[photoptimist]

I don't understand this. If the sensor out resolves the lens in a single shot (lens is soft), how is Pixel Shift going to add more detail? I've read that PS is useless past a certain aperture due to diffraction. This seems to contradict that? Either way it's a fascinating subject.
Thanks,
barondla

Diffraction or a soft lens limits the RAW image but can be conquered in post.

There are various clever mathematical ways to sharpen a soft image to undo the effects of diffraction or a soft lens. They involve analyzing and amplifying either the pixel-to-pixel value differences or the high-frequency components of the Fourier transform of the image. However, they also amplify noise in proportion to how much softness they try to undo. Overall, there's a strong trade-off between the sharpness of the image in the resolution sense and the smoothness of the image in the noise sense.

The key to success for these measurements is having lots of clean, high-resolution data which is what pixel shift provides.

Sharpening a Bayer filter image is really really hard to do because 75% of the pixel locations are missing data on red and blue channels and 50% of the pixel locations are missing data on the green channels. That is, most of the pixels are interpolated. Pixel shift fills in the gaps with more measurements and measures every green pixel twice which further reduces noise.

[fs999]

I'm not criticizing you, just sharing my experience with pixel shift.

Thank you ! Will further investigate...

[normhead]

I don't understand this. If the sensor out resolves the lens in a single shot (lens is soft), how is Pixel Shift going to add more detail? I've read that PS is useless past a certain aperture due to diffraction. This seems to contradict that? Either way it's a fascinating subject.
Thanks,
barondla

I have three lenses where the lens is out resolved bu the sensor. The FA 28-200 for which I paid $100, the FA-J 15-30, for which I paid $100. MY FA 35-80 for which I paid $75. Unless you are using really cheap glass, this own't be an issue.

Even my old SMC 35 ƒ3.5 Super-tak holds up nicely.

[Rondec]

Sunset on the Staunton River (DFA 15-30mm/pixel shift)

[BruceBanner]

The atmosphere between the sensor and the subject must also be as still as possible. Pixel shift shots in a normal Death Valley afternoon will not work.

Yeh, or light moving. I shot this spider here in pixelshift mode;



There were nicer shots than this where some of the spider had some nice flattering direct sunlight on parts of its body and other areas not. But the evening sun was behind clouds/tree, and the wind of the trees kept moving the branches and flickering the sunlight on its body, so even though the spider was utterly still the pixelshift shot of those takes I took were ruined due to changing light patterns.

I attempted hand-held pixel shift shots when I first got the K-3II, but rapidly found that I wasn’t able to hold the camera still enough, so there was no benefit. So tripod it is now, no centre column extension and 2-second delay, which also flips the mirror up.

My DOF app compensates for diffraction, and shows that typically, f10/f11 is the smallest aperture usable for APS-c before diffraction effects kick in.

Yeah, pretty much the same, f8 for FF, f11 for crop.

No. PaintShop Pro opens first shot. I asked them. They said the raw module doesn't know there are more than one photo inside the dng.

If you look at the top right, the profile is "PS ISO High". I don't know what it does actually, but the result is more defined than opening one shot. If I use "PS No Motion" the photo is blurry.
Even the resized jpeg is bigger than the non PS photos shot that day. So for me it's worth using it.

That's right, my bad. I forgot that fact, it's the same with LR and opening a Pentax HDR shot (not bracketing mode but actual RAW HDR shot, Auto, 1, 2 or 3 etc). LR doesn't know what to do with the 3 frame shot so can only display the 1st frame. This is a mode I would like to see support for like Pixelshift so we can better correct motion with HDR and just generally have a really nice single file with huge dynamic range to play with.

Motion Correction was intended for stuff that's moving in frame when the camera is tripodded, such as wind moving foliage or water, but in this case it may have worked in your favour and done more for you when handholding. You've certainly piqued my interest with the idea of taking handheld ones and just how successful can it be, but the 'science' of the tech process suggests what you're doing will be worse than just taking a single frame, with a single frame you will have zero artefacts to deal with etc. Your example above whilst promising is still not conclusive due to the points Rondec lists off. We could also do with a single non Pixelshift shot as some kind of baseline to appreciate as well. When I get the chance I will do some testing of my own, some still life shots, some outdoor ones (where movement is happening anyway), do some single frame shots to compare as well as tripod ones, so we can really sit down and see the success of the process (or at least my particular success, I am only 40 and feel as though I can take a shot very still if need be, certainly still enough for 1 second). We need to look at the files in RawTherapee and see what motion correction is doing (or wants to do). As I said tho, taking pixelshift shot is only the start, to really derive the benefit we want additional sharpening placed in PP, it should really start to trump non Pixelshifted shots when going through this process.

If I were going to guess, Raw Therapee is using a different base image from image number one (which is blurry). But the question really is if using the pixel shift image is actually sharper than developing the image using Amaze in RawTherapee and just choosing the sharpest image of the four -- say image number two. Because often one image will be the sharper than the others and if the first image is kind of blurry there is no way that the pixel shift image can actually combine the images in any sort of meaningful way. If you turn off motion correction and force the issue you will have artifacts all over the place.

I'm not criticizing you, just sharing my experience with pixel shift.

I'm criticizing him, any chance I get! #lensbabyhater that he is!

[fs999]

Motion Correction was intended for stuff that's moving in frame when the camera is tripodded, such as wind moving foliage or water, but in this case it may have worked in your favour and done more for you when handholding. You've certainly piqued my interest with the idea of taking handheld ones and just how successful can it be, but the 'science' of the tech process suggests what you're doing will be worse than just taking a single frame, with a single frame you will have zero artefacts to deal with etc. Your example above whilst promising is still not conclusive due to the points Rondec lists off. We could also do with a single non Pixelshift shot as some kind of baseline to appreciate as well. When I get the chance I will do some testing of my own, some still life shots, some outdoor ones (where movement is happening anyway), do some single frame shots to compare as well as tripod ones, so we can really sit down and see the success of the process (or at least my particular success, I am only 40 and feel as though I can take a shot very still if need be, certainly still enough for 1 second). We need to look at the files in RawTherapee and see what motion correction is doing (or wants to do). As I said tho, taking pixelshift shot is only the start, to really derive the benefit we want additional sharpening placed in PP, it should really start to trump non Pixelshifted shots when going through this process.

Yeah, at your age you can still try I was comfortably leaning against a tree, holding my breath, that helped a lot. I did another shot in Madeira where I have put the camera on a wall. Must still develop it...

I'm criticizing him, any chance I get! #lensbabyhater that he is!

[Rondec]

Fallen Leaves at Seneca Creek (FA 31 limited/pixel shift)

[heckflosse]

But the question really is if using the pixel shift image is actually sharper than developing the image using Amaze in RawTherapee and just choosing the sharpest image of the four -- say image number two. Because often one image will be the sharper than the others and if the first image is kind of blurry there is no way that the pixel shift image can actually combine the images in any sort of meaningful way. If you turn off motion correction and force the issue you will have artifacts all over the place.

Here's a crop of an almost perfect (no motion) PS file I found in the web. One side is Amaze demosaic, the other side pixel shift with motion correction off. Both are sharpened using the same parameters. I can clearly see a difference.

[BruceBanner]

Here's a crop of an almost perfect (no motion) PS file I found in the web. One side is Amaze demosaic, the other side pixel shift with motion correction off. Both are sharpened using the same parameters. I can clearly see a difference.

Yeah. As I said earlier, real benefits begin to shine when boosting sharpness, the image stays extremely clean with low noise compared to doing the same with a non pixelshifted shot, this is one of the greatest benefits, so I can understand a few people saying 'I see no difference' if they're simply not pushing the file after the fact.

https://youtu.be/87yGmD71nyA?t=737

"I think people who get camera really gonna have to spend some time figuring out exactly how to use their files in the pixel shift mode to get the most out of them but there's a lot there no question"

[northcoastgreg]

I use pixel shift mostly in landscapes when I can get away with it. It's of most use for telephoto landscapes, where often fine detail that might be moving in the slightest breeze is too far away to be captured by the lens. But on still days (particularly where I live, mornings in autumn), I can get away with pixel shift at closer distances. There is a difference between pixel shift and non pixel shift, although its more in terms of slightly more vivid color and slightly better contrast. Here's a comparison at 1:1 viewing of pixel shift and non pixel shift. The image on the left is with pixel shift:



Differences are slight, but the pixel shift image has a bit more contrast, clarity, and more vivid color.

[Rondec]

The thing to remember is that at iso 100 these cameras are all excellent, even without pixel shift. Pixel shift adds a tiny bit more detail, reduces noise in the shadows, but unless you are pushing your image really hard, you might not notice it.

If you truly want to see a difference, you will see it much more if you shoot a pixel shift image at a higher iso, say, 1600 and compare the combination to a single image. Suffice to say that I am typically on a tripod, so using low iso isn't a problem. It also means that there are plenty of times that there is little benefit to using pixel shift versus processing a single one of the images.

[barondla]

I've only taken a few PS shots and learned there is a decent chance for something to go wrong. Usually shoot a standard frame as back up. Never thought to use the first image, of the Raw PS, without processing. This will save time. Also have function 2 on the 4 way controller set to turn on PS. This beats going into the menu all the time.
Thanks,
barondla

[Rondec]

I've only taken a few PS shots and learned there is a decent chance for something to go wrong. Usually shoot a standard frame as back up. Never thought to use the first image, of the Raw PS, without processing. This will save time. Also have function 2 on the 4 way controller set to turn on PS. This beats going into the menu all the time.
Thanks,
barondla

Make a User Mode for it. I have a pixel shift landscape user mode set -- it uses pixel shift, -1 EV exposure, Av mode with the aperture set to f9, iso 100 and the two second timer. That seems to work 90 percent of the time. It's just a lot easier than flipping in and out of settings.

[microlight]

Make a User Mode for it

Exactly what I do.

[BruceBanner]

I use pixel shift mostly in landscapes when I can get away with it. It's of most use for telephoto landscapes, where often fine detail that might be moving in the slightest breeze is too far away to be captured by the lens. But on still days (particularly where I live, mornings in autumn), I can get away with pixel shift at closer distances. There is a difference between pixel shift and non pixel shift, although its more in terms of slightly more vivid color and slightly better contrast. Here's a comparison at 1:1 viewing of pixel shift and non pixel shift. The image on the left is with pixel shift:



Differences are slight, but the pixel shift image has a bit more contrast, clarity, and more vivid color.

Yup, nice example of better colours as well as sharpness here.

The thing to remember is that at iso 100 these cameras are all excellent, even without pixel shift. Pixel shift adds a tiny bit more detail, reduces noise in the shadows, but unless you are pushing your image really hard, you might not notice it.

If you truly want to see a difference, you will see it much more if you shoot a pixel shift image at a higher iso, say, 1600 and compare the combination to a single image. Suffice to say that I am typically on a tripod, so using low iso isn't a problem. It also means that there are plenty of times that there is little benefit to using pixel shift versus processing a single one of the images.

That's right, and that's where the magic really starts to happen. I think there are just too many images floating around on the internet of pixelshift comparisons with non pixelshift images with things just being native (not touched), and neither shot pushed. That's fine I guess... I mean you can even see a difference natively anyway, but once you start stressing the two files the pixelshift version starts doing laps around the native one. The sharpness increase is cleaner, much cleaner, and as you say if you need to lift shadows the noise stays low compared to the grain that comes in on the standard file, important stuff if going to print.

I've only taken a few PS shots and learned there is a decent chance for something to go wrong. Usually shoot a standard frame as back up. Never thought to use the first image, of the Raw PS, without processing. This will save time. Also have function 2 on the 4 way controller set to turn on PS. This beats going into the menu all the time.
Thanks,
barondla

I use that function button for something else, I just place PS shortcut in the Info section which I find quick enough.

Make a User Mode for it. I have a pixel shift landscape user mode set -- it uses pixel shift, -1 EV exposure, Av mode with the aperture set to f9, iso 100 and the two second timer. That seems to work 90 percent of the time. It's just a lot easier than flipping in and out of settings.

I used to do that, but these days my paid work (weddings, portrait shoots, public speaking events) has meant all my user modes are typically already taken/optimised. I tend to leave one (user mode) free as a 'floating working mode'. For example, perhaps I am doing something like a landscape job, and I have tripodded up and have everything set right, aperture chosen, shutter speed, pixelshift on etc etc, but then I take the shots and then decide I would like to try a different lens, then I would quickly save the settings that I have chosen for this shot so that when I power down the camera, change lenses and power back up again with the new lens attached I have the exact same settings, but with a new lens. I used to change lenses with the camera on, its fine too, its just the EXIF is wrong.
I use the floating User Mode for events too, perhaps one of my other User Modes is doing a good job, but depending on the light of the venue or whatever I need to tinker a few parameters (and will be lens swapping), then I save what is working to that floating mode and use that when lens swapping. Underrated feature of User Modes imo, to have one as a floater. I know you can set the camera to recall certain settings (and forget others) for the normal Manual, Av, TAv mode dials etc, it's just they start off with how I left off from a previous job so it doesn't always work out well in this regard, whereas my User Modes start off in a better place. Still.. I really would love more User Modes, I went with the KP (because it had 5 User Modes vs the K70 with it's 3) just so I could duplicate the same User Modes that I have on the K-1.