Originally posted by stevebrot If that is what it does, then it is doing the development and merge...i.e. no longer RAW.
As for your presets and LUTS...they all work against a rendered image, not the RAW data. They work better with RAW or TIFF because they have the full 14 bits of data.
Steve
This is where I get a bit confused because my head thinks of DNG as being RAW still.
In essence how is a program that is merging 4 DNG files together in pixelshift fashion to spitting out a DNG vs RT that takes 4 DNG files and merges to spitting out a Tiff any better? In this instance isn't it more of a case of different containers for the RAW data? Is there any such thing as a pixelshifted RAW file? It seems to get one to work with in the first place means having 4 RAW files, to combine the 4 RAW files (either in camera like Pentax does) or through a program like RT immediately moves away from 'RAW' in the purest sense as its a merge be it DNG output (PS2DNG) or Tiff.
Would it be better to think of Pixelshift as a bracketed shot. Pentax simply bundles the RAW files together to making one RAW file (which you can split in DCU5 I think and RT at least?), as long as you stitch the images together (like Super Resolution) you gain the benefits of the process but have now begun to move away from RAW by doing so (like a HDR Merge of bracketed shots...)?
Anyway...
Here's my preliminary findings anyway that I thought I would share;
A pixelshifted file, starting as 144mb and using PS2DNG (PixelShift to DNG) to generate a single 75mb DNG file A secondary non related non pixelshifted shot taken at the same time with as close to exact settings used for the pixelshifted shot as possible (i.e. it is not just one of the frames from the pixelshifted shot above but an actual separate shot taken).
I don't expect you to see much difference here in forum so you should be able to click the files and zoom in a bit more.
For treatment in PP I Autosynced the files in LR and used Auto Settings to bring exposures to being more balanced (I learned later however that the Auto Settings in this instance gave the files slightly different values, more on this later). I then also increased Sharpening to both files to being;
Amount: 100 (default is 40)
Radius: 1.5
Detail: 30
Masking: 0
The reason I do this additional sharpening has been in due to past experience of seeing lower noise brought into the image when increasing sharpening vs doing the same with a non pixelshifted shot.
Here is a screenshot of the two files compared at 1:1 magnification, the pixelshifted shot from PS2DNG on the right (file has a '(1)' in brackets);
I've circled red some areas that I think show an improvement on the PS2DNG file vs native. I think the purple textured brick and the red musical note brick show increased clarity and sharpness, I'm also seeing less noise in the shadows.
You might be able to inspect a bit better from these shots;
PS2DNG version;
native version;
Once I realised that the native dng file was given
slightly different Auto Settings to the PS2DNG file I went about changing those values to match the exact same values as seen in the PS2DNG file. I didn't notice a substantial difference to make things any different on the above scenarios.
I then decided to push shadows to the max and compare how they looked, here's a screen grab (again PS2DNG file on the right);
I circled red again on the area that I feel the PS2DNG was doing better. Not only was the shadow area cleaner in noise, it seemed to have more detail, less backs (could see more).
I inspected another area of the image, this time some different colours;
Again I was seeing an improvement in the shadows, the left native image showing deeper blacks vs the PS2DNG showing lighter brighter shadows with less noise, increased perceived sharpness and details. I was also noticed the oof areas seemed much cleaner and I think this is where pixelshift can really excel. It's one thing to push sharp things sharper and have some noise come into the image, but often noise in bokeh is quite unpleasant. It can be fine, if it's a high quality noise such as authentic grain or well handled PP grain added, but typically smooth noiseless bokeh is generally welcomed and it seems again the PS2DNG does a better job in this regard.
Apologies for not uploading those parts in higher res for inspecting closer.
Summary
At this point in time the PS2DNG is seemingly doing something better than the native file can, how much better I'm not really sure, and if it's better than using RT or dcraw to generate a Tiff to play with is still not known to me at this point in time.