Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-02-2018, 06:04 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,611
Super resolution "with any camera" vs. K-1 II as per DPR ... thoughts?

Just saw this Here's how to create a super resolution photo with any camera: Digital Photography Review today and wondered if one could actually achieve better results (as DPR is stating) than using the DPS with the K-1 II .
I don't own a K-1 (nor a K-1 II) but I thought this method to be an ordeal (for me anyway), having to use heavy PP with Photoshop ... a real PITA.
Thoughts on this?

05-02-2018, 06:31 AM - 1 Like   #2
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,613
The technique has been around for quite a while; as you say it is much more work than one of the in-camera super-resolution modes.

I have to admit I can't see the artifacts they're talking about in the handheld "pixel-shift" examples in your link. But I also doubt I'd be using that mode if I had a II (I have a non-upgraded K-1). Tripod pixel-shift, yes; I use that a lot.
05-02-2018, 06:36 AM - 2 Likes   #3
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,207
PS, it says produces unwanted processing artifacts. Too funny, not in any image I've ever taken, but hey. DPR says so so it must be true. The correct statement would be on some occasions PS produces unwanted artifacts.

The simple fact is, that there are many folks who would buy a Pentax with PS shift just for the added benefit. DPI's response? You just have to waste hours of your time following this ridiculously complicated procedure, and you don't have to buy a Pentax. But that's the real point isn't it? "You don't have to buy a pentax."

The honest truth being, if they took a PS image and compared it to their "stacked" image, and said "look, you can do all this or you can just buy a Pentax with Pixel Shift, what person in his her right mind would go through that process?

But they didn't, wouldn't say that. Which is why I don't go there much. They don't promote Pentax, where Pentax has the edge.Even when it would be in their readers best interest, if they did,

Last edited by normhead; 05-02-2018 at 06:46 AM.
05-02-2018, 06:44 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Not a Number's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Venice, CA
Posts: 5,301
Under discussion here:
Creating Super Resolution Images Handheld (like a K-1mkii, but not). - PentaxForums.com

05-02-2018, 06:47 AM   #5
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 5,210
DPreview has published samples with comparison shots:
Sample gallery: Pentax K-1 II: Digital Photography Review
05-02-2018, 06:49 AM - 2 Likes   #6
Pentaxian
Site Supporter
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,207
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote
But that thread has too many long sentences and paragraphs. Not ADD friendly.

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 10:08 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
DPreview has published samples with comparison shots:
Sample gallery: Pentax K-1 II: Digital Photography Review
But where do they say "Pentax does in camera what you need hours of work to do without a Pentax." They spent a whole article on what to do so you don't have to buy a Pentax, but half paragraph on Pixel Shift. And never mention that it works well enough it might be worth switching brands for.

I rest my case.

Last edited by normhead; 05-03-2018 at 05:17 PM.
05-02-2018, 07:12 AM - 2 Likes   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,417
This technique has been around for a long time. I think the hope with the K-1 II is that because the camera has a better idea of its position due to SR information, the alignment algorithms should be better. Certainly it is faster to use a K-1 II than to do this sort of thing in post.

Bruce basically said that it really ground his computer to a stand still and took quite awhile to process the images. I don't think most folks would be willing to suffer through the pain of shooting/processing each image if it took an extra five to ten minutes to get to your "starting position" whereas if Pentax automates most of it, then it become significantly more painless.
05-02-2018, 07:37 AM - 1 Like   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 7,611
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Not a Number Quote

I know this has been discussed in another thread but because this was "new" information from DPR ... well I thought of sharing the link.

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 10:40 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by baro-nite Quote
The technique has been around for quite a while; as you say it is much more work than one of the in-camera super-resolution modes.

I have to admit I can't see the artifacts they're talking about in the handheld "pixel-shift" examples in your link. But I also doubt I'd be using that mode if I had a II (I have a non-upgraded K-1). Tripod pixel-shift, yes; I use that a lot.
Right.
I thought that using the in-camera feature would be simpler, albeit at the expense of the so-called artifacts.
For someone like me not being so efficient with Photoshop, the built-in DPS would be the way to go. (if I had a K-1 II).

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 10:41 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
PS, it says produces unwanted processing artifacts. Too funny, not in any image I've ever taken, but hey. DPR says so so it must be true. The correct statement would be on some occasions PS produces unwanted artifacts.

The simple fact is, that there are many folks who would buy a Pentax with PS shift just for the added benefit. DPI's response? You just have to waste hours of your time following this ridiculously complicated procedure, and you don't have to buy a Pentax. But that's the real point isn't it? "You don't have to buy a pentax."

The honest truth being, if they took a PS image and compared it to their "stacked" image, and said "look, you can do all this or you can just buy a Pentax with Pixel Shift, what person in his her right mind would go through that process?

But they didn't, wouldn't say that. Which is why I don't go there much. They don't promote Pentax, where Pentax has the edge.Even when it would be in their readers best interest, if they did,
Things never seem to change at DPR, do they?

---------- Post added 05-02-18 at 10:43 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rondec Quote
This technique has been around for a long time. I think the hope with the K-1 II is that because the camera has a better idea of its position due to SR information, the alignment algorithms should be better. Certainly it is faster to use a K-1 II than to do this sort of thing in post.

Bruce basically said that it really ground his computer to a stand still and took quite awhile to process the images. I don't think most folks would be willing to suffer through the pain of shooting/processing each image if it took an extra five to ten minutes to get to your "starting position" whereas if Pentax automates most of it, then it become significantly more painless.

That would nicely summarize my thoughts: much easier using the camera feature.

05-02-2018, 08:19 AM - 2 Likes   #9
Pentaxian
CarlJF's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Quebec City
Posts: 968
It's just another proof on how biased DPR can be and how bad it has become.

Pentax PS is called useless because it can supposedly be simulated by a tedious PP procedure, but Sony PS is "Are we impressed? How could we not be? Landscape, cityscape and architecture photographers will love this" even if isn't done in camera... Strangely enough, they don't say that Sony implementations is even more useless than Pentax since you need to PP through software anyway to get a usable picture...
05-02-2018, 08:24 AM - 1 Like   #10
Pentaxian
swanlefitte's Avatar

Join Date: May 2015
Location: New Orleans
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,444
Dpr must think this is better because according to them the pentax takes an excruciating amount of time, like 20 seconds.
05-02-2018, 08:36 AM - 2 Likes   #11
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 2,568
That Photoshop approach to super-resolution is horribly, horribly inefficient compared to the one used Pentax. The Pentax approach can work directly with the 36 MPix RAW (a 72 MB image in RAM) whereas the Photoshop uses a kludge up-sampling of the demosaiced RAW to create a massive intermediate image (36MPix * RGB * 2-bytes * 4X upsample = 864 MB per shot). And Photoshop's use of opacity to merge the intermediate results is far less effective than other methods derived from signal processing. So Photoshop needs lots of images where Pentax only need 4. The result is that Photoshop needs a much larger stack of input images to get decent results. The only advantage of the Photoshop method is that it uses the tools at hand even if those tools are ill-suited to the task.

The other huge huge advantage of the Pentax approach (even if it slows down the camera) is that the photographer can review the results in the field. They can take take the shot, wait for the results, and do a zoomed-review of the image on the display. With the photoshop version there's a chance that something happened in the scene that ruins the super-resolution result but the photographer won't know until hours or days later.
05-02-2018, 08:49 AM - 1 Like   #12
Veteran Member
joergens.mi's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 324
DPR as usual. There loosing their reputation more and more - if there is any left.

Is this the same author with the byciclist test of the autofocus?
05-02-2018, 08:54 AM - 1 Like   #13
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 11,272
QuoteOriginally posted by joergens.mi Quote
DPR as usual. There loosing their reputation more and more - if there is any left.

Is this the same author with the byciclist test of the autofocus?
Yes, it's Rishi, how did you know?

05-02-2018, 08:56 AM   #14
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 30,745
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
know this has been discussed in another thread but because this was "new" information from DPR ... well I thought of sharing the link.
The other thread began with that link...


Steve
05-02-2018, 09:31 AM - 1 Like   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
RGlasel's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Saskatoon
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,822
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The other huge huge advantage of the Pentax approach (even if it slows down the camera) is that the photographer can review the results in the field.
Absolutely amazing how "photographers" are willing to ignore the #1 benefit of a digital camera, chimping. Of course, chimping only aids in composition and getting the right exposure, without glorifying the photographer's skill at operating equipment.
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
Yes, it's Rishi
Isn't Rishi the photography expert with a PhD in microbiology, who penned the profound statement, "because science?"
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
artifacts, dpr, ii, image, images, in-camera, k-1, link, pentax, photography, photoshop, post, ps, resolution, shift
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
K-3II 2015 "Camera of Distinction" per Imaging Resource Oakland Rob Pentax K-3 17 12-22-2015 08:18 AM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S jogiba Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 3 04-12-2012 07:41 AM
Image Size vs Document Size vs Resolution vs Resampling vs ... AHHHH! veezchick Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 13 08-02-2010 03:57 PM
8 bits per channel -vs- 16 bits per channel Ed in GA Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 5 03-25-2008 09:02 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:21 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top