k-hawinkler
Well-known member
To me it makes sense to dedicate a thread to the issues that can arise when not properly using the hi res shot mode of the E-M5 Mark II.
Although that has already somewhat been discussed in other treads, please let me kick off the discussion here with a glaring example, taken with the Leica 16-18-21/4 WATE lens.
First the .ORI lo res single shot file, developed with Iridient and downsized to 2304*1728 pixels.
Now the .ORF hi res, slightly shifted, multi shot file, developed with Iridient and downsized to 2304*1728 pixels.
In this case the problems arise from two effects
• a minimal motion of the tripod fixed camera from minuscule amounts of wind, and
• substantial motion of the subjects, be it the running water or the twigs moving in the wind.
By comparing the two images one clearly can see the artifacts in the water generated by multiple shots.
Even better visible is the effect in the upper left hand corner where moving twigs are captured 8 times in the image.
Not so glaringly obvious is the effect of the moving camera on immovable rocks and dead twigs sticking solidly in the ground.
But careful inspection reveals that the multiple, slightly shifted shots impart a fuzziness to those objects.
Of course, in this case the solution is obvious to avoid these problems, namely, use the single shot file.
There is nothing to be gained here from the hi res shots!
Comments and feedback are welcome. TIA.
Although that has already somewhat been discussed in other treads, please let me kick off the discussion here with a glaring example, taken with the Leica 16-18-21/4 WATE lens.
First the .ORI lo res single shot file, developed with Iridient and downsized to 2304*1728 pixels.
Now the .ORF hi res, slightly shifted, multi shot file, developed with Iridient and downsized to 2304*1728 pixels.
In this case the problems arise from two effects
• a minimal motion of the tripod fixed camera from minuscule amounts of wind, and
• substantial motion of the subjects, be it the running water or the twigs moving in the wind.
By comparing the two images one clearly can see the artifacts in the water generated by multiple shots.
Even better visible is the effect in the upper left hand corner where moving twigs are captured 8 times in the image.
Not so glaringly obvious is the effect of the moving camera on immovable rocks and dead twigs sticking solidly in the ground.
But careful inspection reveals that the multiple, slightly shifted shots impart a fuzziness to those objects.
Of course, in this case the solution is obvious to avoid these problems, namely, use the single shot file.
There is nothing to be gained here from the hi res shots!
Comments and feedback are welcome. TIA.