[Antonio Andrade]

Yes, if you are developing a RAW file you have to choose what setting you want. Otherwise just shoot jpeg.

Thank you

[Gimbal]

After other posts on another forum re Pixel Shift resolution images, I posted the following (finding that Adobe Camera RAw does a better job than Digital Camera Utility) in resolving my example OS image:
Pentax K-1 images - FM Forums

Interesting, that was quite a large difference.

[lenticular]

Just got my K-1. Here is test with my SMC 500mm f/4.5..shot of my fence and cropped heavily.
ISO 400, 1/500, f/11 on tripod 2 sec delay timer.

Top image normal, bottom mage Pixel Shift. Noticeable difference.
I am waiting for my SMC 28mm f/3.5 older manual focus lens. Can't wait to shoot with that lens in normal mode or Pixel Shift.

I think you will love the SMC 28 f3.5, based on my own very limited experience so far ( I have owned mine for about 2 weeks, but have only shot with it maybe 10 times).

Here's a shot taken at f11 with my SMC 28 f3.5 (no PS)

[Rondec]

Dawn and Flare (with DFA 24-70)



Dreary Morning.

[photoptimist]

Finally my K-1 arrived, and I of course had to do a test image with pixel shift.

And it works.
Developed in DCU, sharpness turned down all the way.
Crop 400% (yes, I like to pixel peep).

Thanks for doing this and posting it. It definitely shows the inferiority of Bayer filter sensors for high-resolution imaging and the power of pixel shift (for those applications that can handle it.)

Have you tried repeating this experiment at high ISO (with & without high ISO NR)? It might reveal whether Sony or Pentax are massaging the RAW data.

[Rondec]

Sunset.

[fs999]

FF Mode • 100 ISO • Soligor C/D Wide-Auto 20mm f:2.8 • Haida Slim PRO II MC ND3.6

[sas8888]

Southampton, Uk
K1 31 ltd PS

[Gimbal]

I’m going out on a limb here since my testing with PS has been limited, but here goes.

It seems to me as if there is a limited benefit of using PS on distant nature scenes. This is because as a viewer you can’t really tell if a green pixel on a tree in the distance is wrong. With PS you would perhaps get another green or even a slightly brown, but as it is shrubbery it is all ok.

When it comes to man-made things it’s a different story though. A house, a book or whatever should look in a certain way, there is order in the details and you can tell if something is wrong.

There are other benefits with PS beside details, but they are harder to see. Or am I wrong?

[Rondec]

I’m going out on a limb here since my testing with PS has been limited, but here goes.

It seems to me as if there is a limited benefit of using PS on distant nature scenes. This is because as a viewer you can’t really tell if a green pixel on a tree in the distance is wrong. With PS you would perhaps get another green or even a slightly brown, but as it is shrubbery it is all ok.

When it comes to man-made things it’s a different story though. A house, a book or whatever should look in a certain way, there is order in the details and you can tell if something is wrong.

There are other benefits with PS beside details, but they are harder to see. Or am I wrong?

The biggest thing to me is that it adds dynamic range to the image, allowing me to under expose a little more and then brighten the shadows without introducing noise. I think it does help color depth somewhat, as well.

You can get more dynamic range by shooting multiple exposures, but my experience is that if you aren't careful those images can end up looking fairly surreal, whereas the pixel-shift images have a lot smoother tonality and are less prone to halos.

I don't know that I see as much improvement in the distance of images, but most images I shoot have both foreground and background elements.

Cornfield (this is a pixel-shift shot with the DFA 24-70mm)

[sas8888]

I think that you are correct but PS also has the advantages of sharper images. Is there an advantage of using pixel shift for every photo? I don't think so but sometimes its hard to tell until you get back to your computer and check it out. The good news if you use PS and there is no advantage you can process the photo regularly. If you are planing to print larger prints then there is also an advantage of PS. For me also i am able to recover a little more of the dark's from PS as you just have a lot more information in the file to use. I will admit that I will take a non PS and a PS of the same setting and compare the two and it sometimes is almost impossible to tell the difference. The K1 produces fantastic photos without the PS and would still be happy from changing over from my canon system if the camera didn't do pixel shift.

[lenticular]

Trying out some pixel shifted shots yesterday at a nature reserve. I used Motion Compensation as the water was often a little disturbed, by rare platypus, or by wind.

As expected, attempts at processing using ACR did not give good results, with clear colour issues in areas of disturbed water. Digital camera utility did seem to cope well with most of the movement.

I output 16-bit AdobeRGB TIF files from DCU and imported them into Capture One Pro 9.2, with only minimal further processing, and then C1Pro's claimed improved re-sizing algorithm (inherent to any of its size-reduced output recipes) to produce the 1200w jpgs for Flickr upload.

This first one is using a P645 300/4 ED(IF) lens, with P645-PK adapter.




FA31 f1.8 Limited (next 4)







No PS in the last 3 images






FA77 f1.8 Limited

[Rondec]

Country Road.

[MJKoski]

Long exposure PS work without motion correction.



It should not work with moving things but if you expose long enough...

I also converted Zeiss 28/2 Distagon .ZF to Pentax K using Leitax kit. The operation was easy but took some time. Here is full res example what the output looks like @ f/8:
http://mjkoski.1g.fi/kuvat/Miscellaneous/trash/_IMG0797.jpg/_full.jpg

PS enters the world of moire. That 28/2 Zeiss outresolves 24-70 and 15-30 D-FA zooms by a clear margin (especially the 24-70) stopped down.

[MikePlunkett]

Long exposure PS work without motion correction.

That is magnificent!