K3 II Pixel Shift Landscape Shot

Smoke665 · 08-24-2016, 05:59 PM - **3 Likes**

Trying out Pixel Shift today.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

Adam · 08-24-2016, 06:02 PM

Not sure I'd use it for running water, but very nice shot!

C_Jones · 08-24-2016, 06:40 PM

Nice shot.

jimr-pdx · 08-24-2016, 08:20 PM

I had figured to use multi-composite for such shots - but this is promising. Thanks for sharing your success story!

yusuf · 08-25-2016, 01:28 AM

nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes.

Stagnant · 08-25-2016, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by yusuf

nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes.

I posted some pixelshifted landscape shots in this thread

Smoke665 · 08-25-2016, 09:22 AM

Originally posted by yusuf

nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes.

I need to reprocess this shot. LR and PS don't seem to handle pixel shift well. The latest update seems to have cleared up some of saturation problems but it's still not the same as an image processed through UT5 first.

---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 09:26 AM ----------

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

I had figured to use multi-composite for such shots - but this is promising. Thanks for sharing your success story!

As long as you limit the movement to those elements that you intended on being blurred I think pixel shift could be a viable alternative to HDR

MikeD · 08-25-2016, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Adam

Not sure I'd use it for running water, but very nice shot!

running water seemed to come out fine. Am I missing something?

jimr-pdx · 08-25-2016, 12:16 PM

How long were the 4 exposures? Enough blur could even make for impressionist trees, I suppose.

Smoke665 · 08-25-2016, 02:30 PM

Reprocessed image. The first is the image. 2nd is a snip from the center at 100%, 3rd is the same snip at 300%

---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 02:54 PM ----------

Originally posted by MikeD

running water seemed to come out fine. Am I missing something?

Pixel shift takes four separate exposures each shifted one pixel, so any movement can cause problems.

---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 03:15 PM ----------

Originally posted by jimr-pdx

How long were the 4 exposures? Enough blur could even make for impressionist trees, I suppose.

Shutter was set at 1/3, with pixel shift enabled that would be 4 times 1/3. Shooting in Raw only gives me a special raw file with the 4 images included and a file size roughly 4 times larger than a standard raw file. This same shot (non pixel shift enabled) was running around 35 MB, with pixel shift enabled the file size was 116 MB.

Maybe some others that have been using pixel shift can chime in here, but I've had some serious issues with LR and PS processing pixel shift raw files. After the last update, some of the earlier problems were resolved, but it still seems like LR and PS can't handle highly saturated colors, or shadows. My work around has been to go to Pentax UT5 to process and save as a TIFF then do other editing.

Adam · 08-28-2016, 12:18 PM

Originally posted by Smoke665

Reprocessed image. The first is the image. 2nd is a snip from the center at 100%, 3rd is the same snip at 300%

---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 02:54 PM ----------

Pixel shift takes four separate exposures each shifted one pixel, so any movement can cause problems.

---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 03:15 PM ----------

Shutter was set at 1/3, with pixel shift enabled that would be 4 times 1/3. Shooting in Raw only gives me a special raw file with the 4 images included and a file size roughly 4 times larger than a standard raw file. This same shot (non pixel shift enabled) was running around 35 MB, with pixel shift enabled the file size was 116 MB.

Maybe some others that have been using pixel shift can chime in here, but I've had some serious issues with LR and PS processing pixel shift raw files. After the last update, some of the earlier problems were resolved, but it still seems like LR and PS can't handle highly saturated colors, or shadows. My work around has been to go to Pentax UT5 to process and save as a TIFF then do other editing.

Yup, the artifacts are visible in that full size crop. Notice the zipper patterns around the edges, the center patter near the left edge, and the false color in the water.

In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts.

If you open the file in the pentax software (latest version), you should be able to turn pixel shift off in the RAW file, then output a standard frame. This can also be done with open source raw converters.

Smoke665 · 08-29-2016, 05:07 AM

Originally posted by Adam

Yup, the artifacts are visible in that full size crop. Notice the zipper patterns around the edges, the center patter near the left edge, and the false color in the water.

In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts.

If you open the file in the pentax software (latest version), you should be able to turn pixel shift off in the RAW file, then output a standard frame. This can also be done with open source raw converters.

On scenes where you have sporadic, uncontrolled movement I would agree that pixel shift is not usable. However the purpose of this shot was to see how it would work when the movement was controlled and the intent was to have the movement blurred. I have other shots of this "non pixel shift" and frankly the detail and color in this are superior, especially in the shadows. I found the excersise encouraging enough to experiment more.

I wasn't aware of the option to turn it off in UT5. Since the file is comprised of data of 4 separate images, if you turn off pixel shift, what does it export? If it only keeps one of the images, then this is the same thing LR/PS does.

Adam · 08-29-2016, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Smoke665

On scenes where you have sporadic, uncontrolled movement I would agree that pixel shift is not usable. However the purpose of this shot was to see how it would work when the movement was controlled and the intent was to have the movement blurred. I have other shots of this "non pixel shift" and frankly the detail and color in this are superior, especially in the shadows. I found the excersise encouraging enough to experiment more.

I wasn't aware of the option to turn it off in UT5. Since the file is comprised of data of 4 separate images, if you turn off pixel shift, what does it export? If it only keeps one of the images, then this is the same thing LR/PS does.

It'll export the first frame only. The latest versions of LR/PS do look at all 4 images when exporting from a raw file, but you can use the sharpness slider to control the degree of this AFAIK.

Smoke665 · 08-29-2016, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Adam

It'll export the first frame only. The latest versions of LR/PS do look at all 4 images when exporting from a raw file, but you can use the sharpness slider to control the degree of this AFAIK.

As of version 9.5.1 there was a known bug in ACR in passing color control in a DNG through for Pixel Shift, among other issues, this per Adobe. I'm on version 9.6 which has addressed some of the previous issues, but not all. Adjustments in LR/PS still come at the cost of loss of detail and color.

carolina_sky · 08-29-2016, 12:05 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by Adam

In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts.

This has not been my experience. I find PixelShift now works quite well for images with small amounts of movement. If you are doing LE, most of the water will be blurred smooth anyway so the differences between 1 image and the next in a PS shot will be very small and DCU seems to be reasonably good at removing those artifacts. Even moving leaves it seems to handle fairly well (though not perfectly).

Here's an image from Oneonta Gorge which I thought would stretch PS processing to its breaking point given the combination of moving water and foliage that is definitely not still (the waterfall here generates a fair bit of wind push down the gorge). This was processed in DCU just to push a TIFF with PS(MC) turned on to work with in LR, I did turn on some of the lens corrections in DCU but otherwise no changes in DCU. Plenty of tweaking (esp bringing up shadows) in LR after (I probably overdid some vibrancy though colors in the gorge are pretty rich anyway). I have peeped all over this to try to find artifacts. Someone else may be able to find some but if so they aren't very noticeable (IMO). There is still plenty of pixel shift value-add even after MC does its work. I did have issues with artifacts still in foliage with some other waterfall shots I tried and still had to to put in some manual effort to go clone those out. Seems particularly stressed by high contrast (leaves moving against a brighter sky). But I would say for the most part DCU deals with movement in waterfall scenes quite well (much better than I expected).

Taken with a K-1, not a K-3ii, but I don't think that should make any difference to the pixel shift processing now.

08-24-2016, 06:02 PM	#2
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Not sure I'd use it for running water, but very nice shot! 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:

08-28-2016, 12:18 PM	#11
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by Smoke665 Reprocessed image. The first is the image. 2nd is a snip from the center at 100%, 3rd is the same snip at 300% ---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 02:54 PM ---------- Pixel shift takes four separate exposures each shifted one pixel, so any movement can cause problems. ---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 03:15 PM ---------- Shutter was set at 1/3, with pixel shift enabled that would be 4 times 1/3. Shooting in Raw only gives me a special raw file with the 4 images included and a file size roughly 4 times larger than a standard raw file. This same shot (non pixel shift enabled) was running around 35 MB, with pixel shift enabled the file size was 116 MB. Maybe some others that have been using pixel shift can chime in here, but I've had some serious issues with LR and PS processing pixel shift raw files. After the last update, some of the earlier problems were resolved, but it still seems like LR and PS can't handle highly saturated colors, or shadows. My work around has been to go to Pentax UT5 to process and save as a TIFF then do other editing. Yup, the artifacts are visible in that full size crop. Notice the zipper patterns around the edges, the center patter near the left edge, and the false color in the water. In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts. If you open the file in the pentax software (latest version), you should be able to turn pixel shift off in the RAW file, then output a standard frame. This can also be done with open source raw converters. 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:

08-29-2016, 09:44 AM	#13
Adam Administrator Site Webmaster Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Arizona Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 51,595	Originally posted by Smoke665 On scenes where you have sporadic, uncontrolled movement I would agree that pixel shift is not usable. However the purpose of this shot was to see how it would work when the movement was controlled and the intent was to have the movement blurred. I have other shots of this "non pixel shift" and frankly the detail and color in this are superior, especially in the shadows. I found the excersise encouraging enough to experiment more. I wasn't aware of the option to turn it off in UT5. Since the file is comprised of data of 4 separate images, if you turn off pixel shift, what does it export? If it only keeps one of the images, then this is the same thing LR/PS does. It'll export the first frame only. The latest versions of LR/PS do look at all 4 images when exporting from a raw file, but you can use the sharpness slider to control the degree of this AFAIK. 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:

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
pixel shift on K3 II TEST v canon 6D - PRINT	marmaduke	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	214	11-30-2015 12:41 PM
GT1544T, GT2541, Which tripod should I buy to match the K3 II pixel shift	mmhhdmj	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	18	11-22-2015 06:40 PM
Testing K3 II pixel shift with dcraw	tduell	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	5	08-31-2015 10:59 PM
K-3 II Pixel shift for Macro?	Omestes	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	6	06-12-2015 08:13 PM
K3 II pixel-shift samples on IR. I'm impressed	jonby	Pentax K-3 & K-3 II	42	06-02-2015 12:28 AM

08-24-2016, 06:40 PM	#3
C_Jones Pentaxian Join Date: Sep 2012 Location: NY Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 6,088	Nice shot.

08-24-2016, 08:20 PM	#4
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	I had figured to use multi-composite for such shots - but this is promising. Thanks for sharing your success story!

08-25-2016, 01:28 AM	#5
yusuf Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2008 Location: Palo Alto, CA Photos: Gallery Posts: 2,497	nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes.

08-25-2016, 03:02 AM	#6
Stagnant Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 603	Originally posted by yusuf nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes. I posted some pixelshifted landscape shots in this thread

08-25-2016, 09:22 AM	#7
Smoke665 Senior Member Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 249 Original Poster	Originally posted by yusuf nice shot. by any chance possible to see larger version and some 100% crop, curious about pixelshift in landscape scenes. I need to reprocess this shot. LR and PS don't seem to handle pixel shift well. The latest update seems to have cleared up some of saturation problems but it's still not the same as an image processed through UT5 first. ---------- Post added 08-25-16 at 09:26 AM ---------- Originally posted by jimr-pdx I had figured to use multi-composite for such shots - but this is promising. Thanks for sharing your success story! As long as you limit the movement to those elements that you intended on being blurred I think pixel shift could be a viable alternative to HDR

08-25-2016, 12:12 PM	#8
MikeD Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: traverse city MI Posts: 346	Originally posted by Adam Not sure I'd use it for running water, but very nice shot! running water seemed to come out fine. Am I missing something?

08-25-2016, 12:16 PM	#9
jimr-pdx Pentaxian Join Date: May 2010 Location: now 1 hour north of PDX Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 3,897	How long were the 4 exposures? Enough blur could even make for impressionist trees, I suppose.

08-29-2016, 05:07 AM	#12
Smoke665 Senior Member Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 249 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam Yup, the artifacts are visible in that full size crop. Notice the zipper patterns around the edges, the center patter near the left edge, and the false color in the water. In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts. If you open the file in the pentax software (latest version), you should be able to turn pixel shift off in the RAW file, then output a standard frame. This can also be done with open source raw converters. On scenes where you have sporadic, uncontrolled movement I would agree that pixel shift is not usable. However the purpose of this shot was to see how it would work when the movement was controlled and the intent was to have the movement blurred. I have other shots of this "non pixel shift" and frankly the detail and color in this are superior, especially in the shadows. I found the excersise encouraging enough to experiment more. I wasn't aware of the option to turn it off in UT5. Since the file is comprised of data of 4 separate images, if you turn off pixel shift, what does it export? If it only keeps one of the images, then this is the same thing LR/PS does.

08-29-2016, 11:35 AM	#14
Smoke665 Senior Member Join Date: May 2016 Posts: 249 Original Poster	Originally posted by Adam It'll export the first frame only. The latest versions of LR/PS do look at all 4 images when exporting from a raw file, but you can use the sharpness slider to control the degree of this AFAIK. As of version 9.5.1 there was a known bug in ACR in passing color control in a DNG through for Pixel Shift, among other issues, this per Adobe. I'm on version 9.6 which has addressed some of the previous issues, but not all. Adjustments in LR/PS still come at the cost of loss of detail and color.

08-29-2016, 12:05 PM - 1 Like	#15
carolina_sky Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2013 Photos: Gallery Posts: 156	Originally posted by Adam In this case I'd say the slow shutter speed and camera vibrations possibly introduced additional artifacts, but generally-speaking pixel shift should not be used when you have moving objects in your scene, as it carries no benefit and will inevitably introduce artifacts. This has not been my experience. I find PixelShift now works quite well for images with small amounts of movement. If you are doing LE, most of the water will be blurred smooth anyway so the differences between 1 image and the next in a PS shot will be very small and DCU seems to be reasonably good at removing those artifacts. Even moving leaves it seems to handle fairly well (though not perfectly). Here's an image from Oneonta Gorge which I thought would stretch PS processing to its breaking point given the combination of moving water and foliage that is definitely not still (the waterfall here generates a fair bit of wind push down the gorge). This was processed in DCU just to push a TIFF with PS(MC) turned on to work with in LR, I did turn on some of the lens corrections in DCU but otherwise no changes in DCU. Plenty of tweaking (esp bringing up shadows) in LR after (I probably overdid some vibrancy though colors in the gorge are pretty rich anyway). I have peeped all over this to try to find artifacts. Someone else may be able to find some but if so they aren't very noticeable (IMO). There is still plenty of pixel shift value-add even after MC does its work. I did have issues with artifacts still in foliage with some other waterfall shots I tried and still had to to put in some manual effort to go clone those out. Seems particularly stressed by high contrast (leaves moving against a brighter sky). But I would say for the most part DCU deals with movement in waterfall scenes quite well (much better than I expected). Taken with a K-1, not a K-3ii, but I don't think that should make any difference to the pixel shift processing now.