting is that if you develop the DNG using PDCU, it has better algorithms and completely eliminates all the artifacts. However, it leaves the water smoother with less detail but at least artifact free. Lightroom's processing does no artifact removal so it is the worst in that regard.

To answer your question though, if you look at the static objects (rocks and buildings) and compare to the same non-PS shot you see the extra detail in all the PS versions. Therefore, the algorithms are only targeting the movement areas of the image and leaving the extra resolution in the static areas. Great news, IMO.

Finally, in comparing sharpness and detail, PDCU wins the 3-way shootout. Lighroom version gets second place but if you look closely it has more to do with the addition of some slight noise. At least, that is what I see. The OOC JPG comes in third for sharpness and detail.

[Oakland Rob]

I think I found the answer to your question by reading :

Pentax K-3 II Review - Processing Pixel Shifted RAWs | PentaxForums.com Reviews

The water in the foreground is slightly moving. The PS OOC reduced some of the artifacting but you still see what I am calling "screen" artifacts shown as gridlike patterns in the water. What is interesting is that if you develop the DNG using PDCU, it has better algorithms and completely eliminates all the artifacts. However, it leaves the water smoother with less detail but at least artifact free. Lightroom's processing does no artifact removal so it is the worst in that regard.

To answer your question though, if you look at the static objects (rocks and buildings) and compare to the same non-PS shot you see the extra detail in all the PS versions. Therefore, the algorithms are only targeting the movement areas of the image and leaving the extra resolution in the static areas. Great news, IMO.

Finally, in comparing sharpness and detail, PDCU wins the 3-way shootout. Lighroom version gets second place but if you look closely it has more to do with the addition of some slight noise. At least, that is what I see. The OOC JPG comes in third for sharpness and detail.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but if you look at the slider image at the bottom you can see that the DCU version does eliminate the screen artifacts (good description). But it also has far less detail in other areas, which is one of the reasons some of this the algorithm is simply "when you detect artifacts over X threshold use first frame only." I.e., it doesn't eliminate motion artifacts without chucking the whole high res baby out with the artifact bath water.

[Zen4Life]

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you're saying, but if you look at the slider image at the bottom you can see that the DCU version does eliminate the screen artifacts (good description). But it also has far less detail in other areas, which is one of the reasons some of this the algorithm is simply "when you detect artifacts over X threshold use first frame only." I.e., it doesn't eliminate motion artifacts without chucking the whole high res baby out with the artifact bath water.

Thank you, I had missed that. I took a look at the large images and re-compared. What is very interesting, is that if you look at the building in the background, the PDCU images are sharper and contain more detail versus the Lightroom version. Definate pixel shifting effect as it shows improvement over the non-PS version. However, like you pointed out, the foreground rocks are much LESS sharp than the Lightroom version.

Couple possible explanations. One, the focus point or aperture was different between shots. I am going to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt here, and say this is probably unlikely as they would know it would screw up the test. My other thought was that maybe PDCU is applying diffraction correction. So I researched that and Diffraction Correction was not introduced until 5.4.2. There test used 5.4.1. So, that squashes that idea.

With all that said, I spent a couple hours working on a PS image I took over the weekend. What I found is that the movement correcting algorithm ONLY corrected artifacts in the moving water. No other areas were touched. I will post some image crops, at the latest, by the weekend. I am using the newer PDCU (5.4.2) though I see no mention of PS related enhancements/bug fixes.

[Oakland Rob]

Thank you, I had missed that. I took a look at the large images and re-compared. What is very interesting, is that if you look at the building in the background, the PDCU images are sharper and contain more detail versus the Lightroom version. Definate pixel shifting effect as it shows improvement over the non-PS version. However, like you pointed out, the foreground rocks are much LESS sharp than the Lightroom version.

Couple possible explanations. One, the focus point or aperture was different between shots. I am going to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt here, and say this is probably unlikely as they would know it would screw up the test. My other thought was that maybe PDCU is applying diffraction correction. So I researched that and Diffraction Correction was not introduced until 5.4.2. There test used 5.4.1. So, that squashes that idea.

With all that said, I spent a couple hours working on a PS image I took over the weekend. What I found is that the movement correcting algorithm ONLY corrected artifacts in the moving water. No other areas were touched. I will post some image crops, at the latest, by the weekend. I am using the newer PDCU (5.4.2) though I see no mention of PS related enhancements/bug fixes.

I think I see other differences in the samples in non movement areas, but some could be down to other variables, like sharpening. And maybe because of the light it the PS samples don't seem that much better than the non-PS. But IIRC it was comparing a non PS OOC JPEG to PS RAWs, so maybe not a fair test. I'd like to see something non-subjective, at least as far as possible. I tried some water shots and was unconvinced that the static areas were sharper than non-PS shots of the same area.

[Zen4Life]

Ok. I am ready to start posting the sample image and crops that I have been working on. Firstly. I am going to post the JPEG Pixel Shift version. The subsequent crops will be focusing on the large rock in the background. All shots were on a tripod with the 15mm LTD at F11 w/ the K3 II. Here is the full shot just for reference :

[Zen4Life]

OOC non-Pixel Shift versus OOC Pixel Shift (note : actual images are sharper, this site compression causes lost detail)

As you can see here, the PS version is sharper with more detail. Also, note the in-camera artifact correction in the water (will see artifacts in later RAW version). Finally, there is no indication artifact correction is causing any lost detail in static area of the scene.