Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
03-13-2016, 04:09 PM   #16
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 148
QuoteOriginally posted by Gimbal Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
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.

03-14-2016, 12:42 PM   #17
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
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.
03-14-2016, 01:12 PM   #18
Forum Member
radeon7750's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Romania
Posts: 89
You promised some full size samples...
03-14-2016, 01:21 PM   #19
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
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.

03-14-2016, 02:45 PM   #20
Site Supporter




Join Date: Nov 2013
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 148
QuoteQuote:
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.
03-14-2016, 05:33 PM   #21
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
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.
03-14-2016, 05:40 PM   #22
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,124
I really can't wait to see what the K1 will do now.
03-15-2016, 07:37 AM   #23
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by carolina_sky Quote
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 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
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.

03-15-2016, 08:25 AM   #24
Emperor and Senpai
VoiceOfReason's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Nashville, IN
Posts: 5,124
QuoteOriginally posted by Zen4Life Quote
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.
03-15-2016, 09:15 AM   #25
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
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.
03-16-2016, 09:07 AM   #26
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
QuoteOriginally posted by Zen4Life Quote
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.
03-16-2016, 11:26 AM   #27
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Oakland Rob Quote
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.
03-17-2016, 08:27 AM   #28
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 488
QuoteOriginally posted by Zen4Life Quote
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.
03-18-2016, 11:12 AM   #29
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
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 :
Attached Images
 

Last edited by Zen4Life; 03-18-2016 at 11:51 AM.
03-18-2016, 12:10 PM - 1 Like   #30
Forum Member




Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 63
Original Poster
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.
Attached Images
 
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
artifacts, cloud, couple, dcraw, dslr, firmware, focus, frame, k-3, k-3 ii, k-3ii, k3, landscape, movement, pentax k-3, pixel, pixel shift, post, ps, shift, shots, test, test out pixel, thanks, weekend, weekend to test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Questions re: K-3 II pixel shift and Astrotracer gazelle01 Pentax K-3 102 03-06-2017 06:23 PM
K-3 ii Pixel shift for slide/negative copying? Clarkey Pentax K-3 9 01-23-2016 09:16 AM
K-3 ii Pixel shift of stars / night sky Conqueror Pentax DSLR Discussion 33 07-10-2015 03:16 PM
K-3 II Pixel shift for Macro? Omestes Pentax K-3 6 06-12-2015 08:13 PM
K-3 II pixel shift resized. Wow factor. JimmyDranox Pentax K-3 21 04-25-2015 09:37 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:02 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top