[MJKoski]

Allright...a little homework for mk2 owners: go and expose pixel-shift image @ ISO800. Study the results carefully. Use RAW, not ooc-jpg. Results are quite surprising...

[Oakland Rob]

Allright...a little homework for mk2 owners: go and expose pixel-shift image @ ISO800. Study the results carefully. Use RAW, not ooc-jpg. Results are quite surprising...

I've got one of those...but wasn't surprised. What should I have seen? (It's on my desktop right now, so gimme a hint.)

[stevebrot]

Allright...a little homework for mk2 owners: go and expose pixel-shift image @ ISO800. Study the results carefully. Use RAW, not ooc-jpg. Results are quite surprising...

I've got one of those...but wasn't surprised. What should I have seen? (It's on my desktop right now, so gimme a hint.)

Is it safe to assume different RAW converters were used? MJKoski, are you spoofing a K-1 to get Lightroom support?


Steve

[madbrain]

Allright...a little homework for mk2 owners: go and expose pixel-shift image @ ISO800. Study the results carefully. Use RAW, not ooc-jpg. Results are quite surprising...

Do you mean PS on tripod or hand-held ?

[BigMackCam]

I posted this in another thread, but thought it worth repeating here (though I don't generally endorse duplicate posts)...

DPR's K-1II test images demonstrate serious lens-related problems... See below... The first image shows the comparison of the bottom right corner of the test image, comparing K-1 and K-1II, where everything looks good on both images. The second image shows the top right corner, where the K-1II image clearly shows a lens issue; and not a minor one either... it's dreadful. We know this can't be the K-1II's processing at fault, because it handled the bottom right corner perfectly.

Sadly, the upper right corner is where that green feathery foliage area resides, that some believe shows a loss of detail on the K-1II's files. Again, I'm not saying the K-1II isn't applying noise reduction (we know certainly that it is), nor that the noise reduction isn't reducing detail slightly as the ISO level rises (as any noise reduction would); only that DPR's test shots can be very misleading so far as detail is concerned. And we have to wonder whether their assessment of the K-1II's IQ is based on these flawed images. Still, they are useful for assessing the noise characteristics, at the very least.

[MJKoski]

I meant tripod PS. It makes the end result worse

It uses fully electronic shutter which has effect on bokeh (makes it harsh) and every single frame still has this NR. Now, end result is amplify damage. Vector art.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 12:59 AM ----------

And this folks, is how it is done: Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark/README.md at master · cchen156/Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark · GitHub

Pure AI power. Now waiting for some brand to implement such, in the future (requires massive computation), and give an *option* to enable it.

[madbrain]

I meant tripod PS. It makes the end result worse

Which software are you using to process the RAW files ?

I have done very few shots in PS, and only DPS so far, not tripod. And I have not processed any of the RAW files yet.

I'm more than willing to play your game, I just need to know all the variables.

[/COLOR]And this folks, is how it is done: Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark/README.md at master · cchen156/Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark · GitHub

Pure AI power. Now waiting for some brand to implement such, in the future (requires massive computation), and give an *option* to enable it.

Sounds cool, but we may be waiting a while for this to show up in a camera the size of the K-1 II, to speak nothing of the power source. If it needs an AC adapter, it's less useful, except for studio use, mainly on tripod or for video.

[BigMackCam]

Allright...a little homework for mk2 owners: go and expose pixel-shift image @ ISO800. Study the results carefully. Use RAW, not ooc-jpg. Results are quite surprising...

Question - why would someone use pixel shift at ISO 800? Given that it's a multi-shot facility, we're really talking about stationary subjects (whatever manufacturers may do to handle some degree of subject movement) - so if the subject is stationary, why not use ISO 100 or 200 for the best possible IQ in each frame, and a slower shutter speed? Is it for astrophotography, where higher ISO levels are needed to keep the shutter speed reasonable and capture stars without creating trails - or am I barking up the wrong tree?

[MJKoski]

It has its uses. ISO3200 gave super clean output with PS with MK1. I first thought it was not a good idea but then tried it only to find out that resulting file has about ISO200-400 worth of DR compared to normal exposure. I used ISO400 - ISO3200 in PS mode many times when shooting my skeleton series in very dim light at nighttime in the basement of old castle ruins.

PS could also be used in astrophotos with tracking mount I GUESS. And for fun, try shooting star trails stack with PS exposures Resulting circle has very wild colors.

@madbrain: Raw Therapee or LR when used with hacked exifdata to open PEF files. You can also use DNG and open with LR in which case it opens the first exposure in the PS file where you can see NR being done.

[BigMackCam]

It has its uses. ISO3200 gave super clean output with PS with MK1. I first thought it was not a good idea but then tried it only to find out that resulting file has about ISO200-400 worth of DR compared to normal exposure. I used ISO400 - ISO3200 in PS mode many times when shooting my skeleton series in very dim light at nighttime in the basement of old castle ruins.

Interesting. Thanks

[madbrain]

It has its uses. ISO3200 gave super clean output with PS with MK1. I first thought it was not a good idea but then tried it only to find out that resulting file has about ISO200-400 worth of DR compared to normal exposure. I used ISO400 - ISO3200 in PS mode many times when shooting my skeleton series in very dim light at nighttime in the basement of old castle ruins.

Interesting.

PS could also be used in astrophotos with tracking mount I GUESS. And for fun, try shooting star trails stack with PS exposures Resulting circle has very wild colors.

I'm looking forward to playing with the astrotracer some day. Lots of fun ahead.

@madbrain: Raw Therapee or LR when used with hacked exifdata to open PEF files. You can also use DNG and open with LR in which case it opens the first exposure in the PS file where you can see NR being done.

I'm shooting in DNG now. have Raw therapee installed solely for the PS feature, but have never actually tried it yet. I find the UI extremely intimidating. Is there a quick how-to of what I need to do to process a PS file ?

I am also in my 2nd day of Lightroom classic trial, so I can use that as well. But if LR only shows the first exposure in the PS file, what is the point of shooting PS ?
And what do you mean "where you can see the NR being done" ? I'm still very ignorant about how PS works. I know the camera shoots 4 frames, which must all be in the PEF/DNG. Is there a 5th frame in the RAW file that is processed in-camera ? Or do the 4 frames need to be processed on computer when one has a PS RAW file ? And if the later, can LR do it and how ?

I normally process with RAWs with Corel Aftershot. I was able to create a profile for it that allows both PEF and DNG files from the K-1 II to work. But I don't think Aftershot has any PS support.

[MJKoski]

I meant that the same filtering which is discussed in this thread is present in all of the 4 exposures which are included in the PS file. Current Lightroom does not officially support MK2 yet and if you open Pixel Shifted DNG RAW it does not use those 4 exposures to render final PS image but instead takes the 1st exposure which is normal exposure taken with fully electronic shutter. It shows the same noise reduction "issues" or whatever you want to call them starting from ISO640 and up.

If you use Exiftool to change camera model to "Pentax K-1" Lightroom recognizes the PEF files and lets you import them and use them as they would be normal MK1-files. This way you can use Pixel Shift in Lightroom without Adobe's official support.

[madbrain]

I meant that the same filtering which is discussed in this thread is present in all of the 4 exposures which are included in the PS file. Current Lightroom does not officially support MK2 yet and if you open Pixel Shifted DNG RAW it does not use those 4 exposures to render final PS image but instead takes the 1st exposure which is normal exposure taken with fully electronic shutter. It shows the same noise reduction "issues" or whatever you want to call them starting from ISO640 and up.

OK, that makes sense.

If you use Exiftool to change camera model to "Pentax K-1" Lightroom recognizes the PEF files and lets you import them and use them as they would be normal MK1-files. This way you can use Pixel Shift in Lightroom without Adobe's official support.

Do I have to shoot PEF files ? If I shoot DNG and use exiftool to change the camera model, will that work too ?
Going to try this now on a few DNGs I shot in PS (hand-held) earlier.

Just opened one of those DNGs (unmodified) files in RawTherapee. It does say that it sees 4 frames. Not clear how to display them individually.

Also tried in PDCU 5, but it's doing something horribly wrong - basically locking up the machine, before I can even get the chance to open a ny file. Not even the mouse pointer moves for several seconds. Haven't seen other programs do that on my i7 .

[MJKoski]

I have no idea how to use Raw Therapee effectively, when I open PS RAW, DNG or PEF it says Pixel-Shift and I can export it which works, but to get maximum details out of it I dunno what settings works best with it. I only tried the EXIF modification with PEF files, not with DNG. But, it seems to have the same camera model tag so change it to "Pentax K-1" and maybe then LR works with pixel shift as well.

[madbrain]

I have no idea how to use Raw Therapee effectively,

OK, so that makes two of us ! Found this video, but it has zero explanation .

You Tube

You Tube

Having never processed a file in RawTherapee, much less a PS file, it would seem that is not the best way to go for my first try.

I only tried the EXIF modification with PEF files, not with DNG. But, it seems to have the same camera model tag so change it to "Pentax K-1" and maybe then LR works with pixel shift as well.

OK, going to try this now.