Pixel-Shifting Vs. Larger Sensors

[David H. Hartman]

Curiosity:

How may here have 4K monitors?  Please raise you hands.

Any 8K monitors?

How about technologically disadvantaged souls like myself with only a 1080P?

Dave

[Erik Lund]

In a new thread; Monitor - Please

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Down sampling with bicubic interpolation causes soft edges of fine detail and down sampling from approximately 8000 pixels to 2000 pixels involves a significant reduction of data. I don't see how differences seen at pixel level in the original image can endure to be seen after significant down sampling. Different procedures used  to down sample can give more or less apparent detail to the down sampled image. A dive directly from 8000 to 2000 pixels will not give the best results unless the software has a hidden algorithm at work. My software does not so I down sample is stages with sharpening in between each step.

Why not? To get the correct image, the blurring should occur before the image hits the sensor that samples it. Post-capture blurring doesn't achieve the same result.

[Les Olson]

All I'm saying is that we may look at the imaging chain below and compare RGB image_in and RGB image_out for different cameras and different input images, leaving the other arrows unchanged (or, alternatively, optimizing the conversion to minimize the difference between the two images either on an image-per-image basis, or the average difference across the different input images). This scheme may be applied to any kind of imaging chain comparison regardless of the physics of color or anything else that you mentioned.

Of course you can and that can be very useful in comparing image chains. 

What you can't do is get outside the RGB-based imaging chain, despite what people here keep pretending.  You could measure the wavelengths of light reflected off a (say) flower, and you could measure the wavelengths of light in the image formed by a lens (they won't be the same, because no glass is colour neutral and every glass is not-colour-neutral in its own way) but you cannot say that one set of RGB values generated in response to those wavelengths is more "accurate" than another.

What is being said here is "I have a theory about images and if the theory is true Image A should be better - although I am carefully sliding over what "better" means - and I am going to define any differences between Image A and Image B as Image A being better, which confirms my theory." (We had a discussion a while ago about circular arguments: well, here's another one). 

[David H. Hartman]

I brought up the monitor because it could be the weak link just as down sampling surely is. If a drop from 8000 to 4000 is all that's needed that would be an improvement. If no down sampling is needed that would be idea.

I guess this thread is about theory. I thought it was practical. 2000 pixels on a side has confused me. I'll leave the thread. 

Sorry...

[Michael Erlewine]

I brought up the monitor because it could be the weak link just as down sampling surely is. If a drop from 8000 to 4000 is all that's needed that would be an improvement. If no down sampling is needed that would be idea.

I guess this thread is about theory. I thought it was practical. 2000 pixels on a side has confused me. I'll leave the thread. 

Sorry...

I am the OP. This thread IS about practical experience with pixel-shifting, but was hijacked (as many threads now here on NikonGear) by armchair philosophers who IMO just want to talk about theory. Perhaps no one has any actual experience with pixel shifting, but I for one am tired of seeing thread after thread turn into theory and not practice. This used to be THE practice forum. LuLa now is much more practical than here, IMO, if I am allowed to have an opinion and not have it considered unfriendly. I am not unfriendly, just focused on practical stuff. And I like some theory too, but in proportion.

I wish we had an area for practice questions and discussions. Almost all the threads I start these days turn into this.  Certainly there is a place for theory and "blue sky," but IMO this was never meant to be that. Is there anything we can do to get the practice back into this forum? Certainly the founders (nfoto, Erik, Andrea, etc.) were (and still are) practical and practice oriented.

I am still waiting for a practical discussion on pixel-shifting, without this thread being turned into "perhaps it is this way and perhaps it is that way."

Perhaps photography is changing into deciding how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I hope not. And that's my two cents, meant to be constructive.

[Erik Lund]

I hear what you are saying Michael. Thank you! Don't forget JA and Jakov as co-founders! Both even more the practical kind!


Please consider that people here come from different backgrounds, some definitely more theoretical than others, some feel comfortable with theory,,,


My best advice is to overlook the theoretical replies and focus on the practical since that's your preference, we are not in a position to discard theory from certain threads on the site, theory is fundamental for understanding and explaining most things,,, but yes on an other level,,, 


In this thread, I for one enjoy the theoretical comments, I don't always understand, but I can relate to it,,,


Sorry I have not used Pixel Shift nor MF sensor cameras - It is not usable/economical for my current field of photography,,,

[Michael Erlewine]

I hear what you are saying Michael. Thank you! Don't forget JA and Jakov as co-founders! Both even more the practical kind!


Please consider that people here come from different backgrounds, some definitely more theoretical than others, some feel comfortable with theory,,,


My best advice is to overlook the theoretical replies and focus on the practical since that's your preference, we are not in a position to discard theory from certain threads on the site, theory is fundamental for understanding and explaining most things,,, but yes on an other level,,, 


In this thread, I for one enjoy the theoretical comments, I don't always understand, but I can relate to it,,,


Sorry I have not used Pixel Shift nor MF sensor cameras - It is not usable/economical for my current field of photography,,,

I hear you. I didn't know JA and Jakov were co-founders. Sorry. I will try to overlook theory unless is also relates to the pracrtice, but in this thread, there are pretty-much no practical users. Lloyd Chambers and I have talked about this and he has actually tested pixel-shift, as I have. Maybe it is just too early in the game for this. Thanks.

[Les Olson]

I hear what you are saying Michael. [...]

My best advice is to overlook the theoretical replies and focus on the practical since that's your preference, we are not in a position to discard theory from certain threads on the site, theory is fundamental for understanding and explaining most things,,, but yes on an other level,,, 

Steady on.  I will not be put in the wrong. 

Michael's original post said: "I am wondering [...] whether the pixel-shift technology of the A7R3 may give me the color (most important to me) and the enhanced resolution (however that works), so that [...] I might (at least for a time) be happy with what I have (or will soon have with the A7R3)?"

How is that a practical question?  This is a man asking us to predict his state of mind when he owns a camera that will not be on sale for a month and that for the feature he is fixated on requires software that as of now is at "pre-beta" (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-also-announced-new-imaging-edge-software-suite/).  But we can't have any theoretical discussion or talk about how it might be this or it might be that?! 

He went on: "I am sure some of you here will have more technical thoughts about this conundrum I am in, either agreeing with me or pointing out something I have not thought of."

That is, straightforwardly, an invitation to discuss technical issues.  It is not OK to whine and snarl because the invitation was taken up.

 

[JKoerner007]

Steady on.  I will not be put in the wrong. 

Michael's original post said: "I am wondering [...] whether the pixel-shift technology of the A7R3 may give me the color (most important to me) and the enhanced resolution (however that works), so that [...] I might (at least for a time) be happy with what I have (or will soon have with the A7R3)?"

How is that a practical question?  This is a man asking us to predict his state of mind when he owns a camera that will not be on sale for a month and that for the feature he is fixated on requires software that as of now is at "pre-beta" (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-also-announced-new-imaging-edge-software-suite/).  But we can't have any theoretical discussion or talk about how it might be this or it might be that?! 

He went on: "I am sure some of you here will have more technical thoughts about this conundrum I am in, either agreeing with me or pointing out something I have not thought of."

That is, straightforwardly, an invitation to discuss technical issues.  It is not OK to whine and snarl because the invitation was taken up.

+1

The irony is, this is a Nikon forum, and Nikon doesn't have pixel shift, so how many here are going to be well-experienced in its usage?

Till now (as far as I am aware) only Pentax carried the technology ...

Even more ironic, Michael has used the technology, and is the very "person with experience" (in precisely his own style of shooting) ... and therefore has the answers to his own questions.

The only remaining questions are, "What will the pixel-shift tech of the Sony AR7rIII be like, and will it render better color than the Nikon D850?" Michael already owns and is happy with.

Since no one owns the Sony yet, how can anyone provide an in-depth, practical response?

Theoretical discussion is the only option, other than not to respond at all.

If we attempt to discuss theory, perhaps a re-read of Bjørn's suggestion, Also worth keeping in mind is the Law of Diminishing Returns, is the most relevant.

How many photos must we take, stack/shift, and combine ... with how many different camera/lens combinations ... before we can be happy with what we do?

Certainly, Michael has produced some exquisitely-rendered images ... so is the Sony pixel-shift/stack + adapter really going to make a difference over a D850 stack?

I honestly doubt it; in fact, already the D850 has shown to have better Base ISO DR.

At some point, it pays just to be happy, rather than forever chasing a rainbow of perfection ... that can never be caught.

[Michael Erlewine]

Steady on.  I will not be put in the wrong. 

Michael's original post said: "I am wondering [...] whether the pixel-shift technology of the A7R3 may give me the color (most important to me) and the enhanced resolution (however that works), so that [...] I might (at least for a time) be happy with what I have (or will soon have with the A7R3)?"

How is that a practical question?  This is a man asking us to predict his state of mind when he owns a camera that will not be on sale for a month and that for the feature he is fixated on requires software that as of now is at "pre-beta" (https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-also-announced-new-imaging-edge-software-suite/).  But we can't have any theoretical discussion or talk about how it might be this or it might be that?! 

He went on: "I am sure some of you here will have more technical thoughts about this conundrum I am in, either agreeing with me or pointing out something I have not thought of."

That is, straightforwardly, an invitation to discuss technical issues.  It is not OK to whine and snarl because the invitation was taken up.

 

 I get it. Probably my mistake. I thought I clearly stated, like in the first sentence or two what I wanted.

IMO, you mistake technical (practice) for theoretical. But you understand now, right? Let's talk on THIS thread about using pixel-shift on those cameras WE have that implement it. Of course, post your more theoretical material on another thread. No harm done, just please stay on topic as I have described it in this post. A hands on discussion please, at least some. 

[Michael Erlewine]

+1

The irony is, this is a Nikon forum, and Nikon doesn't have pixel shift, so how many here are going to be well-experienced in its usage?

Till now (as far as I am aware) only Pentax carried the technology ...

Even more ironic, Michael has used the technology, and is the very "person with experience" (in precisely his own style of shooting) ... and therefore has the answers to his own questions.

The only remaining questions are, "What will the pixel-shift tech of the Sony AR7rIII be like, and will it render better color than the Nikon D850?" Michael already owns and is happy with.

Since no one owns the Sony yet, how can anyone provide an in-depth, practical response?

Theoretical discussion is the only option, other than not to respond at all.

If we attempt to discuss theory, perhaps a re-read of Bjørn's suggestion, Also worth keeping in mind is the Law of Diminishing Returns, is the most relevant.

How many photos must we take, stack/shift, and combine ... with how many different camera/lens combinations ... before we can be happy with what we do?

Certainly, Michael has produced some exquisitely-rendered images ... so is the Sony pixel-shift/stack + adapter really going to make a difference over a D850 stack?

I honestly doubt it; in fact, already the D850 has shown to have better Base ISO DR.

At some point, it pays just to be happy, rather than forever chasing a rainbow of perfection ... that can never be caught.

Jack, this is not just a Nikon forum; that's just where it started out. It is for all kinds of cameras, etc. If I'm the problem, I will be glad to leave this thread that I started and did my best to make clear. It's only getting cloudier, IMO.

And your comments, most of them, are just avoiding the thread intent even more. LOL. I will find another venue for these kinds of questions. Later.

[JKoerner007]

Jack, this is not just a Nikon forum; that's just where it started out. It is for all kinds of cameras, etc. If I'm the problem, I will be glad to leave this thread that I started and did my best to make clear. It's only getting cloudier, IMO.

And your comments, most of them, are just avoiding the thread intent even more. LOL. I will find another venue for these kinds of questions. Later.

Michael, I actually think you have the most relevant experience to your own question (having used the technology for your style of shooting) ... and, with your order of the new Sony, are poised to be in the best position to answer your own questions about the new offering.

From what I gather (sorry to theorize), the pixel-shift would not benefit a wildlife photographer at all, but only a studio photographer of static subjects.

Will it be better than the D850 for what you do? Only you will be able to provide that answer ... so let us know.

Cheers.

[simsurace]

you cannot say that one set of RGB values generated in response to those wavelengths is more "accurate" than another.

It is a problem if you look at absolute values, but not relative values. If two adjacent pixels have very different RGB values when they should be roughly the same (e.g. white), we may speak of color artifacts. This may be generalized.
------------------------
Regarding the discussion on the appropriateness of theory; my view is that the original question was very vague (which is not a bad thing as such) and did not indicate what the OP's level of understanding was. My approach was to outline possible ways in which pixel-shift might lead to improvements in imaging (in a very narrow sense outlined above). I'm not sure whether that was helpful to the OP, but since reading my posts is optional and free, I don't see any harm done.
If I were only interested in practical discussions, I would clearly not participate in this thread, as I do not own and have never owned a camera with pixel shift, nor do I plan to own one in the foreseeable future or find it particularly practical for my work. I imagine that Micheal could slightly benefit from the feature based on what I know about his work, in the way I tried to outline above. The theoretical discussion between Les and myself and others arises primarily because (as I understand it) he claims that there is no rigorous way in which the potential benefits of pixel-shift may be measured. I'm trying to understand his claim but so far I fail.

[Michael Erlewine]

It is a problem if you look at absolute values, but not relative values. If two adjacent pixels have very different RGB values when they should be roughly the same (e.g. white), we may speak of color artifacts. This may be generalized.
------------------------
Regarding the discussion on the appropriateness of theory; my view is that the original question was very vague (which is not a bad thing as such) and did not indicate what the OP's level of understanding was. My approach was to outline possible ways in which pixel-shift might lead to improvements in imaging (in a very narrow sense outlined above). I'm not sure whether that was helpful to the OP, but since reading my posts is optional and free, I don't see any harm done.
If I were only interested in practical discussions, I would clearly not participate in this thread, as I do not own and have never owned a camera with pixel shift, nor do I plan to own one in the foreseeable future or find it particularly practical for my work. I imagine that Micheal could slightly benefit from the feature based on what I know about his work, in the way I tried to outline above. The theoretical discussion between Les and myself and others arises primarily because (as I understand it) he claims that there is no rigorous way in which the potential benefits of pixel-shift may be measured. I'm trying to understand his claim but so far I fail.

Well, I've made myself quite clear by now. LOL. I will keep my own counsel until someone arrives who wants to discuss how to best use this technique. No problem.