I was just going to say similar. he also didn't even zoom in to the point where you can see some differences (or not).... "This Ferrari driving at 30mph is no faster than a Prius driving 30mph!".
I did my own testing on A7RIV. With 4-shot version the contrast got better but no resolution improvement. The 16 shot version showed visible resolution increase. It is worth it in studio work where you shoot stationary product shots with hot lights. TBH, 61 MP is so much that you probably don't have to go to the trouble of pixel shift. Same thing was true with my Pentax K1 that offered 4-shot pixel shift. I did a few tests with the K1 too but never used pixel shift in my everyday photography.
Isn't pixel shift useful primarily for cropped work, or photos that will be printed quite large but viewed closely? As you suggested, art work, etc? I would be interested to see how large I could get a photo for print before pixels start becoming noticeable relative to a non-pixel shifted photo. A useful and well-presented video nonetheless, with some good advice.
I think this proves very little. Are we looking at these in LR or theSony app? Aren't we looking at jpgs? As someone who prints very large images 60x90 or on occasion 120x180 inches the use of pixel shift is important in the final print. There you see a difference. Even taking an image by taking 4-6 shots and stitching them makes a big difference. I actually prefer that method over pixel shift. But looking at these images this small on a screen rather than printed large-the purpose of pixel shift - seems to have been missed here.
It's LR and they are the raw files, not jpg. Obv these Pixel Shift photos will be very much needed for large prints like you do. Completely agree on that but for most people who don't need to print, this might not be needed. It all depends on the work you do
The place I saw the biggest improvement wasn't at high contrast boundaries, it was in textured areas. In the single shot photo, the textured surface of the lens displays significant moiré and the same area in the pixel shifted image does not.
I think you reached the limit of your lenses, especially that these were zooms, so you barely can notice the difference, because the bottleneck is elsewhere. I've seen people see a ton of difference with macro lenses used to scan film - basically able to match drum scans. Pixel shift bypasses the colour filters on the sensor and you really are able to resolve right down to the limit of the film you are scanning. If you pick the right lens (could be even an APO enlarger lens) you can get better micro contrast than drum scans.
I’m just getting into this functionality for my A1 but my application is a bit unique… I want to shoot images of Stage Scenery and project it onto large screens… LARGE like 20 foot by 40 foot screens! (Need a $20K projector at 10/20K lumens!) Possible? Like large photo prints, the projected image doesn’t need to have commensurate resolution because it won’t be seen… up close. But How close is close enuff? 🤔
MY question is why the hell can't the A9 III do this, it can do 120fps RAW but not pixel shift multi??? That speed would be amazing for acquiring these images.
funny how people are mean responding comments they don’t even understand, arguing with obvious arguments 😏. In France we use to say « The wise shows the moon, the fool looks the finger ». Just for your information I was mentioning that the render of those images should be more zoomed in so we could appreciate properly what difference it makes when full zoomed in. Well I guess you don’t even care and are were just to prouve how more smart you were than me.
This is just plain idiotic. Who needs 240Mp??? 60Mp is already too much and sensitivity is suffering. Sony A7s III could have made use of this feature.
Do you see a difference in the Pixel Shift photo? 🤔
What other use cases do you see for this?
Oh boy what a neat feature.
Why didn’t you take pictures of something with enough detail to actually test this?
I was just going to say similar. he also didn't even zoom in to the point where you can see some differences (or not).... "This Ferrari driving at 30mph is no faster than a Prius driving 30mph!".
Why not zoom in till the lower resolution blurs and compare? And something with more details like hair, feathers or line pairs.
Great suggestion! Will keep this in mind
I did my own testing on A7RIV. With 4-shot version the contrast got better but no resolution improvement. The 16 shot version showed visible resolution increase. It is worth it in studio work where you shoot stationary product shots with hot lights. TBH, 61 MP is so much that you probably don't have to go to the trouble of pixel shift. Same thing was true with my Pentax K1 that offered 4-shot pixel shift. I did a few tests with the K1 too but never used pixel shift in my everyday photography.
Isn't pixel shift useful primarily for cropped work, or photos that will be printed quite large but viewed closely? As you suggested, art work, etc?
I would be interested to see how large I could get a photo for print before pixels start becoming noticeable relative to a non-pixel shifted photo.
A useful and well-presented video nonetheless, with some good advice.
I think this proves very little. Are we looking at these in LR or theSony app? Aren't we looking at jpgs? As someone who prints very large images 60x90 or on occasion 120x180 inches the use of pixel shift is important in the final print. There you see a difference. Even taking an image by taking 4-6 shots and stitching them makes a big difference. I actually prefer that method over pixel shift. But looking at these images this small on a screen rather than printed large-the purpose of pixel shift - seems to have been missed here.
It's LR and they are the raw files, not jpg. Obv these Pixel Shift photos will be very much needed for large prints like you do. Completely agree on that but for most people who don't need to print, this might not be needed. It all depends on the work you do
The place I saw the biggest improvement wasn't at high contrast boundaries, it was in textured areas. In the single shot photo, the textured surface of the lens displays significant moiré and the same area in the pixel shifted image does not.
Yeah those are great observations!
I think you reached the limit of your lenses, especially that these were zooms, so you barely can notice the difference, because the bottleneck is elsewhere. I've seen people see a ton of difference with macro lenses used to scan film - basically able to match drum scans. Pixel shift bypasses the colour filters on the sensor and you really are able to resolve right down to the limit of the film you are scanning. If you pick the right lens (could be even an APO enlarger lens) you can get better micro contrast than drum scans.
This is interesting. Using macro lenses to capture 35mm film is fairly straightforward, but what about medium format?
Very helpful thoughts, thanks. Looking into this.
I’m just getting into this functionality for my A1 but my application is a bit unique…
I want to shoot images of Stage Scenery and project it onto large screens… LARGE like 20 foot by 40 foot screens! (Need a $20K projector at 10/20K lumens!)
Possible? Like large photo prints, the projected image doesn’t need to have commensurate resolution because it won’t be seen… up close.
But How close is close enuff? 🤔
Wow that's huge. Let me know how it works out for you.
MY question is why the hell can't the A9 III do this, it can do 120fps RAW but not pixel shift multi??? That speed would be amazing for acquiring these images.
Yeah it's too bad it doesn't have it.
Jus zoom more, that's such a nonsens 🙄
Its not for zooming, genius. Its for things like product photography or super detailed portraits in studio.
funny how people are mean responding comments they don’t even understand, arguing with obvious arguments 😏. In France we use to say « The wise shows the moon, the fool looks the finger ».
Just for your information I was mentioning that the render of those images should be more zoomed in so we could appreciate properly what difference it makes when full zoomed in. Well I guess you don’t even care and are were just to prouve how more smart you were than me.
Too bad it isn't handheld like in Panasonic S5 ii.
They have stabilization in the software if you really want to go handheld but not recommended.
1.8gb file size. tf?
Yupp
This is just plain idiotic. Who needs 240Mp??? 60Mp is already too much and sensitivity is suffering. Sony A7s III could have made use of this feature.
who cares if its 240megapretzels if the picture is crap.
Haha right? Megapretzels sound yum though
Hi loves, could you please give your business email?
In the about page
I don't understand what you're saying most of the time. You don't speak too well.
You can turn on the captions. Not sure what else I can do lol
He speaks very well. I can understand.
You speak totally fine mate. Perfectly clear and understandable. I'm not sure what they are talking about lol