[benjikan]

There are ways to improve the rendition of the K10D that will give it similar resolution to a Pro Back of 31.6 megpaixels. I will be shortly doing an Ad Campaign with the K10D where I could have opted for a Digital Back. I will shoot in RAW and introduce three layers with a microscopic shift on each of the layers. After doing so I will sharpen the layers at between 0.3 and 0.5 pixels at 240 to 300 percent. It works very well. What I do is use two colour layers and one B&W layer. I still use the "Soft Light" setting. I am effectively getting the impression of a 30.6 megapixel image. The pixels are all slightly offset. It really does work quite well.

Thought I would share that with you. Theoretically it is not 31.6 mega pixels, but it sure looks like it.

Ben

---

Last edited by benjikan; 04-17-2007 at 12:43 AM.

[Dana G]

Sounds interesting. I still use Genuine Fractals if I need to upsize and image by a large amount.

Another little trick is to create a duplicate layer, apply a High Pass filter so you see some detail but not much, and make the blending mode Soft Light. Done properly it can sharpen an image non-destructively and allow a larger print.

[benjikan]

Sounds interesting. I still use Genuine Fractals if I need to upsize and image by a large amount.

Another little trick is to create a duplicate layer, apply a High Pass filter so you see some detail but not much, and make the blending mode Soft Light. Done properly it can sharpen an image non-destructively and allow a larger print.

Yes..GF works very well. But what I am doing is doing a slight offset to the existing pixels and not upsizing. It is similar to having three layers of the same image giving an optical illusion of "3D". The sharpening compensates for the offset. Give it a try!

[Dana G]

OK, I'll have a go at it. Thanks for the tip!

[kmccanta]

I dont understand. If your microscopic shift is less than a pixel, that means you are creating new pixels interleaved with the originals. Isnt this upsizing?

In other words how can you shift by less than a pixel unless you upsized to define the intermediate pixels to begin with??

I guess I dont understnad how to do this either...

Maybe you could explain in a littel more detail? I have a picture of a blue Heron that visited my house on Easter, but after cropping, all the postprocessing seems to do is ruin the image... I tried up rezing but that dint work either... maybe what you are doing will help with this picture...

[arbutusq]

This sounds very interesting but I can't say as I understand what you are doing exactly either.

[robsphoto]

that sounds interesting, thought I'am no ps freak,
here is an article
http://clluengo.lbl.gov/Documents/SPIE2000.pdf

for B&W, I add grain,;
upsample to final print size, and add grain, to paper,
for the printer it can resolve, this will give an aperant sharpness, and the typical B&W look.

other option is, to stich, shoot on tripod, do a pano sequence for every scene and light change, not doing it, due exorbitant editing time,...

here is one for you Ben, to talk to pentax,...
3 shot bracket, with IS micro shift, in camera combine, ....
I use bibble pro for raw, the raw is already RGB combined,....
so would be best to do in camera,... and get a 31mp raw file
.... oh add a one shot option to increase spatial frequency.
though 3 shots would have more data, maybe even exposure bracket at the same time,... just an idea,...

Rob

There are ways to improve the rendition of the K10D that will give it similar resolution to a Pro Back of 31.6 megpaixels. I will be shortly doing an Ad Campaign with the K10D where I could have opted for a Digital Back. I will shoot in RAW and introduce three layers with a microscopic shift on each of the layers. After doing so I will sharpen the layers at between 0.3 and 0.5 pixels at 240 to 300 percent. It works very well. What I do is use two colour layers and one B&W layer. I still use the "Soft Light" setting. I am effectively getting the impression of a 30.6 megapixel image. The pixels are all slightly offset. It really does work quite well.

Thought I would share that with you. Theoretically it is not 31.6 mega pixels, but it sure looks like it.

Ben

[Matjazz]

If shake reduction was precise enough to move sensor 0.5pix in each direction it would be possible to make an actual 4x10.2mp image with four exposures or, if shake reduction was also fast enough, with a single four times longer exposure.
The sensor would have to move like this:

each step is 0.5pix long

I guess there are other technical details in the way or someone would already utilize this principle.
Benjikan, perhaps this is worth mentioning to Pentax representative next time you meet him.

[benjikan]

Here is a sample using "Free Transform" to offset the image "1" pixel per layer. What you are seeing is a crop from the original that can be viewed on one of my sites under the series name "Divine Inspiration".

Gallery :: Photography by Benjamin Kanarek :: chr_tiencloseup

Ben

[roscot]

Interesting technique Ben. What order do you layer the B&W and color layers?

[benjikan]

Interesting technique Ben. What order do you layer the B&W and color layers?

I do two duplicate layers one is in color two is desaturated plus the original.

[button]

Ben, we appreciate the innovation. Please continue to share!

John

[bart_hickman]

If shake reduction was precise enough to move sensor 0.5pix in each direction it would be possible to make an actual 4x10.2mp image with four exposures or, if shake reduction was also fast enough, with a single four times longer exposure.
The sensor would have to move like this:

each step is 0.5pix long

I guess there are other technical details in the way or someone would already utilize this principle.
Benjikan, perhaps this is worth mentioning to Pentax representative next time you meet him.

I've thought of this too. The main problem I thought of was the anti-aliasing filter which has already removed almost all of the extra information above Nyquist. Now if you cold somehow have a camera mode that also moves the AA filter out of the way, then you'd really have something.

In the meantime, it's a lot technically easier to simply double the focal length, take four adjacent photos and then stitch them together. Solves the AA filter problem as well. Downside is it's only good for landscapes, but that's the only time I ever want more resolution.

Bart

[LeoTaylor]

Great photo, lovely model, interesting technique.

[Lance B]

There are ways to improve the rendition of the K10D that will give it similar resolution to a Pro Back of 31.6 megpaixels. I will be shortly doing an Ad Campaign with the K10D where I could have opted for a Digital Back. I will shoot in RAW and introduce three layers with a microscopic shift on each of the layers. After doing so I will sharpen the layers at between 0.3 and 0.5 pixels at 240 to 300 percent. It works very well. What I do is use two colour layers and one B&W layer. I still use the "Soft Light" setting. I am effectively getting the impression of a 30.6 megapixel image. The pixels are all slightly offset. It really does work quite well.

Thought I would share that with you. Theoretically it is not 31.6 mega pixels, but it sure looks like it.

Ben

Thanks for the info, Ben. Your sharpening technique is excellent and I use it often.

I would like to know more about the application of the method you use and how you do it. Is it done in Photoshop?

The image you posted looks stunning.

Cheers,
Lance