[pinholecam]

I agree that they probably won't bother with MC.

At the same time I think MC is an over-hyped feature. All it does is detect areas in which the 4 images are misaligned. If users want to go through the trouble of using ACR to develop their PSR photos, they should have the time to create a new layer for the non-PS image and simply erase parts with artifacts.

Not really.
Some images are just too much work w/o MC.


Just came back from Bali where I did a lot of beach shots with slow shutter speeds and moving water on rocks.
It would be really hard to clean up manually using a layer.

The other troublesome on are scenes where there are many trees/leaves and those are moving.

[Gimbal]

It's 8 bits. Side-by-side the TIFF and JPEG look absolutely identical on my screen, even after I tried pushing the shadows.

The only benefit would thus be the lack of compression, which is negligible anyway. I'd rather have a 20Mb JPEG than a 100Mb TIFF

Note that unlike the 645Z, the K-1 cannot natively shoot 16-bit TIFF files, as only RAW and JPEG are selectable.

8bit
Ok, then I guess the tiffs are absolutely pointless.

[biz-engineer]

8bit Ok, then I guess the tiffs are absolutely pointless.

If so, then it's the same as Nikon D810.

[Zen4Life]

After reading the updated article on PS at dpreview, Adobe's response on PS was that there implementation was "final" implying they would not implement MC functionality. That said, I think Olympus's approach to this problem is better as they provided a LR plug-in to process there PS RAW files. That said, I think we should get the word out to Ricoh to develop such a plug-in!!

[Tan68]

The DCU allows pixel shifted files to be exported or saved as 16-bit TIF

I don't quite follow why the PS image can not be saved as a PEF.
Multi-exposure sets are 'flattened' to one raw image so why not the 4 raw files incorporated into the PS image. A regular raw image contains interpolated color infos and the PS raw has more accurate color infos. It should be possible to record the more accurate information and export as raw.

If this is possible, it might be a thing to add to DCU rather than in-camera conversion/flattening. If the camera allows only 8-bit TIF to be saved while DCU allows 16-bit TIF, there must be a reason. maybe

Anyway, 16-bit TIF is about as malleable as a raw file, I think.. I am not certain so would prefer to export as raw...

[biz-engineer]

Multi-exposure sets are 'flattened' to one raw image so why not the 4 raw files incorporated into the PS image. A regular raw image contains interpolated color infos and the PS raw has more accurate color infos. It should be possible to record the more accurate information and export as raw.

The reason why I asked myself this question is because it would simplify my workflow (I develop primarily on camera when traveling , so I save time, and then I only reprocess photos that need advanced correction), and a flattened raw would prevent issues such as the one in last week's article about pixel shift in DPReview, and would basically make Pentax independent from what third party software companies are doing. Ricoh have chosen to reply on proper implementations of third party software , they expose themselves to more criticism, Canon and Nikon are just waiting for every Pentax misfortune or weakness to start bashing the brand.

[Tan68]

... a flattened raw would ... basically make Pentax independent from what third party software companies are doing. ...

yes

too short? oh, yes.

[Gimbal]

I don't quite follow why the PS image can not be saved as a PEF.
Multi-exposure sets are 'flattened' to one raw image so why not the 4 raw files incorporated into the PS image. A regular raw image contains interpolated color infos and the PS raw has more accurate color infos. It should be possible to record the more accurate information and export as raw..

A regular raw, or a "flattened" multi-exposure raw still only contains one (14bit) value per pixel, for instance the value for red, the other two colors blue and green has to be estimated from the surrounding pixels by the raw converter.

That is where PS comes in and records all three (red, green and blue) values for every pixel, and thus it can't be "flatened" to a normal raw which only contains one value per pixel.

A normal tiff however does hold three values per pixel but comes in different sizes, three 8bit values per pixel or three 16 bit per pixel and since the camera records 3x14bit per pixel in PS mode they should use the 16bit version or data will be thrown away. Apparently the camera only produce 8 bit tiff while DCU can produce 16bit tiffs which are a lot more suitable for editing since it holds all the data originally captured by the camera.

[biz-engineer]

A regular raw, or a "flattened" multi-exposure raw still only contains one (14bit) value per pixel, for instance the value for red, the other two colors blue and green has to be estimated from the surrounding pixels by the raw converter.

Could be a 4 x 36Mpixels / 144Mpixels conventional RAW, downsized to 36Mpixel after interpolation, that's what's done anyway because every peripheral works according to three point RGB values, it's just the data representation that makes pixel shift interpolation not working with standard raw converters.

[Tan68]

... 16bit tiffs which are a lot more suitable for editing since it holds all the data originally captured by the camera.

So, a raw file is preferable for making.. strong adjustments because it has lots of image information. OK.

The 16-bit TIF should be just as suitable for lifting shadows or adjust WB or whichever.. because it has three channel infos at full bit depth..?

[Kunzite]

The reason why I asked myself this question is because it would simplify my workflow (I develop primarily on camera when traveling , so I save time, and then I only reprocess photos that need advanced correction), and a flattened raw would prevent issues such as the one in last week's article about pixel shift in DPReview, and would basically make Pentax independent from what third party software companies are doing. Ricoh have chosen to reply on proper implementations of third party software , they expose themselves to more criticism, Canon and Nikon are just waiting for every Pentax misfortune or weakness to start bashing the brand.

What would do is to prevent using newer RAW processors with improved PSR algorithms to get better results than possible with that specific camera firmware version.
And from salvaging the image by using one frame, when PSR fails badly (despite Motion Compensation).

Oh, and obviously, if they had done what you're suggesting, they would be heavily criticized because "RAW is no longer RAW".

[biz-engineer]

What would do is to prevent using newer RAW processors with improved PSR algorithms to get better results than possible with that specific camera firmware version. And from salvaging the image by using one frame, when PSR fails badly (despite Motion Compensation). Oh, and obviously, if they had done what you're suggesting, they would be heavily criticized because "RAW is no longer RAW".

Haven't seen your comments for a while. You could get a K1, it's a great camera, especially pixel shift resolution :-)

[SBeck]

My plan right now is to process pixel shifted raw with dcrawps and convert to 16bit tiff.

[Gimbal]

So, a raw file is preferable for making.. strong adjustments because it has lots of image information. OK.

The 16-bit TIF should be just as suitable for lifting shadows or adjust WB or whichever.. because it has three channel infos at full bit depth..?

Right, full color information in every pixel created by the PS function would fit nicely into the 16 bit tiff, but with the 8 bit version they now use it isn't much better then an 8 bit jpeg.

[Kunzite]

Haven't seen your comments for a while. You could get a K1, it's a great camera, especially pixel shift resolution :-)

Ordered for a while, awaiting delivery.