Just to follow up on this, there has been a lot of discussion about the quality and merits of the GFX's pixel shift.
In this YouTube video, the presenter talks about how he originally was not impressed with the system, but having realised that the instructions Fuji provide for capturing a multi-shot image were incorrect, was very impressed with the resultant file once he adapted his workflow.
In the description to the video, he provides a link to the file that he uses in the video to show the differences before and after changing the shooting technique.
Unfortunately, this file still contains the exact same problem that I am seeing everywhere - severe combing artifacts in areas of high spatical frequency that render the file useless for anyone who is actually interested in producing a 400MP file for either archival or high resolution product photography requirements.
The combing artifacts can be clearly seen at 100% view - zoom in on the "S" in "VALUES" (just below and right of center image), and you will see the problem. This is the exact same problem I encountered with the Panasonic S1R. I'm beginning to wonder whether or not this is a processing issue - could the processing software (C1, LR or whatever) be assuming the provided 400MP file requires demosaicing (of course it doesn't), and that is where the problem lies?
To make it even clearer, here is the S, treated in three different ways.
The first is zoomed 800% from that file. Next up, I down-rezzed the image in photoshop to 100MP, and then zoomed it to 1600%. Finally, I re-uprezzed the file in photoshop. I'm not trying to say the uprezzed example is acceptable - it is not - it is just there for comparison purposes.
How anyone can claim the multi-shot files are acceptable is beyond me. I am endeavouring to reach out to Fujifilm to discuss this issue with them further, but if anyone here has contacts and would be happy to connect me, please do drop me a PM.
View attachment 179119
Kind regards,
Gerald.