[pentax_amateur]

I badly want to see the difference.

Attached Images

 

[house]

This seems odd to me. It's an exception that pixelshift doesn't show perceptible improvements between direct comparisons. I can't think of any pixelshifted image I've taken where I can't see any improvement. With these examples I can't. It's easiest to see the reduced noise in smooth areas and the finest detail in textures.

Sometimes the improvement is very subtle sometimes very noticeable. I depends on the scale of texture and detail i an image. I use Rawtherapee however.

[pentax_amateur]

Maybe I am missing something obvious. Do Pixel Shift images need any processing other than sharpening? I heard that Sony pixel shift needs to be manually processed, but Pentax Pixel Shift is already processed in camera.

[JensE]

I'm not sure how the above were processed, but this is an example of a shot that I took recently, and finally processed into

Here's a sample processed identically in Rawtherapee - once using Pixelshift and once using the first image via Amaze. I think the definition of the stars, sun rays and level of detail in the heraldic figures are easy enough to see. It's the darker side of the tower and has fairly monochromatic blue background - both difficult to get clean and detailed with a single shot. The additional detail captured here helps for this project and allows to work with a 'single' shot (actually the four PS exposures), otherwise I would have to stitch multiple together, which may be difficult to get for the final shot from further up - we may have to shoot through a window.
View at 200%:

Attached Images

 

[Rondec]

I think the thing is that the base RAW files are already really good. What pixel shift does is it improves color depth, decreases noise in shadow areas, and does bump detail a little bit. To me, the end result should be a little bit like what you get from a Foveon sensor.

For many images there just isn't that much difference. The RAW files have plenty of detail, there isn't a lot of moire to get rid of and not a lot of dynamic range to deal with (I think most of the OP images fall into these categories). The only thing you may notice here is that you have the ability to push your sharpening higher without getting artifacts.

The main place I use pixel shift is for landscapes shot from a tripod on still days. If there is movement in the scene then there is no point, but I do find that if things are still I can push shadows an extra stop without having noise creep in with a pixel shift image versus a standard image. That's enough reason for me to shoot with it, but for these sorts of shots, I probably wouldn't bother.

[MJKoski]

Here is a comparison using K-1 and Tamron 15-30mm lens.

Non-PS:


PS:


Difference is radical if lens is capable of doing its thing. Aberrations (fringing etc.) and low micro contrast kill the advantages very quickly. That 50mm macro should be okay though.

--

Here is a crop from a landscape photo with KP + 35mm Macro Ltd. Pixel-Shift is used.



KP produces more detail in that example than 42MP FF Sony is able to do.

[biz-engineer]

This seems odd to me. It's an exception that pixelshift doesn't show perceptible improvements between direct comparisons.

It's not difficult to show no improvement with pixel shift, just use a lens that is not very sharp, or stop aperture down to f11 or f16. From f10 already I see not difference with my K1. If I use the 100 macro (prime) or 50 macro, at f5.6 , then the pixel shift exposure is able to grab all the fine details of textures than a single exposure can't capture.

[MJKoski]

Something is not adding up. How are the test shots taken? Exposures must always be delayed (or remote used) when doing pixel-shift. It will not work, or will very rarely work, if one just activates the exposure without remote release or without x-sec delay. Minor vibrations will kill any benefit instantly.

Focusing must also be spot on. Confirm this with the liveview and make sure focus shift is taken into account if present. Does the 50mm macro have focus shift?

[BryantCP]

Maybe I am missing something obvious. Do Pixel Shift images need any processing other than sharpening? I heard that Sony pixel shift needs to be manually processed, but Pentax Pixel Shift is already processed in camera.

As far a I've ever heard and seen, a Pentax Pixel Shift image does not come out of the camera fully processed. When I've tried it with my KP it appears to be a normal image. To finish the processing you have to run it thru the Pentax version of Silkypix, i.e. Digital Camera Utility 5 which apparently is the only processing software that can correctly process a Pixel Shift image.

[house]

igital Camera Utility 5 which apparently is the only processing software that can correctly process a Pixel Shift image.

That's false. Rawtherapee has excellent pixelshift with tweakable motion detection. Adobe can do basic pixelshift.

[JensE]

That's false. Rawtherapee has excellent pixelshift with tweakable motion detection. Adobe can do basic pixelshift.

I haven't seen anything better than Rawtherapee for Pixelshift. As indicated, my above example was processed using RT. I think it's not quite clear from what I wrote, but the 3 renditions (total and crops of the clock) are from the same DNG.

[TonyW]

Perhaps your expectation for PS images is a little too high?

The effect of a shift of pixels overall mitigates the slight softening that occurs where missing pixel colour information needs to be interpolated from surrounding pixels by the demosaicing process. This leading to better colour fidelity (lessening moire artefacts) and a small change in resolution.

Have a look at some studio comparison in the link. Download the same images normal and PS in raw and scroll around you should see the differences quite clearly with some areas better than others

Studio shot comparison: Digital Photography Review

[pentax_amateur]

OOOOOK, so the files do need to be processed outside the camera! It is not obvious at all. I have installed Digital Camera Utility and processed the image of a banknote (without sharpening). I do see the difference now (albeit still somewhat underwhelming). PS image has less noise (that "sharpness" I was talking about before is indeed just noise).

The utility does not have much in terms of sharpening (I have attached a screenshot of its tools). That leaves one with Rawtherapee I guess?

[JensE]

OOOOOK, so the files do need to be processed outside the camera!

They don't have to, but it gives you more control and options to deal with motion/changing light, sharpening ... I tired with in-camera processing of the raw file, but did not succeed to create any consitent output: The TIFF files with pixel shift always looked noisier with pronounced jagged edges.

[pentax_amateur]

They don't have to, but it gives you more control and options to deal with motion/changing light, sharpening ...

Then, how do you get PS straight out of camera? I open PS files in Lightroom, and they look identical to non-PS. While, if I "Save As with Image Processing..." with Camera Settings in Camera Digital Utility, I get a file that looks different.