[Adam]

Just saw these links on dpreview posted as (in Japanese) official samples. Can't read Japanese, but the images are amazing.


http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/k-3-2/ex/img/bod_mainImg_01.JPG


http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/products/k-3-2/ex/img/bod_mainImg_02.JPG


This time in English with examples with and without PS (Pixel Shift) on


Sample Images?K-3 II | RICOH IMAGING

That is exceptionally clear for a digital image- on almost par with the detail in 645Z files IMO.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover these costs by donating or purchasing one of our Pentax eBooks. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, KEH, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

[Alizarine]

i just thought about the 645Z, if they couple these tech with the 50mp...

it would be incredible but PS needs in-body SR to work...

[Nitrogliserin]

Pfff I hate when this happens. Do we have to buy a new Pentax almost every year?

[max_pyne]

yep hm, now i need to buy a K-3!! i think in need to get rid of my K-7 and five...

[mikeodial]

That is exceptionally clear for a digital image- on almost par with the detail in 645Z files IMO.

Adam, that was my thought. I have been waiting for the FF to replace my K3 but this is a very tempting upgrade, can you imagine the files from the FF if this is representative of what the K3ii can do?

[devouges]

Hi Everyone.... just thinking: why would you want to turn OFF pixel shifting ? Other than portraits or "moody" scenes, I can't think of anything. Can anyone expand on that ?

[biz-engineer]

That is exceptionally clear for a digital image- on almost par with the detail in 645Z files IMO.

Yes, but no really surprising. The same outstanding IQ can be done with the K-3, with the same lens (DA*55) and stacking 4 shots aligned + sharpened in post processing.
The advantage of the K-3II is that it's automated => FF IQ straight out of the camera, with the limitation that it can only be done with fixed image. So, for someone not already having a K-3, the K-3II is a compelling product.

P.S: stacking of K-3 images should be done from 16 bits TIFF or RAWs, otherwise, the stacking of JPEGs produces some banding.

[bossa]

i just thought about the 645Z, if they couple these tech with the 50mp...

Without a sensor that can move they can't, unless there's some way to use in-lens SR.

[zmohie]

it would be incredible but PS needs in-body SR to work...

From what I understand that the work way of SR and tripod
is opposite so if I want to use the feature I have to turn the SR /ON/ and at the same time I have to put the camera on a tripod.how will this be working properly!

[mikeodial]

Yes, but no really surprising. The same outstanding IQ can be done with the K-3, with the same lens (DA*55) and stacking 4 shots aligned + sharpened in post processing.
The advantage of the K-3II is that it's automated => FF IQ straight out of the camera, with the limitation that it can only be done with fixed image. So, for someone not already having a K-3, the K-3II is a compelling product.

P.S: stacking of K-3 images should be done from 16 bits TIFF or RAWs, otherwise, the stacking of JPEGs produces some banding.

Isn't this process different than just stacking, which increases image quality by software reinterpreting the image because it has better (more) image data. Whereas the PS technology is actually taking images that are positioned differently then merging them. This is more like interpolation, so the actual images being taken are from a different (albeit minute) new position, then merged in camera. I am pretty sure the result would be different than just stacking. The files should be smaller as well, (than 5-10 merged files for example), as they are still 24mp at the end of the day.


However, I am not an image processing expert or camera designer, so could well be wrong. If it was a simple merge function there would be little value to this process don't you think?

[biz-engineer]

Isn't this process different than just stacking, which increases image quality by software reinterpreting the image because it has better (more) image data. Whereas the PS technology is actually taking images that are positioned differently then merging them. This is more like interpolation, so the actual images being taken are from a different (albeit minute) new position, then merged in camera. I am pretty sure the result would be different than just stacking. The files should be smaller as well, (than 5-10 merged files for example), as they are still 24mp at the end of the day. However, I am not an image processing expert or camera designer, so could well be wrong. If it was a simple merge function there would be little value to this process don't you think?

In theory, we assume that pixel shifting in 1.5 pixels steps in x and y directions (assuming the sensor shift can accurately controlled within 1.95um in X and Y direction...which I highly doubt) would be equivalent to 2x oversampling. However, in practice the image falling onto the sensor is already band limited by the lens, so increasing the equivalent resolution of the sensor does not help as much as we may think (basically, what is oversampled is already having low contrast due to at least diffraction from the lens). According to simulations, pixel shifting increases resolution by 12% @f2, 8% @f4 and nearly 0% at f8 (that's why the DA*55 f1.4 lens is used to capture the pixel shift sample images on Ricoh web site). Now, lets assume that the lens out-resolve the 24Mpixels sensor. If what is advertised by Ricoh (the shifting is done in steps of 1 pixel) is true, this means that the spacial resolution is not increased. However, for sure the noise will be reduced, which give more room for sharpening, or more refined image. I'm eager to compare a 4 x16bits TIFF stacked and sharpened image from K-3, with a K-3II pixel shift photo in the same conditions (same lens, lighting etc..). This does not make the K-3II "pixel shift" unattractive, the advantage of the K-3 II is that you have the sharper image already boiled for you, hopefully available in raw. I look forward to do a comparison.

[Dlanor Sekao]

If that pocket-watch is working, then (judging by the frozen second hand), the Pixel Shift technology is clearly able to produce an image reasonably quickly.

At over 8 frames a second I wouldn't expect it to move ?

---------- Post added 04-24-15 at 08:51 PM ----------

Hi Everyone.... just thinking: why would you want to turn OFF pixel shifting ? Other than portraits or "moody" scenes, I can't think of anything. Can anyone expand on that ?

It wont work for scenes that aren't static from what I understand.

[Alizarine]

From what I understand that the work way of SR and tripod
is opposite so if I want to use the feature I have to turn the SR /ON/ and at the same time I have to put the camera on a tripod.how will this be working properly!

The pixel-shift technology uses the SR mechanism to do its increase-dynamic-range thing. The 645Z's sensor doesn't have SR, so even with a firmware upgrade it isn't possible with the 645D/Z

[JimmyDranox]

We don't know way the frame rate is limited to 8.3 per second. It could be the buffer capacity, the processor speed, but also the time needed to raise the mirror and open-close the shutter. But pixel shift don't use the mechanical shutter, But an electronic one. so, the frame rate could be higher (or not). We don't know yet.

[biz-engineer]

But pixel shift don't use the mechanical shutter

We don't know yet if there is an electronic shutter taking place or still mechanical...