[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Nice shots, looks like you had fun with the K-3II.

[Zen4Life]

OOC Pixel Shift versus PDCU (note : actual images are sharper, this site compression causes lost detail and sharpness)

As you can see here, the PDCU version has more detail and sharpness (in the rock, moss, and top right rock). However, the OOC has a bit more punch which I could have duplicated in PDCU if I knew the tool a bit more. PDCU does a better job at artifact removal in the water. If I had to guesstimate, I would say the in-camera processing removed 85-90% of the water artifacts and PDCU 90-95%. These can be seen at 100% if you really look for them (checkerboarding the water).

The take-away here, is you can extract more detail, sharpness in PDCU versus the in-camera engine with minimal effort, I might add. The Fine Sharpening slider was set to half way point.

[Zen4Life]

PDCU vs RAW Developed in Lightroom (note : actual images are sharper, this site compression causes lost detail and sharpness)

This one is fairly close. The Lightroom version does an impressive job on the detail in the rock. The moss and top leaves look better on the PDCU version. Other areas in the PDCU version not seen here, seem more harshly sharpened. In those places, Lightroom's sharpening appears much more natural. Note that Lightroom does no movement artifact removal which is its major downfall at the moment. One thing I discovered is that you can max out the sharpening slider (150) as long as you set the radius to 3 (eliminates noise-like artifacts you would otherwise get). Also, adding a touch of clarity helped out quite a bit as well.

In summary, Pixel Shift is definately usable in the field. If you have movement in the scene, PDCU does the best job at eliminating it. If your a perfectionist, you may want to take a PS and non-PS shot and merge the 2 in Photoshop. Alternatively, you can take a single shot and in PDCU, set the Fine Sharpening to 0 and generate a TIFF then set the Fine Sharpening to 5 or more to get the level of pixel shifted sharpness you desire and generate a second TIFF. Then combine in photoshop. The benefit here is that you take a single PS shot. Keep in mind, Fine Sharpening of 0 means MINIMAL pixel shift effect, it will still be there but I am betting you would not notice it in print.

[carolina_sky]

The PDCU image here is impressive. I'm not very familiar with PDCU, and it seems a bit clunky and doesn't have all the good stuff that LR has, so I defaulted to LR but now that I see how much better the PDCU output is I'm going to have to go back and try that out again.

[Zen4Life]

The PDCU image here is impressive. I'm not very familiar with PDCU, and it seems a bit clunky and doesn't have all the good stuff that LR has, so I defaulted to LR but now that I see how much better the PDCU output is I'm going to have to go back and try that out again.

Yes. the PDCU output is very nice. I need to lookup a tutorial on it so I know it better. I am sure you can get some really nice output from it. In addition to the better movement correcting algorithm, you also get access to all the camera modes (Natural, Landscape, Bright, etc.). That said, it crashed on me a few times which was rather annoying. Let me know what you think of it.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

I'd try PDCU, but unfortunately I can't install it. I'll give it some time for other software manuf's to catch up with pixel shift and try those (so long as the maker is NOT adobe).

[Zen4Life]

Whay can't you? Is it because you downloaded it? If so, did you try the trick where you rename a memory card to "S-SW140" ? The downloaded install will then run like a new install.

[Auzzie-Phoenix]

Lol... no. It's as simple as that I run Win XP Pro x64, and neither 32, nor 64 bit installers will work as it's set up for vista/7/8/10. And after seeing all the current MS offerings, 7 pro 64-bit would be the most likely, but I'm probably going to pick another OS other than one by MS next time around.

[Oakland Rob]

I agreed with you about the Lr PS looking a bit better at regular zoom, but when I viewed the two a bit larger the PDCU looked better...might be a result of sharpness and my screen resolution (I'm on a 5k monitor). I'd have to say I do think this shows that the in-camera and PDCU processing does do some motion correction...or maybe it just smooths grid like artifacts that motion creates, which might be a slightly different process.

It's interesting that those grid artifacts seem to be more prominent on a lower resolution screen sometimes.

Be interesting to see how dcraw-PS might handle this. If you can't run PDCU it might be a good alternative; there are threads about it elsewhere here. I believe there's an exe for Windows; I compiled it for Mac.

[Zen4Life]

I am finding PDCU a bit harder to work with if I try and fully post-process an image compared to LR (I mess up the tonality). I find it much easier to just use PDCU to do the pixel shift combining via the FS slider. Also, I have been changing the image tone mode from my in-camera setting of Landscape (way too warm) to Natural. I then do all other adjustments in LR. It works pretty well. On my second test shot, my attempts in PDCU and LR are getting much closer. The biggest difference I find is that PDCU's pixel shift fine sharpening is a bit harsher and digital looking if pushed too far. If you push LR's pixel shift sharpening too far, you get what I would call a textured grain (noise) in some areas. The second shot I processed, I was able to crank up the LR sharpening to 150 with minimal grain but it brought out a great deal of detail. I will post some 100% crops of it. I am hopeful because it means I might be able to use LR for my entire workflow. Though I wish they took a page out of Fuji / Adobe (collaboration) book and included the Image Tone Modes in LR.

[Zen4Life]

Here are 100% crops of bark. This test is just to show the 3 different pixel shift processing (left to right : 1-In Camera, 2-PDCU to merge then finished up in Lightroom, 3-All Lightroom). I used settings in PDCU and LR that would minimize artefacts. In PDCU's case, using FS slider to stop before oversharpened. In Lightroom's case, with this image, it took max sharpening of 150 and looked acceptable to me. In fact, in this test, the Lightroom version shows the most detail. They are all pretty close though.

[microlight]

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Zen4life. Are you going to be buying a K-3II now?

Great pictures, carolina_sky - really inspiring. Just wish that we had the colours in the UK!

UserAccessDenied - I originally repaired artifact areas by exporting a PS photo to TIFF in-camera with PS turned off, giving me the PS and non-PS versions. In the latest DCU5 (5.4.2), there is a button in the laboratory screen for turning PS on/off that allows you to export the PS version, and also the non-PS version. Then, layering these in Photoshop with the PS version on top means that you can use the eraser tool to selectively remove the artifacts, revealing the non-PS version underneath for those areas. This is possibly what the K-1 will do automatically, and which I hope comes to the K-3II via firmware update.

carolina_sky: Yes, I noticed that DCU5 wouldn't save the PS picture if PS was turned off in the software. I did a few tests a couple of days ago, and what I found was that using PEF RAWs, it would save the non-PS version IF there was no other processing other than turning off PS. Changing anything else meant that it wouldn't save. Changing to DNGs made a difference, as it saved normally even after adding other alterations.

As a footnote; my workflow always starts with DCU5 as I've found that it gives the all-round best RAW conversion that also incorporates the in-camera settings. Then, it's PS (if necessary), exposure, colour balance and tilt-shift (again if necessary) before exporting to TIFF and finishing off in ACR/Photoshop or Faststone, depending on what I'm doing. Faststone to me has a better clone tool than Photoshop.

[Zen4Life]

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Zen4life. Are you going to be buying a K-3II now?

Great pictures, carolina_sky - really inspiring. Just wish that we had the colours in the UK!

UserAccessDenied - I originally repaired artifact areas by exporting a PS photo to TIFF in-camera with PS turned off, giving me the PS and non-PS versions. In the latest DCU5 (5.4.2), there is a button in the laboratory screen for turning PS on/off that allows you to export the PS version, and also the non-PS version. Then, layering these in Photoshop with the PS version on top means that you can use the eraser tool to selectively remove the artifacts, revealing the non-PS version underneath for those areas. This is possibly what the K-1 will do automatically, and which I hope comes to the K-3II via firmware update.

carolina_sky: Yes, I noticed that DCU5 wouldn't save the PS picture if PS was turned off in the software. I did a few tests a couple of days ago, and what I found was that using PEF RAWs, it would save the non-PS version IF there was no other processing other than turning off PS. Changing anything else meant that it wouldn't save. Changing to DNGs made a difference, as it saved normally even after adding other alterations.

As a footnote; my workflow always starts with DCU5 as I've found that it gives the all-round best RAW conversion that also incorporates the in-camera settings. Then, it's PS (if necessary), exposure, colour balance and tilt-shift (again if necessary) before exporting to TIFF and finishing off in ACR/Photoshop or Faststone, depending on what I'm doing. Faststone to me has a better clone tool than Photoshop.

Great tip on turning off PS then saving a copy for blending. I will try that out soon! And I agree that your workflow starting with PDCU then exporting to TIFF and work in LR/PS is probably best at this point. And a must if there is any motion,

As for buying a K-3 II, it is lacking one must have feature for me and this is an articulating screen! I have been spoiled shooting Fuji for the last couple of years and could not live without one. I think I am going to give serious consideration to the K-1 though lens cost and increased weight are big concerns for me. Another possibility is waiting for the next gen flagship Pentax APS-C and hoping it as a flippy screen. I am also gonna consider the upcoming Fuji X-T2 and maybe evaluate the next gen Olympus EM-1 (Mk 2) though I have my reservations on its smaller sensor. What prompted me to consider the Oly is a test at imaging resource. They compare the pixel shift mode in there latest Pen-F to not only the K3 II but also the Canon 5DS R. The results were rather surprising to me and would be interested in what you thought of that test.

Olympus PEN-F Review: Now Shooting! - High-Res Shot Mode

[Oakland Rob]

Thanks Zen4Life; good comparison. Can I assume you were working with RAWs/DNG with all the photos?

And microlight, the TIFF generated from a PS in-camera did NOT have the artifacts? I had just assumed it would, so I either went to the trouble of removing one of the PS frames (usually the first) with dcraw ps or took a separate non-PS shot.

I just hate PDCU; I have presets for lens, color and WB profiles in Lr and DxO so I much prefer working in those. I'm beginning to think of using PDCU more perhaps in the case of any photos with small artifacts that are hard to mask, like leaves rustling.

Have either of you tried other means of dealing with artifacts? In some of my photos I don't really want PS-level sharpness everywhere, so smoothing the artifacts to just a blur (which would happen with a regular photo in some cases anyway) would be acceptable. But some of the tools I've used in the past to defocus or selectively unsharpen just give me blurrier grid shapes. PDCU might use some sort of smoothing on those since it doesn't appear to just mask, although hard to tell.

And Zen4Life, I too like articulating screens. Once I used one on an Olympus E-M10 I sorta got hooked, especially since I am not as limber as I once was. But if you can pick up a Flucard it might actually be a BETTER choice. Why? a screen can only rotate so much. With your phone and a Flucard you can just stand there and shoot with the camera at your feet, or even several feet away on a tripod. I've sat in my vehicle and triggered it outside so critters would approach in my absence. And also good for macros with the camera in awkward placements, or when there is such strong light it's hard to see the screen. You can shield the phone from the sun more easily than the screen.

And, perhaps best of all, the Flucard/phone combo is a touchscreen, which I believe the K-1 won't have (although it will have a wifi app, so probably essentially the same as a Flucard). You touch the object of your photographic obsession, and bingo, the phone not only shows a pix-in-pix enlargement, but you also have focus peaking and the camera uses your touched spot as the focus point. Super great for macros, focus stacking, night shots, and just sitting inside out of the rain. And of course you've got a remote shutter release.

I got my card for <$50 and think it's a super addition to the camera. It gives me most of the capabilities of the wifi on the Oly, where I am apt to use the wifi more often than the articulating screen whenever I've got a tripod. I love both the Oly and the Pentax, and it's fun to use the M43 lenses on the Pentax. I prefer the Oly for lightweight hiking with say a long lens, but prefer the Pentax for everything else, especially any wide angle work, and anything in low light or night photos (mainly due to the VF). But the E-M10 has this composite mode that I wish Pentax had; a kind of live mode where it takes an image and then can sit and will add any pixel of increased light. Great for star trails and light painting; check it out. But then Pentax has Astrotracer...you really should have both. Sorry!

[carolina_sky]

Thanks Zen4Life; good comparison. Can I assume you were working with RAWs/DNG with all the photos?

I just hate PDCU; I have presets for lens, color and WB profiles in Lr and DxO so I much prefer working in those. I'm beginning to think of using PDCU more perhaps in the case of any photos with small artifacts that are hard to mask, like leaves rustling.

Same here. Have tried with PDCU and sorry to say its just kind of an awful UI, and certainly doesn't have all the ND filter tools that LR has (which I use often). It's also crashed on me quite a bit (maybe the Mac version is more buggy?). So most of the time I'm going to have to move the image over to LR or PS anyway.

Have either of you tried other means of dealing with artifacts? In some of my photos I don't really want PS-level sharpness everywhere, so smoothing the artifacts to just a blur (which would happen with a regular photo in some cases anyway) would be acceptable. But some of the tools I've used in the past to defocus or selectively unsharpen just give me blurrier grid shapes. PDCU might use some sort of smoothing on those since it doesn't appear to just mask, although hard to tell.

If the artifacts are limited to one area, I will pull in to photoshop and use the patch tool. Usually works pretty well with things like water and cloud and leaves which have similar repeating patterns anyway, so a little patching and smoothing and it's very hard to tell.

And Zen4Life, I too like articulating screens. Once I used one on an Olympus E-M10 I sorta got hooked, especially since I am not as limber as I once was. But if you can pick up a Flucard it might actually be a BETTER choice. Why? a screen can only rotate so much. With your phone and a Flucard you can just stand there and shoot with the camera at your feet, or even several feet away on a tripod. I've sat in my vehicle and triggered it outside so critters would approach in my absence. And also good for macros with the camera in awkward placements, or when there is such strong light it's hard to see the screen. You can shield the phone from the sun more easily than the screen.

And, perhaps best of all, the Flucard/phone combo is a touchscreen, which I believe the K-1 won't have (although it will have a wifi app, so probably essentially the same as a Flucard). You touch the object of your photographic obsession, and bingo, the phone not only shows a pix-in-pix enlargement, but you also have focus peaking and the camera uses your touched spot as the focus point. Super great for macros, focus stacking, night shots, and just sitting inside out of the rain. And of course you've got a remote shutter release.

I agree Rob, good for all those usages. I used flucard quite a bit initially, but that software too is pretty buggy and sometimes takes a while to connect (which is very nerve wracking when you're watching that crucial fleeting moment of light disappearing!). And I found myself not trusting it much of time. Just not fast or stable enough for me for anything time sensitive. So I rarely use it now unfortunately.

I got my card for <$50 and think it's a super addition to the camera. It gives me most of the capabilities of the wifi on the Oly, where I am apt to use the wifi more often than the articulating screen whenever I've got a tripod. I love both the Oly and the Pentax, and it's fun to use the M43 lenses on the Pentax. I prefer the Oly for lightweight hiking with say a long lens, but prefer the Pentax for everything else, especially any wide angle work, and anything in low light or night photos (mainly due to the VF). But the E-M10 has this composite mode that I wish Pentax had; a kind of live mode where it takes an image and then can sit and will add any pixel of increased light. Great for star trails and light painting; check it out. But then Pentax has Astrotracer...you really should have both. Sorry!

K1 is supposed to have a composite mode like that I believe. I am very much looking forward to trying that out!

---------- Post added 03-23-16 at 02:17 PM ----------

Thanks for the detailed feedback, Zen4life. Are you going to be buying a K-3II now?

Great pictures, carolina_sky - really inspiring. Just wish that we had the colours in the UK!

Thanks!! Much appreciated

UserAccessDenied - I originally repaired artifact areas by exporting a PS photo to TIFF in-camera with PS turned off, giving me the PS and non-PS versions. In the latest DCU5 (5.4.2), there is a button in the laboratory screen for turning PS on/off that allows you to export the PS version, and also the non-PS version. Then, layering these in Photoshop with the PS version on top means that you can use the eraser tool to selectively remove the artifacts, revealing the non-PS version underneath for those areas. This is possibly what the K-1 will do automatically, and which I hope comes to the K-3II via firmware update.

carolina_sky: Yes, I noticed that DCU5 wouldn't save the PS picture if PS was turned off in the software. I did a few tests a couple of days ago, and what I found was that using PEF RAWs, it would save the non-PS version IF there was no other processing other than turning off PS. Changing anything else meant that it wouldn't save. Changing to DNGs made a difference, as it saved normally even after adding other alterations.

As a footnote; my workflow always starts with DCU5 as I've found that it gives the all-round best RAW conversion that also incorporates the in-camera settings. Then, it's PS (if necessary), exposure, colour balance and tilt-shift (again if necessary) before exporting to TIFF and finishing off in ACR/Photoshop or Faststone, depending on what I'm doing. Faststone to me has a better clone tool than Photoshop.

Wow, you just made my hour of browsing PF totally worth it! I had already switched to DNGs, but was using some older files saved in PEF. Just tried this (reset all parameters and then turn off PS and save as) and it works like a charm. Great tips. thanks! I think I will start adopting a similar workflow, although a bit more of a pain I expect to be using PS enough with the K1 that it will be worth it! [fingers crossed ]