Site Sponsors
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 50 of 60

Thread: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

  1. #1
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Ok Sounds very impressive ..espacially if you already have an SL2 ! But I just don t get it . Maybe we have different objectives ..when most people think of huge 187MP they jump to large prints (not requiring any upsizing ) . But my prints are fixed by my printer and how I would handle them ...I like 13x19 on a 17 x 22 paper . This is clearly within the range of most files produced with 47MP cameras .

    When I see comparisons ..I want to see the same file dimension on both the native 47MP and the 187MP ...showing a 1:1 enlargement tells me only that the 187MP file can easily be printed big .

    Will I see any improvements in resolution , tone separation or noise comparing a 47mp file printed to 13x19 and a 187mp file printed to the same size .

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    414
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    For static subjects the pixel shifted files are superior in every way. 4 of the captures are for RGB pixel data, so no bayer interpolation, then 4 are for increasing the resolution of the file. The system works well...but again, for static subjects. It's great for still life. However even landscape can cause problems because of moving elements. There is a mode that algorithmically cleans up the movement but it's imperfect.

    I have the S1R, so SL2 minus the Leica branding. I use the pixel shift mode for scanning film. It creates an amazing file.
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Has anyone seen any information about how Leica implemented the pixel shift and specifically how it might be similar or different from the S1R ?

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    There is very little advantage to pixel shift over Bayer interpolation. I ran tests on that and the difference in resolution was not really perceptible.

    At your print size, there is no advantage to pixel shift.

  5. #5
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    There is very little advantage to pixel shift over Bayer interpolation. I ran tests on that and the difference in resolution was not really perceptible.

    At your print size, there is no advantage to pixel shift.
    I thought the advantage was same number of pixels, but better color and no Moiré.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Matt

  6. #6
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    I thought the advantage was same number of pixels, but better color and no Moiré.

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    Matt
    Theoretically or visually? I ran a comparison of images and the difference was not perceptible. When training student in this technology, they could not perceive a difference in the images at 100% and simply did not use the feature.

    I am not sure that moire is the issue, which is an effect of object/image and sensor spatial frequencies. I have not heard that the Bayer array contributes to that, but it might. But pixel shift will not eliminate moire.

  7. #7
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Theoretically or visually? I ran a comparison of images and the difference was not perceptible. When training student in this technology, they could not perceive a difference in the images at 100% and simply did not use the feature.

    I am not sure that moire is the issue, which is an effect of object/image and sensor spatial frequencies. I have not heard that the Bayer array contributes to that, but it might. But pixel shift will not eliminate moire.
    IF, and that's a big if, the pixel shift is to get each pixel covered by a different color in the filter array, then no Bayer de-mosaicing need be done, and the effect is a real 47MP Foveon. I thought that's what product photographers used their Hassy MultiShot backs for back in the day. You can still get spatial frequency aliasing, but you won't get color aliasing.

    The headline number, as always, is MP, but it is truly not helpful there. Even theoretically, all you're doing is interpolating a 47MP image. You, me, Jim Kasson - we've all done the math. You can't get higher than Nyquist, no matter how much you jiggle the pixels. Come to think of it, it's like doing a rolling window regression. The serial correlation makes for a fabulous (and false) R^2.

    M
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  8. #8
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    IF, and that's a big if, the pixel shift is to get each pixel covered by a different color in the filter array, then no Bayer de-mosaicing need be done, and the effect is a real 47MP Foveon. I thought that's what product photographers used their Hassy MultiShot backs for back in the day. You can still get spatial frequency aliasing, but you won't get color aliasing.

    The headline number, as always, is MP, but it is truly not helpful there. Even theoretically, all you're doing is interpolating a 47MP image. You, me, Jim Kasson - we've all done the math. You can't get higher than Nyquist, no matter how much you jiggle the pixels. Come to think of it, it's like doing a rolling window regression. The serial correlation makes for a fabulous (and false) R^2.

    M
    From all ive read that’s the exact benefit of pixel shifting. I have never used it on my S1R but it’s there. It’s one of those features that I forget exists but maybe it’ll be useful one day to have.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Has anyone seen any information about how Leica implemented the pixel shift and specifically how it might be similar or different from the S1R ?
    Given the specs and the similarity between both cameras, I wouldn’t be surprised if the SL2 worked the exact same way as it does in the S1R.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  10. #10
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    To make this discussion relevant we need to avoid discussing of theory or learning from other pixel shifting technologies . It hard enough to follow this.

    The firmware utilized to process the pixel shifted captures (in camera ) has a major impact on the resulting file . If you go back to the diglloyd tests of the S1r he praises the Panasonic Implementation and compares it to the Sony approach . The difference seems to be AI that helps with small movements in subjects .

    Having looked at the many tests out there now ..its obvious to me that pixel shift as implemented on the SL2 improves resolution and reduces noise . The image quality is clearly superior . The disadvantage is that you can t use it with any subject movement and every test recommends locking down the camera on a heavy tripod . You also have to work with massive capture files.... that can t be fun .

  11. #11
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    I took a few test shots from our deck, testing the SL2 multi-shot feature on trees with leaf movement. Here's the scene (using the standard resolution file):



    I focused on the crape myrtle tree in the center of the frame. There was some leaf movement, especially in the trees just behind the crape myrtle.

    Now a 100% crop from the standard rez file:



    And a 100% crop from the multi-shot file:



    I imported the photos into Lightroom, used Auto in the Develop module (making sure to use the same settings for both), then used Photoshop to produce the TIFFs and crops. No sharpening except the default LR sharpening.

    My conclusion from this brief test is that multi-shot is usable for landscape scenes with some leaf movement. I could see artifacts in areas where there was moderate leaf movement. You'd have to pixel peep to see it, but it was there. Since the camera produces both a multi-shot file and a standard rez file with a single shutter click, you don't really have to choose between the two until you process the photos using a desktop display.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Joe and others...a few questions regarding both Leica's and other manufactures implementation of pixel shift in general.

    1. Does pixel shift occur predominantly in one direction (ie: on one axis)? If so, is apparent blurring of a moving object (ie: amount observed) dependant if it's moving in a horizontal, vertical or random direction?

    2. I assume (and maybe incorrectly), that subject movement seen when pixel shift is implemented, is camera to subject dependant. By this I mean if a subject that is at infinity and thus small (like distant trees blowing in the wind on a mountaintop in a landscape shot), would exhibit less movement/blur than trees at much closer range (and thus fill a larger percentage of the frame?

    3. Can one assume the subject movement/blurring in a pixel shifted image is akin in some respects to shooting a moving subject shot in a too lengthy/slow shutter speed exposure (when pixel shift is not implemented)?

    One (among other) reasons of asking is shooting of fireworks. Generally images of fireworks is done with the shutter open for a few seconds and most fall in the vertical direction and blurring by nature of this subject matter is generally not noticeable. I wonder if pixel shift in such circumstances would be a benefit or hindrance? I realize that theoretical consideration may greatly differ from what's actually experienced.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 2 Weeks Ago at 06:57.

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Joe and others...a few questions regarding both Leica's and other manufactures implementation of pixel shift in general.

    1. Does pixel shift occur predominantly in one direction (ie: on one axis)? If so, is apparent blurring of a moving object (ie: amount observed) dependant if it's moving in a horizontal, vertical or random direction?
    It is on two. For example, it is creating additional resolution by moving the sensor half a pixel left, then down, then right. When shifting for color, the sensor is shifted in the same pattern, but a full pixel distance so it can make a R, G, B exposure through the Bayer array.

    2. I assume (and maybe incorrectly), that subject movement seen when pixel shift is implemented, is camera to subject dependant. By this I mean if a subject that is at infinity and thus small (like distant trees blowing in the wind on a mountaintop in a landscape shot), would exhibit less movement/blur than trees at much closer range (and thus fill a larger percentage of the frame?
    Since there are multiple exposures as the pixels are shifted, movement can be captured if the image moves. And as you pointed out, this is relative movement, just like camera shake motion. It really depends on the degree of motion of the image during the exposure. The appearance artifacts can vary from this motion due to the shifting pixels, whether you are shifting for resolution or color, and the nature of the object and motion.

    3. Can one assume the subject movement/blurring in a pixel shifted image is akin in some respects to shooting a moving subject shot in a too lengthy/slow shutter speed exposure (when pixel shift is not implemented)?
    Perhaps. The frequency of short exposures with the actual motions can create unnatural looking artifacts that don't look like a simple blur. I have had artifacts that look like a pixel pattern with color artifacts.

    One (among other) reasons of asking is shooting of fireworks. Generally images of fireworks is done with the shutter open for a few seconds and most fall in the vertical direction and blurring by nature of this subject matter is generally not noticeable. I wonder if pixel shift in such circumstances would be a benefit or hindrance? I realize that theoretical consideration may greatly differ from what's actually experienced.

    Dave (D&A)
    I am kind of a try it and see person. It is kind of hard to predict the results of pixel shift as there are so many variables contributing to the final image. Obviously, pixel shift has greater chances in introducing artifacts, but at the same time, they need to be apparent and result in a greater cost than benefit. In the case of fireworks, I have not know anyone to use pixel shift and so you might be pioneering that use (or others have tried it and the results are so poor they were not worth sharing).

    So in conclusion, this is a definite maybe...whatever "this" is.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  14. #14
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Thanks Will for your thoughtful and informed response. What I neglected to take into account when posing my questions, were possible artifacts created as opposed or in conjunction with motion blur created with pixel shift.

    As an aside, what makes fireworks a bit different than most subjects when shooting with shutter speed of a few seconds, is that although the subject matter is moving, bursts at various times seems to create the illusion sharpness and not simply a blurry image. Possibly combined with this, the artifacts (esp color artifacts) created when pixel shift is employed, would possibly not even be noticed by the very nature of colorful fireworks.

    I would love to test out these theories as suggested but alas I don't own a camera's with pixel shift technology (although a good excuse to obtain one). Yes renting is of course an option. Thanks.

    Dave (D&A)

  15. #15
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Thanks Joe for taking the time to do this . I have two questions :

    1. Is 100% a relevant comparison . For any given files size (screen or print ) the multi shot will have more pixels and should look sharper . Don t you have to match on output physical dimensions not pixels . Doing a 100% pixel view compares pixel quality but not overall file quality . Am I confused about this ?

    2. I understood that the SL2 has multi shot option that is utilized to minimize subject movement . Did you use it ?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Colson View Post
    I took a few test shots from our deck, testing the SL2 multi-shot feature on trees with leaf movement. Here's the scene (using the standard resolution file):



    I focused on the crape myrtle tree in the center of the frame. There was some leaf movement, especially in the trees just behind the crape myrtle.

    Now a 100% crop from the standard rez file:



    And a 100% crop from the multi-shot file:



    I imported the photos into Lightroom, used Auto in the Develop module (making sure to use the same settings for both), then used Photoshop to produce the TIFFs and crops. No sharpening except the default LR sharpening.

    My conclusion from this brief test is that multi-shot is usable for landscape scenes with some leaf movement. I could see artifacts in areas where there was moderate leaf movement. You'd have to pixel peep to see it, but it was there. Since the camera produces both a multi-shot file and a standard rez file with a single shutter click, you don't really have to choose between the two until you process the photos using a desktop display.

    Joe

  16. #16
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Thanks Will for your thoughtful and informed response. What I neglected to take into account when posing my questions, were possible artifacts created as opposed or in conjunction with motion blur created with pixel shift.

    As an aside, what makes fireworks a bit different than most subjects when shooting with shutter speed of a few seconds, is that although the subject matter is moving, bursts at various times seems to create the illusion sharpness and not simply a blurry image. Possibly combined with this, the artifacts (esp color artifacts) created when pixel shift is employed, would possibly not even be noticed by the very nature of colorful fireworks.

    I would love to test out these theories as suggested but alas I don't own a camera's with pixel shift technology (although a good excuse to obtain one). Yes renting is of course an option. Thanks.

    Dave (D&A)
    Sorry, Dave. Didn't get the thing about motion blur. I would image that purposely blurring motion would not be a problem with pixel shift--the intermediate shifted images would have the same exposure time and so should blend. My experience of artifacts is more to do with short exposure times with object with relatively fast motion where the shifted images are being captured at a slower rate than the exposure time. The only thing I can think of that might be a problem with fireworks is if they contain sparkling type effects, but since those would be randomly dispersed, I imagine any artifacts would not be apparent--if that makes sense.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  17. #17
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Dave, there are several other limitations to multi-shot (from Red Dot Forum):

    There are a few caveats when using the new multi-shot feature. Because the IBIS mechanism is being utilized for pixel shifting, all image stabilization is disabled. Also, only full frame lenses can be used, so TL glass won’t work here. Other restrictions are that the maximum ISO is limited to 3200, the longest shutter speed is capped to one second, you can’t use strobe, and electronic shutter is always used. All of these make sense given what the camera is doing during the capture process. And of course, you’ll want to be locked down on a sturdy tripod and shooting a non-moving subject.
    The 8 images, each taken by shifting the sensor in half-pixel increments, that are combined to create the multi-shot file are all captured amazingly fast. The in-camera processing after capture takes a few seconds.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  18. #18
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Thanks Joe for taking the time to do this . I have two questions :

    1. Is 100% a relevant comparison . For any given files size (screen or print ) the multi shot will have more pixels and should look sharper . Don t you have to match on output physical dimensions not pixels . Doing a 100% pixel view compares pixel quality but not overall file quality . Am I confused about this ?

    2. I understood that the SL2 has multi shot option that is utilized to minimize subject movement . Did you use it ?
    Roger, in this first of several tests I intend to conduct, I was only interested in how the multi-shot file looks at 100% wrt IQ when there is subtle subject motion, i.e. is it usable for landscape photography. I tried it with motion minimization turned on for some test shots and off for others, and there wasn't much difference between them IMHO. For landscapes that have trees or grasses, I'd probably leave it turned on.

    Until now, for large prints (30x40") uprezing a 40-50MP full-frame 35mm or crop-sensor medium format file has been acceptable. Now I feel I have another tool in the tool box.

    More testing to come.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography

  19. #19
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    I've shot a lot of images with pixel shift on the S1R.

    The biggest challenge in shooting is focusing - there is no way to tell before you see the final file whether or not you have nailed focus (I typically shoot in the macro ballpark with depth of field typically a millimeter or less - of course your mileage may vary here depending on what you're shooting).

    My biggest concern with the outputs however is digital combing effects on areas with high contrast. I'll try to dig up a file and post here later, but it makes the files unusable for me.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

  20. #20
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Half way between theory and pictures are simplified models. Here's a simple light/dark boundary with and without pixel shift.

    First, without:



    On top is "reality". Then a depiction of the pixel wells, and finally, the light gathered by those wells.

    Now we add shifted pixels.



    So right out of the box, we see the pixel-shifted plot clearly gives a better sense of the location of the dark/light boundary.

    But wait! What happens if we upsample the unshifted image? Here is upsampling using Mathematica's cubic interpolation of the unshifted output (in blue) against the pixel-shifted output (in orange). The blue curve doesn't require an electronic shutter or a motionless subject. Also bear in mind that we're viewing this at about 100x magnification. Our upsampled pixels here are 1/2 inch wide!



    Actually, the difference is visible at only 100%, I'll spare you the computer generated images. But then, I'm using the lowest tech upsampling.

    Matt
    Last edited by MGrayson; 2 Weeks Ago at 07:23.
    Thanks 4 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  21. #21
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    So, let say you are using a 44" printer and the largest print you can make is about 60x40". Lets also say that photo quality means that half standard viewing distance would still give you an image where you cannot out-resolve the image (150 dpi in print terms. And if you have ever printed at 150 dpi, you know the image hold up visually, so it is a pretty conservative measure). At that print size with the unshifted image, you could have a viewing distance of about 20" and perceive the images as being high-quality. With the shifted image, that would be a viewing distance of 10". An uprezed image would also be 10". I don't know bout you, but a 10" viewing distance would require some kind of optical aid for me.

    I regularly printed 30x40" exhibition prints from my 40MP files. I never need to uprez them and you could view them from any distance without the loss of photo quality. In fact, the printer/paper combination would not allow all the detail in the file to be rendered.

    Pixel shift is not going to give you any meaningful resolution for printing. And if you need more, I would just uprez that image and no one will perceive the difference in a print.
    Last edited by Shashin; 2 Weeks Ago at 07:24.

  22. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Multishot/PixelShift is not only about resolution. It has better DR, better colors, and less noise than a single shot.
    Nonetheless, it is a joy to look at well executed 187Mp files on screen :-).

    But processing those images (1Gb TIFF) is PITA . Maybe it makes sense to reduce the size of 187Mp files before processing them (100Mp, 60Mp?).

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    I've shot a lot of images with pixel shift on the S1R.

    The biggest challenge in shooting is focusing - there is no way to tell before you see the final file whether or not you have nailed focus (I typically shoot in the macro ballpark with depth of field typically a millimeter or less - of course your mileage may vary here depending on what you're shooting).

    My biggest concern with the outputs however is digital combing effects on areas with high contrast. I'll try to dig up a file and post here later, but it makes the files unusable for me.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Some posters on LUF who own both S1R and SL2 claim that SL2 has better high-resolution results than S1R.

  24. #24
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Sorry guys, one last experiment. How does the pixel shift output differ from a real half-the-pixel-size image?



    The faint blue lines are the pixel shift response. So you don't quite get the same sharpness you'd get with twice as many pixels in each linear dimensions. Frankly, it's better than I expected without further processing.

    Matt
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  25. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    Half way between theory and pictures are simplified models. Here's a simple light/dark boundary with and without pixel shift.

    First, without:



    On top is "reality". Then a depiction of the pixel wells, and finally, the light gathered by those wells.
    In the graph above where you show the light gathered by the wells (this is prior to shifting remember), why does a pixel that has no light hitting it record light hitting it? You are showing 4.5 pixels here, yes? And the step change in the light value occurs 1/4 of the way into the third pixel?

    Why would the output from the pixels shown not be 0, 0, 0.75, 1, 1..? This is of course what your data represents if it were presented as a point plot, or a stepped line, but it is not. It is presented as a line graph - the inference being that the value of the amount of light recorded by each pixel, which you show in your diagram to have dimensionality, is the integral under the line.

    Following images removed for ease of reading.

    Now we add shifted pixels.

    So right out of the box, we see the pixel-shifted plot clearly gives a better sense of the location of the dark/light boundary.

    But wait! What happens if we upsample the unshifted image? Here is upsampling using Mathematica's cubic interpolation of the unshifted output (in blue) against the pixel-shifted output (in orange). The blue curve doesn't require an electronic shutter or a motionless subject. Also bear in mind that we're viewing this at about 100x magnification. Our upsampled pixels here are 1/2 inch wide!


    Actually, the difference is visible at only 100%, I'll spare you the computer generated images. But then, I'm using the lowest tech upsampling.

    Matt
    Why are you only working with one dimensional pixels?
    What are your assumptions about the colour of the light?
    What are your assumptions about the way the raw data captured by the pixels behind the Bayer array?
    What are your assumptions about the way that raw data from the 8 captured images is interpolated and interpreted?

    Now I have no idea how the S1R/SL2 take the 8 captured RAW files and creates a single 4x resolution RAW file output, but the fact of the matter is that they do have the original Bayer arrayed data from each of the 8 files to work with, and I would assume that they actually take advantage of that data when creating the output RAW. How is Mathematica going to do a better job if it is working solely with a single file that has already had Bayer interpolation algorithms applied (and that presumably would be rather tough to reverse engineer)?

    I'd really like to try to understand this better, so perhaps that would best be done by using a diagram. I will work on the assumption that you show the light step at 1/4 of the way across your pixel wells to perhaps indicate that the light step occurs at the half-pixel position both horizontally and vertically.

    To simplify things in the first instance, let's assume that there is also a step-change back to 0 - we can deal with the scenario where there is a step change from 0 to 1, and it stays at 1, later, if need be.

    Here's the diagram showing how sensor is shifted to take the 8 images (I'm pretty sure this is correct, but it is an assumption on my part. For the first set of four captures the sensor shifts one pixel horizontally, one pixel vertically, and one pixel diagonally; then it shifts half a pixel diagonally, and repeats the pattern).



    "X" indicates the quarter of the upper left pixel (red on the Bayer array) that has a light value of 1 (i.e. ignoring interpolation the value for the light hitting this pixel would be 0.25), all other parts of the sensor can be assumed to have a light value of 0.

    (It's simpler to draw this with a static sensor and the pixel in question moving around, but of course what is actually going on is that "X" remains in the same position as the sensor shifts underneath it.)

    My first (genuine) question is this - based on the calculations behind the graphs you share, what are the RGB light intensity values for the four pixels that result when the 8 shifted images are combined into a 4x resolution file (separately calculated for incident red, green, blue and white light; both for actual shifting - taking into account Bayer interpolation algorithms and the algorithms used by the S1R/SL2 when creating the 4x resolution file, and for Mathematica upsampling of just the top left plot)?

    My second (facetious) question is - if Mathematica's upsampling is so good, what is the cut-off resolution where we no longer need to worry about capturing actual resolution on the sensor?

    I do of course recognise that possibly the more realistic model presented and questions raised are too complex to answer, because there are too many unknowns. But if that is the case, I would perhaps suggest that if we simplify a scenario too far, the results of that over-simplification may well turn out to have little to no appication in a real world scenario.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post

  26. #26
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    In the graph above where you show the light gathered by the wells (this is prior to shifting remember), why does a pixel that has no light hitting it record light hitting it? You are showing 4.5 pixels here, yes? And the step change in the light value occurs 1/4 of the way into the third pixel?

    Why would the output from the pixels shown not be 0, 0, 0.75, 1, 1..? This is of course what your data represents if it were presented as a point plot, or a stepped line, but it is not. It is presented as a line graph - the inference being that the value of the amount of light recorded by each pixel, which you show in your diagram to have dimensionality, is the integral under the line.

    It's harder to compare bar charts or point plots than it is to compare line plots. No inference intended.

    Following images removed for ease of reading.



    Why are you only working with one dimensional pixels?
    It's a simplified model.
    What are your assumptions about the colour of the light?
    Monochromatic.
    What are your assumptions about the way the raw data captured by the pixels behind the Bayer array?
    No Bayer array.
    What are your assumptions about the way that raw data from the 8 captured images is interpolated and interpreted?
    I don't even know how an unshifted Bayer demosaicing works. The standard convolution has been surpassed, and I do not presume to speak for current engineering. Hence the simplified model.

    Now I have no idea how the S1R/SL2 take the 8 captured RAW files and creates a single 4x resolution RAW file output, but the fact of the matter is that they do have the original Bayer arrayed data from each of the 8 files to work with, and I would assume that they actually take advantage of that data when creating the output RAW. How is Mathematica going to do a better job if it is working solely with a single file that has already had Bayer interpolation algorithms applied (and that presumably would be rather tough to reverse engineer)?
    It isn't.

    I'd really like to try to understand this better, so perhaps that would best be done by using a diagram. I will work on the assumption that you show the light step at 1/4 of the way across your pixel wells to perhaps indicate that the light step occurs at the half-pixel position both horizontally and vertically.

    What you show below is great for color fidelity (I say that somewhere many posts ago). What I was investigating was the claim - that seems obvious, but is theoretically false - that pixel shift increases resolution.

    To simplify things in the first instance, let's assume that there is also a step-change back to 0 - we can deal with the scenario where there is a step change from 0 to 1, and it stays at 1, later, if need be.

    Here's the diagram showing how sensor is shifted to take the 8 images (I'm pretty sure this is correct, but it is an assumption on my part. For the first set of four captures the sensor shifts one pixel horizontally, one pixel vertically, and one pixel diagonally; then it shifts half a pixel diagonally, and repeats the pattern).



    "X" indicates the quarter of the upper left pixel (red on the Bayer array) that has a light value of 1 (i.e. ignoring interpolation the value for the light hitting this pixel would be 0.25), all other parts of the sensor can be assumed to have a light value of 0.

    (It's simpler to draw this with a static sensor and the pixel in question moving around, but of course what is actually going on is that "X" remains in the same position as the sensor shifts underneath it.)

    Covering each color is great. I don't know how the other shifts that overlap several different color pixels are used in the image reconstruction. It is undoubtably important to increasing resolution rather than "merely" improving color.

    My first (genuine) question is this - based on the calculations behind the graphs you share, what are the RGB light intensity values for the four pixels that result when the 8 shifted images are combined into a 4x resolution file (separately calculated for incident red, green, blue and white light; both for actual shifting - taking into account Bayer interpolation algorithms and the algorithms used by the S1R/SL2 when creating the 4x resolution file, and for Mathematica upsampling of just the top left plot)?

    Again, I am not dealing with color. Only linear resolution. I wish I knew more about the question you ask, as it is the REAL question. I doubt we'll find anyone who actually knows the answer who is allowed to tell us. There are probably papers out there giving some algorithm. It may be very complex. It may be simple due to some fortunate trick. Maybe it's as simple as inverting the matrix of pixel values from different colored images. I have the bad habit of solving these problems from first principles rather than looking at the literature. Sometimes I find new things that way. Sometimes I miss things everyone else knows. On balance, it has served me well.

    My second (facetious) question is - if Mathematica's upsampling is so good, what is the cut-off resolution where we no longer need to worry about capturing actual resolution on the sensor?

    I know too much about bad interpolation techniques and the pitfalls of relying on them. Of course, Finance and Photography are different, and what is good for one may be bad for the other. This is another reason I stick to simplified models and simple interpolation to gain a better feel for what is possible.

    I do of course recognise that possibly the more realistic model presented and questions raised are too complex to answer, because there are too many unknowns. But if that is the case, I would perhaps suggest that if we simplify a scenario too far, the results of that over-simplification may well turn out to have little to no appication in a real world scenario.

    On the contrary, I believe that simplified models get you 90% of the way there. It's getting that extra 10% that takes years of hard work by talented engineers. We're drifting into theology here, and I don't insist that anyone share my view. I did the above for my own curiosity. If someone else finds it interesting, well and good.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Gerald,

    I hope I have answered some of your questions above.

    Best,

    Matt
    Last edited by MGrayson; 2 Weeks Ago at 02:30.
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  27. #27
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Missouri, USA
    Posts
    5,774
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    150

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by gerald.d View Post
    I do of course recognize that possibly the more realistic model presented and questions raised are too complex to answer, because there are too many unknowns. But if that is the case, I would perhaps suggest that if we simplify a scenario too far, the results of that over-simplification may well turn out to have little to no application in a real world scenario.
    Generally speaking, models are a case of diminishing returns. As models become more complex, the increase in accuracy falls off. Depending on the question, simple models may be sufficient. You only need Newton at the pool table, but you need Einstein to get you to Mars. But those that are good at pool can have figured out Newton intuitively. But the simpler model is never really invalidated, it just needs context.

    The great thing with photography is seeing is believing. You could actually test this yourself from file to print and see what works. The advantage in knowing some of the underlying theory (which means a hypothesis supported by evidence) is that you can better evaluate this issue under consideration. For example, in the case of the OP, evaluating at 100% monitor view is essentially meaningless. Most "real world testing" I see is not very useful or simply biased and has very little value.

    But I also understand the people that distrust theory over "real world testing" as the theory does not support their experience. The problem with theory, particularly theory presented in fora such as this, is that the significance is never addressed. For example, diffraction is more perceptible in high resolutions sensors, especially in comparisons of two images at 100% monitor view. But what does that mean for an actual viewer? I routinely use f/16 and printer to 40" or larger and diffraction does not impact the perception of detail or sharpness. It is certainly there, but in term of the image that is being perceived, it is insignificant.

    I think Matt's analysis is very interesting. Like you and Matt, I understand the model may have limits. But it raises a good question, which you articulated, what is the limit to uprezing? It is complicated in a number of ways as you pointed out. There are other variables as well: contrast is a more important factor in the viewer perceiving detail than resolution: a lower resolution image with greater contrast will appear more detailed than a higher resolution one with less contrast (contrast and resolution tends to be mutually exclusive where an increase in one shows a decrease in the other). So uprezing need not improve detail to still make a better image, but simply hide digital artifacts.

    There is a long list of things in photography that seem to negatively impact image quality, from optical aberrations to limits in color reproduction, yet we see great images all the time and from every point in history. Photography is ultimately a visual illusion. If it looks good, it actually does look good. Increases in technical qualities are only a small part of that equation.
    Will

    http://www.hakusancreation.com
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    Gerald,

    I hope I have answered some of your questions above.

    Best,

    Matt
    Thanks Matt - very helpful, but honestly I do struggle somewhat with the point of modeling this so simplistically, because I don't accept that you get 90% of the way there when discarding so many essential elements.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  29. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    1,428
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by Shashin View Post
    Generally speaking, models are a case of diminishing returns. As models become more complex, the increase in accuracy falls off. Depending on the question, simple models may be sufficient. You only need Newton at the pool table, but you need Einstein to get you to Mars. But those that are good at pool can have figured out Newton intuitively. But the simpler model is never really invalidated, it just needs context.
    I have a little experience in this field - my degree was in Physics (although I will readily admit to having forgotten 95% of what I was taught), and in the real world a decade of modeling and predicting retail sales figures, and another decade of financial modeling for businesses ranging in size from $10M to >$100B turnover.

    Funnily enough, it was when modeling one of the financial processes of a $50B turnover company for forecast purposes that I discovered a massive error in the model that had been implemented to reallocate close to $20B in actual costs. The reason was that people who wrote the "simple" model used to allocate actual costs had chosen not to include a level of complexity in their model that had been specified by the end users, because they believed it wouldn't be material. Well, it was material. To the tune of around $3B in costs being allocated incorrectly to the receiving department heads.

    So no, as models become more complex, the increase in accuracy doesn't necessarily fall off. The reasons why many models fail has nothing to do with their complexity per se, it's because they don't model the right complexity correctly. There are of course - in some instances, not all - levels of complexity that are impossible to model, but we don't have to worry about those examples for the purposes of this discussion.

    To take up your pool analogy, you could take the world's most accurate computer simulation of pool, and a correctly programmed computer playing that simulation will always come out better than a human being over time, simply because the computer is capable of modeling the reality of the simulation (and I'll get onto the subject of realities of simulations later) perfectly, whereas the human would never be able to.

    And no, you don't need general relativity to play or even model a game of pool - but that is because you can prove that building it into your model won't make the slightest bit of difference to the potential for your model to accurately represent reality.

    The simple model presented isn't being invalidated as a model - it models "its reality" perfectly - but it does not get anywhere close to correctly modeling the process by which the files under discussion are created, and therefore I would suggest it should be discarded as irrelevant. All the model actually shows (and apologies if I am recalling the terminology incorrectly here) is that a first order linear interpolation quite closely matches a third order cubic interpolation for a step change.

    To model something well, you need to invest a lot of time and effort into understanding exactly what aspects of the reality in question should be modeled, and with how much effort/precision.

    The great thing with photography is seeing is believing. You could actually test this yourself from file to print and see what works. The advantage in knowing some of the underlying theory (which means a hypothesis supported by evidence) is that you can better evaluate this issue under consideration. For example, in the case of the OP, evaluating at 100% monitor view is essentially meaningless. Most "real world testing" I see is not very useful or simply biased and has very little value.
    That's because most "real world" testing that you look at is irrelevant to your "real world" requirements, and your proposed test is not a valid one for the subject at hand.

    But I also understand the people that distrust theory over "real world testing" as the theory does not support their experience. The problem with theory, particularly theory presented in fora such as this, is that the significance is never addressed. For example, diffraction is more perceptible in high resolutions sensors, especially in comparisons of two images at 100% monitor view. But what does that mean for an actual viewer? I routinely use f/16 and printer to 40" or larger and diffraction does not impact the perception of detail or sharpness. It is certainly there, but in term of the image that is being perceived, it is insignificant.
    Then let's address that significance directly.

    I would venture to suggest that 99.99% of photographers worldwide do not print. Not only that, I would also suggest that 99.999% of viewers don't look at 40" prints, and that of the 0.001% of viewers who do, those 40" prints represent less than 0.01% of the images they do look at.

    That is not to denigrate your art in any way shape or form. What I am saying is that if, for example, someone was unable to distinguish between a 50MP native resolution file; a 200MP uprezzed example of that file; a 200MP file from a native 200MP sensor; and a 200MP file from a multi-shot 50MP sensor, on a 40 inch print, then all that goes to demonstrate is that viewing those files on a 40 inch print is not the correct way to assess the merits, or otherwise, of those files.

    Your 40 inch printed "models" of the files are not of sufficient precision to represent the "reality" inherent in those files.

    I completely accept that for you, diffraction at f/16 is irrelevant. For me, I can see the diffraction caused by going from f/5.6 to f/8.0 as plain as the difference between night and day, and in my "reality", such a difference is significant. I also readily accept that for 99.99% of the people who see my images, they wouldn't notice the difference themselves. But I don't shoot for them. The difference is there, and it can be readily demonstrated.

    I think Matt's analysis is very interesting. Like you and Matt, I understand the model may have limits. But it raises a good question, which you articulated, what is the limit to uprezing? It is complicated in a number of ways as you pointed out. There are other variables as well: contrast is a more important factor in the viewer perceiving detail than resolution: a lower resolution image with greater contrast will appear more detailed than a higher resolution one with less contrast (contrast and resolution tends to be mutually exclusive where an increase in one shows a decrease in the other). So uprezing need not improve detail to still make a better image, but simply hide digital artifacts.
    It is very interesting, and I am thankful for him sharing it because it encouraged me to think about this in some depth - something that I've not really done before. Clearly there is quite some way to go before any of us can genuinely understand what is going on in the creation of these files, but this is very much a technical discussion that has little to no relevance to how something looks on a large print.

    There is a long list of things in photography that seem to negatively impact image quality, from optical aberrations to limits in color reproduction, yet we see great images all the time and from every point in history. Photography is ultimately a visual illusion. If it looks good, it actually does look good. Increases in technical qualities are only a small part of that equation.
    Indeed.

    Kind regards,


    Gerald.

  30. #30
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    I just did a bit of research into modern Bayer demosaicing algorithms. They are all a form of uprezzing each channel. The trick is making the particular uprezzing algorithms match up to prevent christmas light noise and colored halos around edges. This is hard, and a variety of more and less sophisticated algorithms try to enforce consistency of the interpolations. Without pixel shift, the different color channels are interpolated between different sets of points - the particular color pixels in the array. For example, Red values are known at the corners of a square made by four Red pixels. Inside that square, Red is an interpolated function. A Green pixel inside that square knows its Green value perfectly, but has to guess at the Red value by using this Red function. So every pixel knows one value perfectly and guesses at the other two.

    That much is available online. Here are my conclusions:

    WITH pixel shift, accurate values of all three channels are known at the same nodes (each pixel). This gives you the same resolution with no interpolations, and so "perfect" color. Why uprez from there? The measurements that overlap several filter colors provide linear equations that the colors must satisfy at points BETWEEN the pixels (If my shifted pixel covers quarters of a Red, a Blue, and two Greens, then I know that (R+B+2G)/4 = Measured Value.) So uprezzing using those between-pixel points is more accurate than simply uprezzing Foveon-like values at each pixel. In other words, it's worth doing, and requires less of the magic needed to make good Bayer conversions. Less, but not none.

    Disclaimer: Actual pixel-shift conversion algorithms are available, but require downloading articles. And I like to guess. But I'm coming around to the "realness" of pixel-shifted high resolution. Mind you, the motion problem is still a killer.

    --Matt

    PS. There’s another wrinkle if you want to get further into the weeds. The measured value at a pixel is an average over the pixel. So when a shifted pixel covers parts of a Red and Blue, it’s not getting the same Red value that makes up the entire Red pixel measurement. I wonder if the real algorithms have to reconstruct the color functions Inside each pixel. I suppose they do, as the final resolution is four small pixels per original large one. In other words, each measurement is a linear constraint, e.g., R =(R11+R12+R21+R22)/4. Sounds fun, actually...
    Last edited by MGrayson; 2 Weeks Ago at 04:06.
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    When the S1R came out ,at the beginning of 2020, Diglloyd did extensive testing of the pixel shift technology . I don t know if you agree but I can see the difference between the native 47MP conversions and those utilizing pixel shift . The examples he provided are absolutely clear that pixel shift improves resolution, color fidelity ,tone separation and noise . I didn t need a 30x40 print to see the results .

    The issue he confirmed was that the algorithms used by the manufacturers were unique . Pixel shift as implemented by Sony provided far different results than the Panasonic . The Panasonic used AI based algorithms to address small movement between captures . Even with the best techniques DL was unable to achieve satifactory results with the Sony approach . The S1R was found to be outstanding and highly recommended with the caution that it has a heavy tripod requirement .

    While Leica may have benefitted from the Panasonic partnerships ..the way they implemented multi shot appears to be different ? There composite file is 187MP and the Panasonic is 192MP . I don t know this for a fact....and I have no insights into whether Panasonic allowed Leica access to their approach .

    I do know that DL swears after 1000 s of tests that a larger file (MPs) downsized to match a smaller file ...(think 47mps down to 24mps ) is almost always superior ..its not about looking at 100% views of the pixels . (thats a test of pixel quality which is of course also important ).

    What we can t determine by looking at the background theory is the effectiveness of the AI applications in the firmware . Take a brief look at the Topaz AI plugs ins for an example of AI application .

  32. #32
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    I'm a fan of the Topaz plugins despite a general dislike of AI, or, more properly Machine Learning. It is effective, but for inscrutable reasons. Nevertheless, Gigapixel AI does an astonishingly good job with pixellated color art (my daughter's anime frame grab).

    It's interesting that different implementations give different results under different circumstances. That means the technology has a long path of improvement ahead of it. We all win.

    As for downsampling, much as I hate to agree with DL as a matter of principle, I approve wholeheartedly. I have never printed much over a meter on the long axis, and while I can tell the difference between 24 and 37.5 MP at that size, I can't see improvement thereafter. I have an 8,000 x 25,000 3 shot vertical pano of a tall, thin building in NYC. Printing it 40" high is over 600 dpi!

    Matt

    PS. I just heard something of how Leica manages movement, and it seems more robust than any other method I've heard of. On the other hand, it wants a REALLY stable tripod. A Gitzo 2 (old carbon model, FWIW) needs 10 seconds to stabilize. Forecast: Dual layer IBIS. One to keep the sensor stable and a second one to perform the shifts. Probably (years) too late to patent the idea.
    Last edited by MGrayson; 2 Weeks Ago at 08:05.

  33. #33
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    When the S1R came out ,at the beginning of 2020, Diglloyd did extensive testing of the pixel shift technology . I don t know if you agree but I can see the difference between the native 47MP conversions and those utilizing pixel shift . The examples he provided are absolutely clear that pixel shift improves resolution, color fidelity ,tone separation and noise . I didn t need a 30x40 print to see the results .

    The issue he confirmed was that the algorithms used by the manufacturers were unique . Pixel shift as implemented by Sony provided far different results than the Panasonic . The Panasonic used AI based algorithms to address small movement between captures . Even with the best techniques DL was unable to achieve satifactory results with the Sony approach . The S1R was found to be outstanding and highly recommended with the caution that it has a heavy tripod requirement .

    While Leica may have benefitted from the Panasonic partnerships ..the way they implemented multi shot appears to be different ? There composite file is 187MP and the Panasonic is 192MP . I don t know this for a fact....and I have no insights into whether Panasonic allowed Leica access to their approach .

    I do know that DL swears after 1000 s of tests that a larger file (MPs) downsized to match a smaller file ...(think 47mps down to 24mps ) is almost always superior ..its not about looking at 100% views of the pixels . (thats a test of pixel quality which is of course also important ).

    What we can t determine by looking at the background theory is the effectiveness of the AI applications in the firmware . Take a brief look at the Topaz AI plugs ins for an example of AI application .
    They both produce the exact same 187 megapixel file.

    As far as Sony they produce two different types of stitched files. One is similar to the Pentax in that they produce a file that captures all color data without increasing megapixel file size. Then there’s the newer stitch ability that captures up to 16 images that increases file size 4x’s. The newer and older version was implemented on the A7RIV... only the older one was on the A7RIII
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  34. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    They both produce the exact same 187 megapixel file.
    Tests published on LUF indicate that the Multishot images by SL2 are (slightly?) better than the one produced by S1R. I would not be surprised if Leica uses different code to assemble files.

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    As far as Sony they produce two different types of stitched files. One is similar to the Pentax in that they produce a file that captures all color data without increasing megapixel file size. Then there’s the newer stitch ability that captures up to 16 images that increases file size 4x’s. The newer and older version was implemented on the A7RIV... only the older one was on the A7RIII
    In a7rIV, pixel-shift increases the resolution by 4x. The generated file size(s) are 16x as the files are saved on the SD card and transferred to the computer for assembly. I assume that one would keep those 16 files in case a better assembly program appears.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    I'm a fan of the Topaz plugins despite a general dislike of AI, or, more properly Machine Learning. It is effective, but for inscrutable reasons. Nevertheless, Gigapixel AI does an astonishingly good job with pixellated color art (my daughter's anime frame grab).

    It's interesting that different implementations give different results under different circumstances. That means the technology has a long path of improvement ahead of it. We all win.

    As for downsampling, much as I hate to agree with DL as a matter of principle, I approve wholeheartedly. I have never printed much over a meter on the long axis, and while I can tell the difference between 24 and 37.5 MP at that size, I can't see improvement thereafter. I have an 8,000 x 25,000 3 shot vertical pano of a tall, thin building in NYC. Printing it 40" high is over 600 dpi!

    Matt

    PS. I just heard something of how Leica manages movement, and it seems more robust than any other method I've heard of. On the other hand, it wants a REALLY stable tripod. A Gitzo 2 (old carbon model, FWIW) needs 10 seconds to stabilize. Forecast: Dual layer IBIS. One to keep the sensor stable and a second one to perform the shifts. Probably (years) too late to patent the idea.
    The resolution is only one of the possible benefits of Multishot. It is probably the least important one but is certainly the most spectacular one :-).

    I had very good results with the Gitzo GT2532.

    The biggest disadvantage of Multishot is slow processing in the post (PS, NIK).
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  36. #36
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    The resolution is only one of the possible benefits of Multishot. It is probably the least important one but is certainly the most spectacular one :-).

    I had very good results with the Gitzo GT2532.

    The biggest disadvantage of Multishot is slow processing in the post (PS, NIK).
    I haven't touched an SL2, but is there a toggle for "wait until the camera is still before shooting"?

    --Matt, who should RTFM....

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    I haven't touched an SL2, but is there a toggle for "wait until the camera is still before shooting"?

    --Matt, who should RTFM....
    A warning dialog appears in Multishot mode if the camera detects considerable movements, the goal being to remind you to keep the camera still. There is no "wait until the camera is still" mode.
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  38. #38
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    They both produce the exact same 187 megapixel file.

    As far as Sony they produce two different types of stitched files. One is similar to the Pentax in that they produce a file that captures all color data without increasing megapixel file size. Then there’s the newer stitch ability that captures up to 16 images that increases file size 4x’s. The newer and older version was implemented on the A7RIV... only the older one was on the A7RIII
    Thanks about the file sizes ...makes sense that the Leica approach would be based on the Panasonic sensor ..that both cameras share . Seems like a nice feature when you have a subject that will hold still for you .

  39. #39
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    Tests published on LUF indicate that the Multishot images by SL2 are (slightly?) better than the one produced by S1R. I would not be surprised if Leica uses different code to assemble files.
    This likely has more to do with a different sensor stack (Leica has fewer glass elements and a slightly thinner stack over the sensor in SL2 when compared to the S1R) that would increase perceived detail at the pixel level. The SL2 shows an slight increase in detail with many lenses even without pixel shift according to Reid Reviews, though in reality one would need to pixel peep to see the differences. At regular viewing distances or without using a loupe, I would bet that it would be hard for people to tell them apart when unlabeled If using the same lenses on each camera. I would be extremely surprised if internally at a software level they were drastically different given how similar they are internally.

    Seems that there is a lot of part sharing between L-Mount Alliance members (for instance the Sigma fp uses the Leica Q battery that’s made and manufactured by Panasonic), the microprocessor in the Sigma fp is the same one as the Panasonic S1 (but flashed at the factory level with Sigma firmware), and there are many unofficially confirmed rumors that Panasonic manufactured much of the internal circuitry for the Leica SL 601 back in 2014-15 timeframe... which is why the L-Mount Alliance forming should be no huge surprise. Leica was using Panasonic’s Technology (DFD) even back then. A huge part of what makes these cameras possible are the shared developmental costs between the alliance members in order to bring diversified products to the market.

    There’s absolutely no shame in any of this (IMO anyway) in a shrinking camera market. If technology sharing is what needs to happen for some of my favorite camera companies to financially survive, then I’m all for it personally.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  40. #40
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    Thanks about the file sizes ...makes sense that the Leica approach would be based on the Panasonic sensor ..that both cameras share . Seems like a nice feature when you have a subject that will hold still for you .
    No worries. I know some people may get touchy about comparing Leica L-mount to the partner versions (not saying you) but there is more in common internally between the cameras than not. No shame in it as all of them are absolutely amazing cameras. I chose to go with the Panasonic for a specific reason - they have the three way tilting screen. The SL2 has some improved video features like LOG profiles, 5K video, 10-bit color for video, DCI 4K, etc. that I’d like to have... and perhaps Panasonic will add in firmware down the line.

    In any case, excellent cameras all around and if the SL2 (or even the SL Or FF Panasonic cameras) would’ve been around In 2012-13 I probably would’ve never moved from Leica to Sony in all honesty.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  41. #41
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    The mathematics and modeling discussion is waaay above my pay grade, so I thought I'd bring the conversation back to actual photos.

    Here's the scene:



    Per Roger's earlier post, I uprezzed the standard resolution file using Topaz Gigapixel AI, the best uprezzing app I have. Here's a 100% crop from the center of the uprezzed frame:



    And here's a 100% crop from the center of the multi-shot frame. I applied Topaz Sharpen AI to the multi-shot file since Topaz Gigapixel AI added a dose of sharpening when uprezzing the standard rez file. As a result, this is more of an apples to apples comparision.



    To my eye, the multi-shot file is significantly better than the uprezzed file. The multi-shot file shows detail (the veins in the leaves, for example) that the uprezzing tried to create but failed. The multi-shot file appears more "natural" and would look better in print, IMHO.

    I'm not addressing the issue Matt raised regarding whether I/we need 187MP files for printing. That's a separate conversation. What I wanted to address was whether the Leica SL2 multi-shot feature produces better IQ than uprezzing, and I'd say that it does. Appreciably better.

    OK, talk amongst yourselves.

    Joe
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Thanks 5 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    This likely has more to do with a different sensor stack (Leica has fewer glass elements and a slightly thinner stack over the sensor in SL2 when compared to the S1R) that would increase perceived detail at the pixel level. The SL2 shows an slight increase in detail with many lenses even without pixel shift according to Reid Reviews, though in reality one would need to pixel peep to see the differences. At regular viewing distances or without using a loupe, I would bet that it would be hard for people to tell them apart when unlabeled If using the same lenses on each camera. I would be extremely surprised if internally at a software level they were drastically different given how similar they are internally.

    Seems that there is a lot of part sharing between L-Mount Alliance members (for instance the Sigma fp uses the Leica Q battery that’s made and manufactured by Panasonic), the microprocessor in the Sigma fp is the same one as the Panasonic S1 (but flashed at the factory level with Sigma firmware), and there are many unofficially confirmed rumors that Panasonic manufactured much of the internal circuitry for the Leica SL 601 back in 2014-15 timeframe... which is why the L-Mount Alliance forming should be no huge surprise. Leica was using Panasonic’s Technology (DFD) even back then. A huge part of what makes these cameras possible are the shared developmental costs between the alliance members in order to bring diversified products to the market.

    There’s absolutely no shame in any of this (IMO anyway) in a shrinking camera market. If technology sharing is what needs to happen for some of my favorite camera companies to financially survive, then I’m all for it personally.
    This is the test that describes the difference in Multishot. It does not look like it is caused by a difference in sensor stack, but rather by a difference in software used to assemble it:

    https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/310699-leica-sl2-firmware-20-187-mp-multishot-mode/?do=findComment&comment=3997115


    I need to do my own tests with my S1R and SL2 before I accept such a significant difference in Multishot quality.

  43. #43
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    404
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by iiiNelson View Post
    No worries. I know some people may get touchy about comparing Leica L-mount to the partner versions (not saying you) but there is more in common internally between the cameras than not. No shame in it as all of them are absolutely amazing cameras. I chose to go with the Panasonic for a specific reason - they have the three way tilting screen. The SL2 has some improved video features like LOG profiles, 5K video, 10-bit color for video, DCI 4K, etc. that I’d like to have... and perhaps Panasonic will add in firmware down the line.

    In any case, excellent cameras all around and if the SL2 (or even the SL Or FF Panasonic cameras) would’ve been around In 2012-13 I probably would’ve never moved from Leica to Sony in all honesty.
    I hope you don't mean me by "touchy people" :-).

    I own both S1R and SL2. I admit that my preferred camera is SL2. But I would not say that SL2 is generally better.
    In some areas, S1R is better and some areas it is SL2. No shame in admitting that :-).

    Luckily for us, they are different and can fulfill the needs of a wide range of users.

  44. #44
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    4,118
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Hi Joe,

    I hate to assess comparative detail on a image viewed at screen resolution (for obvious reasons) but when I examine the two images you posted, the upper one (the interpolated one that's uprezzed using Topaz Gigapixel AI)...appears to have significantly more detail all around (on individual leaves etc.), when compared to the bottom image that represents the multishot image. Maybe selective crops of each file might change what I see on my screen. In any case thanks ever so much for providing these samples.

    Dave (D&A)
    Last edited by D&A; 2 Weeks Ago at 01:09.

  45. #45
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    This is the test that describes the difference in Multishot. It does not look like it is caused by a difference in sensor stack, but rather by a difference in software used to assemble it:

    https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/310699-leica-sl2-firmware-20-187-mp-multishot-mode/?do=findComment&comment=3997115


    I need to do my own tests with my S1R and SL2 before I accept such a significant difference in Multishot quality.
    The software algorithm may indeed be potentially more refined in the SL2 and that would make sense being that they’ve had over a year to further refine it. I still would lean on ultimately the way they go about sensor shift is largely the same and that sensor stack differences likely play a larger part in the differences. IMO based on what I’ve seen (without doing scientific deep dives) the end result (even if Panasonic further refined their algorithm to be “the same” as Leica) would be the same, ultimately the Leica would likely still be a bit sharper without artificial software processing by the Panasonic due to a thinner software.

    It seems like they’re zooming into it at 100% and 400% to highlight the differences though... which kind of gets to my point about the SL2 being slightly better but you have to go to the extremes to tell them apart in reality. Seems like people are looking for minor differences to justify their purchase which requires no justification beyond saying that they just wanted and preferred the SL2 over the S1R.

    I still stand by both are excellent cameras and are far more alike than different.
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  46. #46
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    iiiNelson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    4,754
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by SrMphoto View Post
    I hope you don't mean me by "touchy people" :-).

    I own both S1R and SL2. I admit that my preferred camera is SL2. But I would not say that SL2 is generally better.
    In some areas, S1R is better and some areas it is SL2. No shame in admitting that :-).

    Luckily for us, they are different and can fulfill the needs of a wide range of users.
    No, I wasn’t speaking to any one person in particular... I rarely (if ever) make personal attacks on people or groups of people... though some may feel that I have Or at least have accused me of such because many people do make attacks on users of certain cameras (Leica and Sony users come to mind first).

    I just mean people in general on the internet that may take varying viewpoints differently. I don’t care what people choose to use and seriously don’t believe that there are many bad cameras these days... just subjective reasons for choosing one platform over another. I really am to the point (and truly believe) that no one really needs to justify their purchasing decisions but it can be helpful to share why one does if one choose to do so. No matter what one chooses these days, it ultimately comes down to subjective needs/wants more than capability. I can definitely say that my Sony system’s autofocus is objectively better than my Panasonic S1R one in hit rate... but the differences aren’t as great as some reviews would have you believe for most types of photography... and the 6K photo mode can turn it into a pretty capable “sports camera” where you can essentially take short videos to pull “decisive moments” from.

    So no, I wasn’t referring to you (or anyone here in particular) but rather making a point that the internet can sometimes be a “touchy” place when it comes to the “religion of brand wars.”
    Visible Light & IR Photographer
    http://www.iiinelsonimages.com

  47. #47
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Joe,

    The biggest difference to my eye is that the uprezzed crop looks over-sharp. I like the look of the multi-shot better, but more because it has what I think of as Leica colors - soft, but clear. The uprezzed is a tad plastic. I see no difference in detail, but then, I seldom sharpen pictures, believing that the lower frequencies make the photo.

    Thank you for posting that example,

    Matt
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Workshop Member glenerrolrd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Atlanta Ga
    Posts
    2,602
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    While the Uprez examples provide a perspective of how a large file (print ? ) would look .....my POV was that most 187 mp files will be downsized . So the comparison should be a native 47mp capture against a downsized 187mp to 47mp . This is where Diglloyd finds the real improvements in any large file comparison .

    Am I confused ? Again
    Roger Dunham
    http://rogerdunham.com/
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  49. #49
    Subscriber and Workshop Member MGrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    2,551
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    4

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    While the Uprez examples provide a perspective of how a large file (print ? ) would look .....my POV was that most 187 mp files will be downsized . So the comparison should be a native 47mp capture against a downsized 187mp to 47mp . This is where Diglloyd finds the real improvements in any large file comparison .

    Am I confused ? Again
    I agree 100%. I wish they had a 47MP RAW output from the multi shot mode. That would have great color and detail. Anyone who used a 4MP Foveon knows the look. (For all I know, they do. I should really download the manual!)

  50. #50
    Senior Member Joe Colson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    2,441
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    36

    Re: Leica SL adds Multishot capability 187MP

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Hi Joe,

    I hate to assess comparative detail on a image viewed at screen resolution (for obvious reasons) but when I examine the two images you posted, the upper one (the interpolated one that's uprezzed using Topaz Gigapixel AI)...appears to have significantly more detail all around (on individual leaves etc.), when compared to the bottom image that represents the multishot image. Maybe selective crops of each file might change what I see on my screen. In any case thanks ever so much for providing these samples.

    Dave (D&A)
    Dave, the perceived "detail" in the uprezzed image is "created" in the uprezzing process. I don't have a Retina display, but on my screen (an ancient NEC PA302W with 101dpi), the uprezzed image looks "plastic" and unnatural. But that's the nature of uprezzing - extrapolating the real data to fit the new envelope.

    Quote Originally Posted by MGrayson View Post
    Joe,

    The biggest difference to my eye is that the uprezzed crop looks over-sharp. I like the look of the multi-shot better, but more because it has what I think of as Leica colors - soft, but clear. The uprezzed is a tad plastic. I see no difference in detail, but then, I seldom sharpen pictures, believing that the lower frequencies make the photo.

    Thank you for posting that example,

    Matt
    Matt, I like the multi-shot image better than the uprezzed shot for the same reason. Topaz Gigapixel AI, while being perhaps the best uprezzing app currently available, isn't perfect and has a tendency to make photos look too crisp.

    Quote Originally Posted by glenerrolrd View Post
    While the Uprez examples provide a perspective of how a large file (print ? ) would look .....my POV was that most 187 mp files will be downsized . So the comparison should be a native 47mp capture against a downsized 187mp to 47mp . This is where Diglloyd finds the real improvements in any large file comparison .

    Am I confused ? Again
    Roger, pardon me for not following the Lloyd Chambers playbook. He was working with files from the Fuji GFX 100, Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift, and Phase One IQ4-150, if I'm not mistaken, when making those claims. I'm working with a pedestrian 47MP 35mm full-frame camera that just had multi-shot added to its menu. So I'm trying to assess [initially] how a large 187MP file looks compared to its 47MP cousin. Is it good enough for 30x40" prints? Can I crop it significantly to extract a better composition without losing acuity? Is the color rendering and tonality preserved? BTW, Lloyd has since offered large prints for sale from his 100MP and 150MP files, extolling the virtues of more megapixels when printing bigly.

    As my last contribution to this discussion, here are two crops from the same scene. Each DNG had the same processing steps, except for the downsizing of the multi-shot file. The multi-shot file was downsized in PS to match the dimensions of the standard file. Each had the same settings in LR, and Topaz Sharpen AI applied in PS.

    Downsized multi-shot file 100% crop:



    Standard resolution file 100% crop:



    There's not much, if any, difference between the files. Or at least not enough difference to matter in my work. My conclusion is that I wouldn't shoot a 187MP multi-shot file for the sole purpose of downsizing it to 47MP to somehow achieve higher image quality. I'd use multi-shot in landscape photography for producing a larger initial palette that would give me the freedom to crop, extract, and in some cases print very large prints. And repeating the caveats cited on the Red Dot Forum:

    There are a few caveats when using the new multi-shot feature. Because the IBIS mechanism is being utilized for pixel shifting, all image stabilization is disabled. Also, only full frame lenses can be used, so TL glass won’t work here. Other restrictions are that the maximum ISO is limited to 3200, the longest shutter speed is capped to one second, you can’t use strobe, and electronic shutter is always used. All of these make sense given what the camera is doing during the capture process. And of course, you’ll want to be locked down on a sturdy tripod and shooting a non-moving subject.
    That's all for now. Talk amongst yourselves.

    Joe
    Last edited by Joe Colson; 2 Weeks Ago at 06:58.
    _________________________________
    Joe Colson Photography
    Thanks 2 Member(s) thanked for this post
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •