Landscape Creating Super Resolution Images Handheld (like a K-1mkii, but not).

**bobbotron** · 06-21-2018, 08:06 PM

This thread reminds me I want to try this out some time!

**microlight** · 06-22-2018, 12:31 AM

It can be an effective technique, but it’s important to have as little subject motion as possible between the frames. I tried a stack of 6 last week, of some old buoys (not old boys!) laying in some foliage, but it was pretty windy and there were some large-ish flat leaves waving around. This served to confuse Photoshop’s image alignment and gave a picture that was less sharp than one of the component frames, with added artefacts!

damianc · 06-22-2018, 02:37 AM

I'm quite fortunate that what I enjoy doing is still life. The useful thing for me was being able to shoot a single pixelshift image and process to a TIFF with a single command then carry on as if editing a single RAW. I don't like faffing around with the multiple shots, alignment etc manually. Rawtherapee/hugin/Imagemagick allows me to do that. I don't doubt that Pentax could have implemented this in camera, though I'm not sure why they chose not to. Similarly a 9/16 shot pixelshift image could also prove useful (again, this isn't going to help those shooting dynamic scenes).

LensBeginner · 06-23-2018, 05:59 AM

I've made an additional "test" - not too rigorous because I got the idea once I was at home, and I had took the jpeg picture a few steps back, so framing is not exact.
All the photos taken with my smartphone (16 MP camera).

SOOC JPEG
Notice the purple fringing and the aggressive NR algorithms.

Vasca_SOOC_JPEG_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

RAW, processed to taste, no NR
Not much noise after all, but what bothers me the most is those vertical lines made up of couples of dots, which are probably on-sensor CDAF pixels.
Much more detail though.

Vasca_RAW_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

A stack of four RAW, processed then merged with the "Intermediate" method.
The noise is mostly gone, and the CDAF pixels are too

Only issue with that is its massive inconvenience... 4 19.4 MB RAWs add up to 65.6 MB

Vasca_RAW_stack_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

**BruceBanner** · 06-25-2018, 12:51 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by LensBeginner

I've made an additional "test" - not too rigorous because I got the idea once I was at home, and I had took the jpeg picture a few steps back, so framing is not exact.
All the photos taken with my smartphone (16 MP camera).

SOOC JPEG
Notice the purple fringing and the aggressive NR algorithms.
Vasca_SOOC_JPEG_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

RAW, processed to taste, no NR
Not much noise after all, but what bothers me the most is those vertical lines made up of couples of dots, which are probably on-sensor CDAF pixels.
Much more detail though.
Vasca_RAW_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

A stack of four RAW, processed then merged with the "Intermediate" method.
The noise is mostly gone, and the CDAF pixels are too

Only issue with that is its massive inconvenience... 4 19.4 MB RAWs add up to 65.6 MB

Vasca_RAW_stack_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

I actually prefer the noise (RAW) middle version, the stack came at a price imo, it looks too soft and blurry and the less noise has killed the sharpness and details imo.

I think there could be quite a big difference between stacking with a competent dslr over a smartphone, even though that smartphone might shoot RAW etc.

LensBeginner · 06-25-2018, 12:55 PM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by BruceBanner

I actually prefer the noise (RAW) middle version, the stack came at a price imo, it looks too soft and blurry and the less noise has killed the sharpness and details imo.

I think there could be quite a big difference between stacking with a competent dslr over a smartphone, even though that smartphone might shoot RAW etc.

No, I think in this case too much movement between the shot is what spoiled the detail, simply because I didn't shoot with stcking in mind, it was an afterthought.
When I stack jpegs from the phone, the whole burst takes 2s tops, there's currently no way of doing a RAW burst sadly.

...but I will not lose faith, and will keep trying

**BruceBanner** · 06-25-2018, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by LensBeginner

No, I think in this case too much movement between the shot is what spoiled the detail, simply because I didn't shoot with stcking in mind, it was an afterthought.
When I stack jpegs from the phone, the whole burst takes 2s tops, there's currently no way of doing a RAW burst sadly.

...but I will not lose faith, and will keep trying

Even with my handheld shots with my K-1 that are intending to be SuperRes ones I get a few shots that I have to scrap, and I'm sure it's because of a single frame being too wildly out of position and ruining the rest. I need to work out how to deal with a single troubling frame and find a way to figure out which frame it is in my stack that's detrimental to the rest...

**BruceBanner** · 06-26-2018, 10:36 PM - **2 Likes**

A 5 stack hdr SuperRes;

**microlight** · 07-05-2018, 06:11 AM

Nice, Bruce! What stacking order did you settle on for the HDR?

**BruceBanner** · 07-05-2018, 12:30 PM

Originally posted by microlight

Nice, Bruce! What stacking order did you settle on for the HDR?

Checking my camera settings now, I have the bracketing order set to '1', which for 5 images runs as;

0, -1, +1, -2, +2

However when I merge these as a stack in PS it reverses the order, so that the +2 file is at the bottom of the pile and the 0 at the top. I dunno if there is a easy way to somehow just click into that area and somehow reverse the flow/stack, but I just drag the layers about till they are all in the right place (which is really easy as their file names run from the least to the most).

maw · 07-05-2018, 12:51 PM

Originally posted by BruceBanner

Checking my camera settings now, I have the bracketing order set to '1', which for 5 images runs as;

Sort them sequentially, first the negative numbers, of course the 0 and then the positive ones.
In my SLRs I set the sequence, - 0 +, i.e. underexposed, normal and overexposed.

Best regards, Mario

**BruceBanner** · 07-05-2018, 02:14 PM

Originally posted by maw

Sort them sequentially, first the negative numbers, of course the 0 and then the positive ones.
In my SLRs I set the sequence, - 0 +, i.e. underexposed, normal and overexposed.

Best regards, Mario

It was discussed earlier that this might not be the best ordering. 0 should be the 100% Opacity, not the 33% one. Have you played about and have found for personal experience it is best to have the -2 and -1 as being 100% and 50% opacity?

maw · 07-05-2018, 02:55 PM

Originally posted by BruceBanner

It was discussed earlier that this might not be the best ordering. 0 should be the 100% Opacity, not the 33% one. Have you played about and have found for personal experience it is best to have the -2 and -1 as being 100% and 50% opacity?

Hi Bruce,

I use that sequence, but everyone will have different preferences. The important thing is to know how much we are overexposing or under-exposing. I think that is your question!

You have to set the value in your camera's menu, you can set it in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, which will then be used for all over/under exposure processes and for HDR.

Obviously 1/3 corresponds to 33% and 1/2 to 50%, but better to test, because each reflex is different from another also because of the settings

I hope it's clear.

Greetings Mario

**BruceBanner** · 07-05-2018, 03:04 PM

Originally posted by maw

Hi Bruce,

I use that sequence, but everyone will have different preferences. The important thing is to know how much we are overexposing or under-exposing. I think that is your question!

You have to set the value in your camera's menu, you can set it in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, which will then be used for all over/under exposure processes and for HDR.

Obviously 1/3 corresponds to 33% and 1/2 to 50%, but better to test, because each reflex is different from another also because of the settings

I hope it's clear.

Greetings Mario

Yeah that's clear, I use 1/3 EV.

I used to have my bracketing order like you with 0 in the middle, I have since changed it so that when editing the stack the 0 exposure frame is at the bottom (as suggested by others). I did make a comparison shot Creating Super Resolution Images Handheld (like a K-1mkii, but not). - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com

I did not upload the other version, but if you read that post I came to the conclusion that it looked better (was was best to edit with) by having the 0 exposure at the bottom (100%). Perhaps you should try it if you haven't and report back.

maw · 07-05-2018, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by BruceBanner

I did not upload the other version, but if you read that post I came to the conclusion that it looked better (was was best to edit with) by having the 0 exposure at the bottom (100%). Perhaps you should try it if you haven't and report back.

Often these techniques reserve many surprises, you can never say which is the best of all, is a kind of laboratory where starting from reliable data and already proven you come to many other conclusions.
The test in your case is the placement of different levels (stack) in reverse order, this I think will give you very different results.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
SLR Lounge- Noise comparison shot K-1 vs K-1mkII @ISO 12800 - good improvement	interested_observer	Pentax News and Rumors	51	03-06-2018 11:42 AM
SR II on K-1 MKII will offer Dynamic (handheld) Pixel Shift Resolution	alpheios	Pentax News and Rumors	84	02-22-2018 02:21 PM
Not one, not two, not three, not four, but a wedding where half attendees are bob.	LeDave	Photographic Industry and Professionals	12	05-16-2016 03:40 AM
Banker welfare and why we're not creating jobs	Nesster	General Talk	11	10-06-2010 04:56 PM
storing images, creating a usable library?	landscaped1	Troubleshooting and Beginner Help	10	01-28-2010 05:45 PM

06-21-2018, 08:06 PM	#61
bobbotron Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2015 Location: Ottawa, ON Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,349	This thread reminds me I want to try this out some time!

06-22-2018, 12:31 AM	#62
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	It can be an effective technique, but it’s important to have as little subject motion as possible between the frames. I tried a stack of 6 last week, of some old buoys (not old boys!) laying in some foliage, but it was pretty windy and there were some large-ish flat leaves waving around. This served to confuse Photoshop’s image alignment and gave a picture that was less sharp than one of the component frames, with added artefacts!

06-22-2018, 02:37 AM	#63
damianc Pentaxian Join Date: Nov 2012 Location: Highlands of Scotland Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 360	I'm quite fortunate that what I enjoy doing is still life. The useful thing for me was being able to shoot a single pixelshift image and process to a TIFF with a single command then carry on as if editing a single RAW. I don't like faffing around with the multiple shots, alignment etc manually. Rawtherapee/hugin/Imagemagick allows me to do that. I don't doubt that Pentax could have implemented this in camera, though I'm not sure why they chose not to. Similarly a 9/16 shot pixelshift image could also prove useful (again, this isn't going to help those shooting dynamic scenes).

06-23-2018, 05:59 AM	#64
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	I've made an additional "test" - not too rigorous because I got the idea once I was at home, and I had took the jpeg picture a few steps back, so framing is not exact. All the photos taken with my smartphone (16 MP camera). SOOC JPEG Notice the purple fringing and the aggressive NR algorithms. Vasca_SOOC_JPEG_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr RAW, processed to taste, no NR Not much noise after all, but what bothers me the most is those vertical lines made up of couples of dots, which are probably on-sensor CDAF pixels. Much more detail though. Vasca_RAW_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr A stack of four RAW, processed then merged with the "Intermediate" method. The noise is mostly gone, and the CDAF pixels are too Only issue with that is its massive inconvenience... 4 19.4 MB RAWs add up to 65.6 MB Vasca_RAW_stack_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr

06-25-2018, 12:51 PM - 1 Like	#65
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	Originally posted by LensBeginner I've made an additional "test" - not too rigorous because I got the idea once I was at home, and I had took the jpeg picture a few steps back, so framing is not exact. All the photos taken with my smartphone (16 MP camera). SOOC JPEG Notice the purple fringing and the aggressive NR algorithms. Vasca_SOOC_JPEG_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr RAW, processed to taste, no NR Not much noise after all, but what bothers me the most is those vertical lines made up of couples of dots, which are probably on-sensor CDAF pixels. Much more detail though. Vasca_RAW_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr A stack of four RAW, processed then merged with the "Intermediate" method. The noise is mostly gone, and the CDAF pixels are too Only issue with that is its massive inconvenience... 4 19.4 MB RAWs add up to 65.6 MB Vasca_RAW_stack_crop by Paolo Del Lungo, su Flickr I actually prefer the noise (RAW) middle version, the stack came at a price imo, it looks too soft and blurry and the less noise has killed the sharpness and details imo. I think there could be quite a big difference between stacking with a competent dslr over a smartphone, even though that smartphone might shoot RAW etc.

06-25-2018, 12:55 PM - 1 Like	#66
LensBeginner Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Photos: Albums Posts: 4,696	Originally posted by BruceBanner I actually prefer the noise (RAW) middle version, the stack came at a price imo, it looks too soft and blurry and the less noise has killed the sharpness and details imo. I think there could be quite a big difference between stacking with a competent dslr over a smartphone, even though that smartphone might shoot RAW etc. No, I think in this case too much movement between the shot is what spoiled the detail, simply because I didn't shoot with stcking in mind, it was an afterthought. When I stack jpegs from the phone, the whole burst takes 2s tops, there's currently no way of doing a RAW burst sadly. ...but I will not lose faith, and will keep trying

06-25-2018, 01:01 PM	#67
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	Originally posted by LensBeginner No, I think in this case too much movement between the shot is what spoiled the detail, simply because I didn't shoot with stcking in mind, it was an afterthought. When I stack jpegs from the phone, the whole burst takes 2s tops, there's currently no way of doing a RAW burst sadly. ...but I will not lose faith, and will keep trying Even with my handheld shots with my K-1 that are intending to be SuperRes ones I get a few shots that I have to scrap, and I'm sure it's because of a single frame being too wildly out of position and ruining the rest. I need to work out how to deal with a single troubling frame and find a way to figure out which frame it is in my stack that's detrimental to the rest...

06-26-2018, 10:36 PM - 2 Likes	#68
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	A 5 stack hdr SuperRes;

07-05-2018, 06:11 AM	#69
microlight Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2011 Location: Hampshire, UK Posts: 2,129	Nice, Bruce! What stacking order did you settle on for the HDR?

07-05-2018, 12:30 PM	#70
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	Originally posted by microlight Nice, Bruce! What stacking order did you settle on for the HDR? Checking my camera settings now, I have the bracketing order set to '1', which for 5 images runs as; 0, -1, +1, -2, +2 However when I merge these as a stack in PS it reverses the order, so that the +2 file is at the bottom of the pile and the 0 at the top. I dunno if there is a easy way to somehow just click into that area and somehow reverse the flow/stack, but I just drag the layers about till they are all in the right place (which is really easy as their file names run from the least to the most).

07-05-2018, 12:51 PM	#71
maw Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Sassari (Italy) Posts: 1,118	Originally posted by BruceBanner Checking my camera settings now, I have the bracketing order set to '1', which for 5 images runs as; Sort them sequentially, first the negative numbers, of course the 0 and then the positive ones. In my SLRs I set the sequence, - 0 +, i.e. underexposed, normal and overexposed. Best regards, Mario

07-05-2018, 02:14 PM	#72
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	Originally posted by maw Sort them sequentially, first the negative numbers, of course the 0 and then the positive ones. In my SLRs I set the sequence, - 0 +, i.e. underexposed, normal and overexposed. Best regards, Mario It was discussed earlier that this might not be the best ordering. 0 should be the 100% Opacity, not the 33% one. Have you played about and have found for personal experience it is best to have the -2 and -1 as being 100% and 50% opacity?

07-05-2018, 02:55 PM	#73
maw Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Sassari (Italy) Posts: 1,118	Originally posted by BruceBanner It was discussed earlier that this might not be the best ordering. 0 should be the 100% Opacity, not the 33% one. Have you played about and have found for personal experience it is best to have the -2 and -1 as being 100% and 50% opacity? Hi Bruce, I use that sequence, but everyone will have different preferences. The important thing is to know how much we are overexposing or under-exposing. I think that is your question! You have to set the value in your camera's menu, you can set it in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, which will then be used for all over/under exposure processes and for HDR. Obviously 1/3 corresponds to 33% and 1/2 to 50%, but better to test, because each reflex is different from another also because of the settings I hope it's clear. Greetings Mario

07-05-2018, 03:04 PM	#74
BruceBanner Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 5,404 Original Poster	Originally posted by maw Hi Bruce, I use that sequence, but everyone will have different preferences. The important thing is to know how much we are overexposing or under-exposing. I think that is your question! You have to set the value in your camera's menu, you can set it in steps of 1/3 or 1/2 EV, which will then be used for all over/under exposure processes and for HDR. Obviously 1/3 corresponds to 33% and 1/2 to 50%, but better to test, because each reflex is different from another also because of the settings I hope it's clear. Greetings Mario Yeah that's clear, I use 1/3 EV. I used to have my bracketing order like you with 0 in the middle, I have since changed it so that when editing the stack the 0 exposure frame is at the bottom (as suggested by others). I did make a comparison shot Creating Super Resolution Images Handheld (like a K-1mkii, but not). - Page 4 - PentaxForums.com I did not upload the other version, but if you read that post I came to the conclusion that it looked better (was was best to edit with) by having the 0 exposure at the bottom (100%). Perhaps you should try it if you haven't and report back.

07-05-2018, 03:40 PM	#75
maw Pentaxian Join Date: Feb 2014 Location: Sassari (Italy) Posts: 1,118	Originally posted by BruceBanner I did not upload the other version, but if you read that post I came to the conclusion that it looked better (was was best to edit with) by having the 0 exposure at the bottom (100%). Perhaps you should try it if you haven't and report back. Often these techniques reserve many surprises, you can never say which is the best of all, is a kind of laboratory where starting from reliable data and already proven you come to many other conclusions. The test in your case is the placement of different levels (stack) in reverse order, this I think will give you very different results.