Originally posted by Wild Mark Here you are saying that the native 36MP sensor is not actually 36MP, but with pixel shift it becomes a real 36MB.
Yes, that is what he is saying and what I was saying and sort of not what you were saying.
Originally posted by Wild Mark I suspect the effective pixel density is much greater than the physical sensor.
This is what you were saying ^ ^ ^ .
I am familiar with the original PF article explaining PS resolution and the particular paragraph postulating a favorable comparison to higher resolution sensors. I don't know that the comparisons have actually been done, but it would not surprise me if detail capture were on the same order as cameras with significantly higher pixel resolutions. Though that would not be the same as higher effective pixel density and I don't believe the authors make that claim, mostly because what we are talking about is higher
per pixel fidelity, not more detail per pixel.*
For normal Bayer extrapolation the effective pixel density** is significantly
less than the physical sensor's specification. It is a small difference in logic, but one supported by example photos*** such as one where most of the small red berries on a bush magically disappear from a digital capture, but are present on film images scanned and rendered to the same pixel resolution. Actual pixel densities in the digital versions are the same for both images, but nobody would claim that the scan has higher effective pixel density just because the film got better data. The pixels generated from the sensor output were simply deficient by design. Pentax's Pixel shift makes up for much of that deficiency such that each rendered pixel is simply more accurate to reality. Would "pixel efficiency" (as a percentage of ideal) be a reasonable term?
Steve
* Sorry to be pedantic, but sensors don't really have pixels. They have photo-detector sites whose readings are interpreted by code to create digital representations of pixels; pixels themselves being, after all, a logical representation of a spot of light and nothing more (i.e. a pixel has no detail).
** I am unfamiliar with the term and Google was no help, at least in regards to digital capture. I take it to mean that one might treat a PS image to the same effect as if it had more pixels than are actually there.
** The example I cited is from the infamous film vs. digital shoot-out conducted by PetaPixel a few years ago where the Canon 5D II showed an appetite for rowan berries.
LINK
Last edited by stevebrot; 06-10-2018 at 10:39 AM.