There are apps specifically designed to produce similar results using image bursts and it's actually not overly tedious to stack images in LR, you can choose to have them auto-aligned too. Personally my preference would be to have access to the images stack as discrete images so that I could easily remedy any aberrations that were introduced by subject movement.
I understand the theory but I think that there is way too much emphasis put on the limited advantage leveraged by the PSR tech, scaling down an image from a larger sensor will yield similar results. The sample you provided a link to comes nowhere near filling my screen so I'm not sure where a 5k screen would differ in the appraisal of your samples? Lastly if the scene lends its self to tripod shooting I tend to shoot a pano sequence if I wish to generate a file with greater resolution, again this takes very little effort to post process these days and arguably yields a higher resolution file for the same data space. Interesting inclusion none the less. On 2 November 2015 at 11:17, Darren Addy <[email protected]> wrote: > Appreciate the comments Rob. I'd be curious to know what Paul > Stenquist sees on his new 5K Mac display. (See original post in this > thread, if you are wanting a diversion, Paul). Just a guess, but I > think he may see more than "subtle" differences. > > Regarding your 2nd paragraph, it would be difficult to duplicate PSR > with just 4 shots. I'm no statistician, but PSR overcomes the Bayer > array with its 4 precise shots. Simply put, taking a theoretical > pixelsite-sized section of your overall image, any handheld shot you > take has a 50% chance of being a green one, a 25% chance of being a > red one, and a 25% chance of being a blue one. That does not equal > 100% chance of getting that exact distribution with 4 random handheld > shots. > > Also, you are going to have to deal with any subject movement from the > time you take your first exposure to the time you end your last one > (same problem for PSR). > In any event, the point is that the camera takes care of your exercise > FOR you. You don't HAVE to do the tedious combination of separate > images that you describe. The camera does it for you. Although you can > work with the huge RAW file yourself, if you wish. I have yet to > experiment with that. > > That being said, I'd be interested in seeing what a burst of 8 shots > at 8 fps would look like compared to PSR. Might have to put that on my > list of things to do, unless someone beats me to it. > > > On Sun, Nov 1, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Rob Studdert <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's subtle but it's there, whether it's going to make a discernible >> difference in a print for instance depends on crop size vs print size >> I guess but it's a tool with very limited scope from my perspective >> given the artifacts created when there is any movement in the frame. >> >> I have yet to test but I would assume that similar results would be >> gained by shooting a series of four images using the high speed mode >> then combining them in LR or some similarly capable package, there >> would be sufficient camera shift between each shot to create a similar >> effect I expect. >> >> On 25 October 2015 at 03:51, John <[email protected]> wrote: >>> The lettering on the wire appears (to me) a tiny bit crisper in the >>> pixel shift version. >>> >>> On 10/23/2015 12:01 AM, Alan C wrote: >>>> >>>> Am I missing something? Can't see a difference. >>>> >>>> Alan C >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- From: Darren Addy >>>> Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2015 11:04 PM >>>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>>> Subject: A side-by-side Pixel Shift Resolution comparison with 77mm >>>> Limited atf/11 >>>> >>>> My K-3II arrived today and so I had to try out the Pixel Shift >>>> Resolution during afternoon break. Found an obliging dusty rack of >>>> electrical wire that agreed to serve as my subject. The 77mm f/1.8 >>>> limited is a very sharp lens (as anyone who has one will tell you). >>>> >>>> What you see in the link below is an image blown up to 100% (actual >>>> pixels). Each is an 863 pixel x 994 pixel crop of the full 6016 x 4000 >>>> pixel image. >>>> >>>> Conditions: Same exposure (2 sec. f/11, ISO 100) focused manually, >>>> shutter fired with the 12 second self-timer. The only thing that >>>> changed between shots was that I turned on Pixel Shift Resolution >>>> (without moving anything). On the left is a standard out of camera >>>> JPEG and on the right the JPEG produced with Pixel Shift Resolution. >>>> >>>> Click on it with your browser cursor to see it at 100%: >>>> http://www.antiqueauto.org/assets/PSRComparison.jpg >>>> >>>> At least for cooperative subjects, it looks (to me) like all my lenses >>>> just magically got significantly better. >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Science - Questions we may never find answers for. >>> Religion - Answers we must never question. >>> >>> >>> -- >>> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> [email protected] >>> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >>> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >>> follow the directions. >> >> >> >> -- >> Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) >> Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours >> Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio >> >> -- >> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> [email protected] >> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and >> follow the directions. > > > > -- > Life is too short to put up with bad bokeh. > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow > the directions. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
