Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Medium Format / Film / Digital Backs – and Large Sensor Photography => Topic started by: eronald on February 19, 2016, 03:08:21 am
-
Pentax K-1, 36MP.
Even crisper images with Pixel Shift Resolution
Ricoh has retained its Pixel Shift Resolution feature, which debuted on the Pentax K-3 II, for the new Pentax K-1. As in that camera, the function captures four sequential images, shifting the Shake Reduction sensor-shift assembly by one pixel between shots. The result is both full color capture at every pixel location, and reduced noise levels as well. But where the K-3 II could only use the function for completely static subjects -- at least officially -- the Pentax K-1 can now detect and account for subjects that moved between frames.
http://imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k1/pentax-k1A.HTM
-
Probably only true for the In-Camera JPEGs, but not for the RAWs?
-
Probably only true for the In-Camera JPEGs, but not for the RAWs?
I don't see why.
The interesting question is whether this tech will be in future Pentax MF bodies. Could give the Phase 100MP back a run for its money ... at 20% of the price.
Edmund
-
Could give the Phase 100MP back a run for its money ... at 20% of the price.
Edmund
...when the subject is perfectly still. You could try choroform for human subjects, but I highly doubt it is legal.
On a serious note, to make this work for RAWs like with Hasselblads, the software needs to be able to handle it. I highly doubt LR will and considering Pentax offers no real demosaicing software of their own, one can safely say that it will be JPEG only.
-
I don't see why.
Indeed, it will presumably work just fine in Raw, although the functionality may require a special Raw conversion plugin/application if it is not done in camera (a plugin like Olympus did until ACR implemented it natively). If it is done in-camera, then the Raw file would be larger because it now has to store RGB per pixel instead of 4x one color plane per pixel, and a Raw converter would have to understand that no demosaicing needs to take place.
The interesting question is whether this tech will be in future Pentax MF bodies. Could give the Phase 100MP back a run for its money ... at 20% of the price.
I think it's unlikely to become mainstream, or available in all Pentax bodies. It's a specialized capture mode for stationary subjects under stable lighting conditions, so more suited for professional/studio work. Ricoh/Pentax have only implemented full sensel shift, so we only get an improved RGB colorsampling, no super-resoution enhancement like from half-sensel shift multi-shots.
Your continued stabs at Phase One get a bit tiresome, but a camera and support system is more than a sensor at a low price. Besides, the Phase One system uses a 16-bit processing pipe-line which achieves something like more than 14.3 stops of engineering Dynamic Range at base ISO. That is unlikely to be achievable with the Pentax if they use less than internal 16-bit processing.
But the Pentax looks like a nice camera with interesting features. It will depend on the lens arsenal whether it gets major traction in the market, and how well their service organization is implemented if they want professionals to use the system.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I believe that the real revolution to the way that pro photographers approach their work, will be when the first FF mirror less with "true colour" ability hits the market... In fact, it surprises me that Sony hasn't integrate a similar feature in their α7 series yet... (although I'm sure they will at some point). I imagine it will then be common between pros to use the mirrorless only on their tech camera and combine it with some MF & wide image circle 35mm lenses as to do things that they where doing with their MFDBs up to now... One should also expect Pentax to integrate the function in their next generation P645 camera as it is odd for the feature to be present in the lower format models but excluded from their flagship.
-
Indeed, it will presumably work just fine in Raw, although the functionality may require a special Raw conversion plugin/application if it is not done in camera (a plugin like Olympus did until ACR implemented it natively). If it is done in-camera, then the Raw file would be larger because it now has to store RGB per pixel instead of 4x one color plane per pixel, and a Raw converter would have to understand that no demosaicing needs to take place.
I think it's unlikely to become mainstream, or available in all Pentax bodies. It's a specialized capture mode for stationary subjects under stable lighting conditions, so more suited for professional/studio work. Ricoh/Pentax have only implemented full sensel shift, so we only get an improved RGB colorsampling, no super-resoution enhancement like from half-sensel shift multi-shots.
Your continued stabs at Phase One get a bit tiresome, but a camera and support system is more than a sensor at a low price. Besides, the Phase One system uses a 16-bit processing pipe-line which achieves something like more than 14.3 stops of engineering Dynamic Range at base ISO. That is unlikely to be achievable with the Pentax if they use less than internal 16-bit processing.
But the Pentax looks like a nice camera with interesting features. It will depend on the lens arsenal whether it gets major traction in the market, and how well their service organization is implemented if they want professionals to use the system.
Cheers,
Bart
Within the Far East imaging industry, it is common and traditional when a new (useful) feature is offered from one maker, the same feature to be adopted by the rest of the industry.... For the moment, there are three makers (Samsung, Olympus & Pentax) that have included tricolour capturing as a feature... Normally it shouldn't be long before the feature becomes common between all makers. One should also notice that Hasselblad has started selling their MS backs as stand alone backs (clearly aiming to the pros that use view cameras). I don't see why Pentax won't include the feature in their P645 series... in fact I'm sure they will. One should also expect Leica to come with a similar feature as their (ultra wide mount) SL looks ideal for use with a view camera and the traditional MS supporter (Sinar) is coming with new backs... I think P1's group should highly consider some "true colour" offering as they are currently the only MF maker that is absent from the field.
-
I think P1's group should highly consider some "true colour" offering as they are currently the only MF maker that is absent from the field.
You start off with facts about Hasselblad having multishot, add speculation about Pentax and Leica out of personal bias and try to pass it off as fact and end with a statement that P1 is currently the ONLY maker missing a multishot system. :o
Classic Theodoros post, folks!
-
The Pentax will be possibly be one of the best implementations/features available cameras from the Sony 36MP sensor. Imaging Resource seems to imply that Pentax has developed some type of firmware intelligence that can also accommodate movements for multishot.
Pentax to me only has one big issue, the fact that Canon or Nikon glass can't be adapted to their body, and even the numbers of third party lenses are considerably less. For example only 1 of the Sigma Art line that has the Pentax K mount, the 35mm 1.4. They may add more now that Pentax has a full frame body, which they have not had before. In fact this is more than likely why no 3rd party glass is designed for Pentax, i.e. this is their first full frame digital body.
They sure stretched the features from the Sony chip, which they needed to. So for Pentax shooters this is great!, but I don't see a lot of folks switching over from Canon or Nikon. If the mount was more forgiving for other brand glass, this might be a huge seller.
Paul C
-
The Pentax K-1 will affect more the sales of the Nikon D-810 and maybe the A-7RII although it lacks Nikon's lens selection and of course the huge lens adaptation capability of the A7RII. If the K-1 tests well it is going to be a great alternative to those who are looking for top notch sensor performance at a low price and do not need a wide lens selection. Even so, the A-7R v1 is available used at bargain prices so it has some competition. But the K-1 feature set looks amazing on paper specially the pixel shift modes and astro track. Seems Pentax has an amazing sensor control/movement unit. The pixel shift image quality (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM) on the K-3 II was already superb. Awesome for product/still life in the studio since it basically eliminates all the artifacts/issues of the bayer sensor. The K-1's should be even better.
-
Things would get really interesting if this were available in a 645Y using the Sony 100mp chip.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You start off with facts about Hasselblad having multishot, add speculation about Pentax and Leica out of personal bias and try to pass it off as fact and end with a statement that P1 is currently the ONLY maker missing a multishot system. :o
Classic Theodoros post, folks!
Fanboys of a company, is the last thing those that are after ultimate quality imaging needs... P1 group IS the only MF company that doesn't offer true colour captures and true colour captures are far superior that Bayern pattern captures... at least for those that have compared the two...
-
Fanboys of a company, is the last thing those that are after ultimate quality imaging needs... P1 group IS the only MF company that doesn't offer true colour captures and true colour captures are far superior that Bayern pattern captures... at least for those that have compared the two...
I like how you backpedal your statement into the only "Company" now.
This is all beyond hilarious.
p.s. This has nothing to do with "Is multishot better than single shot", so stop throwing that strowman around when your original BS post was called out.
-
Probably only true for the In-Camera JPEGs, but not for the RAWs?
Olympus provides high res raw files with its version of pixel shifting in the OMD EM5 Mk II, so maybe the Pentax K-1 does likewise.
...when the subject is perfectly still.
Such tools are indeed primarily for stationary subjects, though with good enough IBIS and reconstruction algorithms that correct for some motion between frames, it might no longer need the camera to be locked down on a tripod.
But a serious question: how likely is it that a photograph of a moving subject will have sharp enough focus and little enough motion blur for a 100MP image to be usefully sharper than a 36MP one, or even a mere 20MP one? Maybe with lots of light allowing a very high shutter speed, and with an autofocus system capable of very quickly and accurately focusing on a moving subject, which would probably require off-center AF points since the time delay of focus-and-recompose would lose the very precise focus needed. Does Phase One or any MF system have a suitable AF system?
-
Let us not forget that Sinar also supplies (and for a long time) multishoot backs.
PdF
-
Pentax to me only has one big issue, the fact that Canon or Nikon glass can't be adapted to their body, and even the numbers of third party lenses are considerably less.
I agree that lens selection is the main vulnerability for Ricoh/Pentax; I like a lot of what that company does, but I wish it would move a bit beyond its traditionalist/retro/purist focus, as if targeting mostly customers who are already loyal Pentax lens owners, and start also offering mirrorless bodies with lens mounts shallow enough to allow adaptors for both Pentax SLR lenses and various third party options.
But maybe the business model is pricing the bodies to sell (at minimal profit margin) and then making most profits on lenses.
-
The wonder we all should have, is whether with a (future) 36x24 sensor of 36mp othat has half pixel step ability on a mirrorless and provides up to 144mp of true colour, one would ever bother with an MFDB again... As BJL mentioned earlier, low res MFDBs don't differ from higher res ones for image quality enough for one to bother with the extra resolution (neither DSLRs do for the same reasons), it's with (absolute) stills that resolution and colour accuracy can often be crucial.... If then one will soon have a mirrorless able to deliver 144mp true colour files, would he ever bother for 400mp respective ones out of Sony's 400mp sensor? ...I wouldn't... I would care much more then for the software's colour calibration accuracy and wouldn't have a problem dumping my beloved Sinarback 54 H altogether then...
-
FYI: Pentax pixel shift in RAW is already implemented in the K-3 II and an interesting comparison to the Nikon 810 can be seen here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM
What's intriguing is that Ricoh claims pixel shift, as now implemented in the K-1, can be used handheld as the software can correct for some subject movement. The K-1 may very well be competitive with the 645Z under certain conditions.
-
FYI: Pentax pixel shift in RAW is already implemented in the K-3 II and an interesting comparison to the Nikon 810 can be seen here:
http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/pentax-k3-ii/pentax-k3-iiTECH2.HTM
What's intriguing is that Ricoh claims pixel shift, as now implemented in the K-1, can be used handheld as the software can correct for some subject movement. The K-1 may very well be competitive with the 645Z under certain conditions.
LOL... The D810 looks rubbish in comparison and it is compared only to the K3 II... Just imagine if the K1 was instead... Same kind of results we obtain when one (tries) to compare an old Sinarback 54H or Imacon 528c to a modern high resolution back... Look at the colour (other than the detail) of the D810... it tends to be laughable what we consider as "good quality" out of a Bayer sensor... ;D
-
Things would get really interesting if this were available in a 645Y using the Sony 100mp chip.
Cheers,
Bernard
Wouldn't the mechanism to stabilize the larger sensor would be much more challenging?
Sure Pentax/Ricoh have the conceptual methods in practise (they have since the K20d), but my understanding is it wouldn't just be as simple as upsizing this?
But I would like this!
-
Wouldn't the mechanism to stabilize the larger sensor would be much more challenging?
Sure Pentax/Ricoh have the conceptual methods in practise (they have since the K20d), but my understanding is it wouldn't just be as simple as upsizing this?
But I would like this!
There shouldn't be any problem what so ever... The K1 is sensor is 2.35x the area of the K3 sensor... the 645Z one is only 1.65x the one of the K1...
-
There shouldn't be any problem what so ever... The K1 is sensor is 2.35x the area of the K3 sensor... the 645Z one is only 1.65x the one of the K1...
So it has a much larger mass, and thus inertia, and it needs to move larger distances to accommodate for the longer focal lengths. Not exactly the same problem only larger, but a much larger challenge. The magnetic fields may interfere with the other electronics, and will require more power, and thus generate more temperature increase near the sensor.
I'm not saying its impossible, but it is a much harder nut to crack than what you make it sound like.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart.
-
I'm not saying its impossible, but it is a much harder nut to crack than what you make it sound like.
Cheers,
Bart
Bart
Engineers solve difficult problems for a living.
Stabilised MF is coming, we can expect it from people who know how to do stab ie. Pentax/Ricoh, or Hassy who are now partnered with a gimbal maker.
Phase will do it if/when they have to - they won't like it any more than Hassy because they will have to redo the back/case design. Pentax doesn't care about the box, they iterate faster, and anyway they need to do a body redesign for larger sensors.
On the positive side, 6 (not 5) axis stabilisation would mean free multishot, AF with manual tech ultra-wides, mild shift, tilt, focus stacking and other goodies that pro product and interior photographers would love.
We should like this idea. Progress at last.
Edmund
-
Pentax doesn't care about the box, they iterate faster, and anyway they need to do a body redesign for larger sensors.
Actually it is the other way around... Pentax body is much larger than is needed for larger sensors... It is as big, that it is nearly enough for 6x6 full frame sensor (if there ever was one...). It is so big that it is waisting space without a reason what so ever... So big that it is much tougher for their Engineers to design UWA lenses on it... A wrong (original -from film days) design IMO... They should have redesign the body when they decided to enter digital MF... It would be much better if they would have gone for a new (smaller) design and used adapters to retain the lens compatibility. ;)
-
Hi Bart,
It would be entirely possible to pass 15 or 16 bit of data trough 14 bit wide channel using non linear coding. My understanding is it works perfectly well as long as shot noise dithers any skipped values.
It seems that Phase One really pulled that white rabbit out of that hat with the 100 MP back , even if I assume that much of the credit needs to go to Sony, as I presume that Sony is doing the ADC-stuff.
It would be hard to ignore the fact that the 100 MP sensor is much larger than a 24x36mm. I you take two sensors of similar quality and put equally good lenses in front the larger sensor will provide a much better image. That image quality may not be needed, but that is another issue.
Best regards
Erik
... but a camera and support system is more than a sensor at a low price. Besides, the Phase One system uses a 16-bit processing pipe-line which achieves something like more than 14.3 stops of engineering Dynamic Range at base ISO. That is unlikely to be achievable with the Pentax if they use less than internal 16-bit processing.
But the Pentax looks like a nice camera with interesting features. It will depend on the lens arsenal whether it gets major traction in the market, and how well their service organization is implemented if they want professionals to use the system.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Never the less, one can't deny that the O/P is right... Multishot does go commercial and even if its not as good as with a multishot MFDB at the moment, it will certainly improve with time to overcome the issues that are related with first offerings. That said, it shouldn't be difficult to achieve this, given that artefact related issues are eliminated by the process itself... IMO, the work/research that has to be done is more related with having advanced software that offers colour calibration methods up to the level that the dedicated software for MFDBs currently does....
-
Bart
Engineers solve difficult problems for a living.
Hi Edmund,
That's only true if they get a budget to spend that time/effort. R&D and Manufacturing often take strange shortcuts from a quality point of view, usually because they are forced to do so by monetary or time constraints. To give an idea, a 14-bit processing pipeline is a few dollars cheaper than a higher quality 16-bit pipeline, yet 14-bit is the norm, even in equipment that costs thousands to produce.
Then the issues that are created have to solved from someone else's budget, e.g. firmware and test runs to reduce noise and calibration issues, designing heatsinks and ventilation (where perhaps multiple read-outs of the CMOS could have been averaged if enough precision was used to resolve the noise).
Stabilised MF is coming, we can expect it from people who know how to do stab ie. Pentax/Ricoh, or Hassy who are now partnered with a gimbal maker.
Phase will do it if/when they have to - they won't like it any more than Hassy because they will have to redo the back/case design.
Sure, it's a matter of time.
Pentax doesn't care about the box, they iterate faster, and anyway they need to do a body redesign for larger sensors.
I don't know, perhaps they can reuse a lot of the old film 645 body concepts.
On the positive side, 6 (not 5) axis stabilisation would mean free multishot, AF with manual tech ultra-wides, mild shift, tilt, focus stacking and other goodies that pro product and interior photographers would love.
We should like this idea. Progress at last.
No objection to that, it's just not as simple in practice as some want us to believe. Besides, as long as our subject matter is not stationary, subject movement remains problematic for multi-shot.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Hi,
I don't agree with pipeline costs. Analogue digital conversion is now on the sensor and it is highly probably it is of ramp type converter. Very simple construction and I am pretty sure the precision can be increased.
Processors generally come in multiples of 8-bit sizes, so there are 8, 16, 32 and 64 bit processors. But I don't think todays processors can handle all image processing so they are with high probability combined with some special processing hardware and that can be 14 bits wide.
Until now, sensors were not good enough to generate more than 14 bits worth of data, but it seems that the new sensor on the IQ3-100 can do that. So Phase One adopted so they can use 16 bit data.
Certainly, going to 16 bits is associated with costs as it requires a generation of ASICs, but the cost is not in the extra two bits but in the redesign.
Or, it could be that that the data channel is actually sixteen bit wide, but only 14 bits are used as it is enough to carry all information. When Sony added uncompressed option the new file format is actually 16 bits, but just using 14 bits.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Edmund,
To give an idea, a 14-bit processing pipeline is a few dollars cheaper than a higher quality 16-bit pipeline, yet 14-bit is the norm, even in equipment that costs thousands to produce.
-
Bart,
A +1.7x MF surface sensor eg. Sony 33x44mm = 1.68*24x36 is made with exactly the same wafer as the 24x36mm, so it's total weight will be *less* than 1.7x because the side connections will scale as square root of surface. I do agree that a magnetic suspension and voice coils are going to need to be heftier, but eg. Pentax has just upscaled its stabiliser to full-frame and there is no reason to think that going up another step won't now be a routine exercise. In fact one wonders whether Sony isn't going to integrate some of the necessary sensors and electronics in the sensor family - after all they now have several cameras themselves that are stabilised, others in the Olympus brand which they part-own, I believe, and sensor customers are adopting the tech too.
In-body stabilisation really has become a critical feature like AF and somebody is going to make the move to bring it to MF. BTW, many years ago I tried to put down a tripod to take some twilight shots on the Champs Elysés in Paris. It was hopeless, the handheld images were much much better - traffic vibration was simply too strong. I know that some members of this forum dispense with AF, but many do love it, and will choose a 35mm camera with AF instead of an MF camera with manual focus for many jobs. And so they doubtless feel about stabiliisaton,and multishot. Frankly I cannot understand why multishot and even filter wheels are not standard on museum-grade repro setups.
Edmund
Hi Edmund,
That's only true if they get a budget to spend that time/effort. R&D and Manufacturing often take strange shortcuts from a quality point of view, usually because they are forced to do so by monetary or time constraints. To give an idea, a 14-bit processing pipeline is a few dollars cheaper than a higher quality 16-bit pipeline, yet 14-bit is the norm, even in equipment that costs thousands to produce.
Then the issues that are created have to solved from someone else's budget, e.g. firmware and test runs to reduce noise and calibration issues, designing heatsinks and ventilation (where perhaps multiple read-outs of the CMOS could have been averaged if enough precision was used to resolve the noise).
Sure, it's a matter of time.
I don't know, perhaps they can reuse a lot of the old film 645 body concepts.
No objection to that, it's just not as simple in practice as some want us to believe. Besides, as long as our subject matter is not stationary, subject movement remains problematic for multi-shot.
Cheers,
Bart
-
A +1.7x MF surface sensor eg. Sony 33x44mm = 1.68*24x36 is made with exactly the same wafer as the 24x36mm, so it's total weight will be *less* than 1.7x because the side connections will scale as square root of surface.
I get that, but don't forget it is a 3D issue, surface x thickness. The volume, and as a result the mass and inertia, increases a lot.
I do agree that a magnetic suspension and voice coils are going to need to be heftier, but eg. Pentax has just upscaled its stabiliser to full-frame and there is no reason to think that going up another step won't now be a routine exercise.
The point is that it is not just the chip that is set in motion, it's an entire assembly that is suspended in a magnetic field. Other than that, I do not know for which mass it was designed, so it may or may not require a new design.
In fact one wonders whether Sony isn't going to integrate some of the necessary sensors and electronics in the sensor family - after all they now have several cameras themselves that are stabilised, others in the Olympus brand which they part-own, I believe, and sensor customers are adopting the tech too.
I don't know how their sensor division is setup. Maybe the silicon fabrication part is a separate unit.
In-body stabilisation really has become a critical feature like AF and somebody is going to make the move to bring it to MF. BTW, many years ago I tried to put down a tripod to take some twilight shots on the Champs Elysés in Paris. It was hopeless, the handheld images were much much better - traffic vibration was simply too strong.
Yes, traffic induced vibration is hell (try shooting from a bridge (we have a lot of those in the Netherlands) with traffic and trams/buses/trucks passing), but other sources of vibration can also be a nuisance, like wind motion on the higher levels of high buildings. Try shooting natural light interiors with swinging lamps hanging from the ceiling..., no fun. Or production lines in manufacturing plants with heavy equipment and indoor transportation. Yes, image stabilization is a bliss if it works well, and it's almost a must with multishot.
Frankly I cannot understand why multishot and even filter wheels are not standard on museum-grade repro setups.
Yes, filter wheels offer a lot of flexibility, also for multi-spectral analysis.
Cheers,
Bart
-
I get that, but don't forget it is a 3D issue, surface x thickness. The volume, and as a result the mass and inertia, increases a lot.
The point is that it is not just the chip that is set in motion, it's an entire assembly that is suspended in a magnetic field. Other than that, I do not know for which mass it was designed, so it may or may not require a new design.
Cheers,
Bart
I'm not sure it's a 3D issue, as noted the chip is cut from the same wafer thickness, and the number and thus surface of edge connections scale roughly at root of surface. I see no reason the cover glass and cleaning assembly should be any different per unit square. Of course Phase and Hassy probably would have to abandon the cover glass mounted on the case because of tilt issues -tilt would change the optical path. Which might be the real reason why they haven't done it already - goodbye easily detachable dustproof back, hello back-protection cover slide.
Yes, this is counterintuitive.
Think of it as using 70mm film rather than 35mm. It can be the same substrate, and there is not necessarily much more surface area lost to perforations.
Come on, as engineers the most wonderful moment is when we notice that a problem is actually reasonably straightforward.
Edmund