Re: Sony announces A7R III and FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS lens today!
mjm6 wrote: Luvwine wrote: jhinkey wrote:
Seems like some folks don't really know what pixels shift is and how it differs from stitching.
Well, instead of being snarky, perhaps you could enlighten those of us genuinely ignorant of the advantages. I asked the question in good faith and explained where I was coming from.
I'm not him, and this may not be what he is getting it, but this is how I see it:
This isn't pixel shift to increase the image resolution or file size (pixel dimensions), it's de-bayer-filtering the pixels, so this is really completely different from a stitching approach. The file size remains the same, but the ability of the file to hold onto detail increases because the data is collected for R, G, and B at ever location, rather than being approximated from nearby pixels.
It would be possible to do that if they were to shift by 1/2 a pixel and then make a set of shots. It could feasibly be done by shooting a single 1/2 pixel shifted to the left and down, for example. However the much better implementation would be to shoot four with a full pixel shift over to de-bayer and then shoot another set of four 1/2 pixel shifted, for a total of 8. I think this is what Olympus does to double their resolution.
If you do a lot of copy work or art reproduction, this might produce a substantial improvement in sharpness from a 42MP file (assuming you have the optics to pull this off). I'm not sure how useful this will be for much of anything else the way they have it implemented.
Thank you for the explanation. It does seem like Sony's implementation of Pixel shift leaves some things to be desired if I am understanding correctly. Still, I have read folks saying that Sony's implementation of pixel shift will provide a 99 MP image file after combining. I get the advantages of color reproduction--nothing to sneeze at for copy work and some other still life photography--but it was the larger image file that got me thinking. Again, with play memories SR app, we get less noise in the shadows and a single raw output. Now, they seem to be killing the apps but give us pixel shift. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away. I would be much more attracted to pixel shift if it output a single raw file--especially if it increased resolution. As it seems to be, with the requirement of combining images in post (with proprietary software??), the advantage of pixel shift may be more limited than it could (should) have been and for those who are primarily interested in more resolution, stitching and combining in post may be a viable alternative. Thank you for the helpful response and discussion.
Re: Sony announces A7R III and FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS lens today!
mjm6 wrote: Luvwine wrote: jhinkey wrote:
Seems like some folks don't really know what pixels shift is and how it differs from stitching.
Well, instead of being snarky, perhaps you could enlighten those of us genuinely ignorant of the advantages. I asked the question in good faith and explained where I was coming from.
I'm not him, and this may not be what he is getting it, but this is how I see it:
This isn't pixel shift to increase the image resolution or file size (pixel dimensions), it's de-bayer-filtering the pixels, so this is really completely different from a stitching approach. The file size remains the same, but the ability of the file to hold onto detail increases because the data is collected for R, G, and B at ever location, rather than being approximated from nearby pixels.
It would be possible to do that if they were to shift by 1/2 a pixel and then make a set of shots. It could feasibly be done by shooting a single 1/2 pixel shifted to the left and down, for example. However the much better implementation would be to shoot four with a full pixel shift over to de-bayer and then shoot another set of four 1/2 pixel shifted, for a total of 8. I think this is what Olympus does to double their resolution.
If you do a lot of copy work or art reproduction, this might produce a substantial improvement in sharpness from a 42MP file (assuming you have the optics to pull this off). I'm not sure how useful this will be for much of anything else the way they have it implemented.
Thank you for the explanation. It does seem like Sony's implementation of Pixel shift leaves some things to be desired if I am understanding correctly. Still, I have read folks saying that Sony's implementation of pixel shift will provide a 99 MP image file after combining. I get the advantages of color reproduction--nothing to sneeze at for copy work and some other still life photography--but it was the larger image file that got me thinking. Again, with play memories SR app, we get less noise in the shadows and a single raw output. Now, they seem to be killing the apps but give us pixel shift. What the right hand giveth, the left hand taketh away. I would be much more attracted to pixel shift if it output a single raw file--especially if it increased resolution. As it seems to be, with the requirement of combining images in post (with proprietary software??), the advantage of pixel shift may be more limited than it could (should) have been. Thank you for the helpful response and discussion.
Oct 25, 2017 at 11:31 AM
Previous versions of Luvwine's message #14229140 « Pre-orders open! Sony A7R III and FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS lens! »
