The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Phase 1 and pixel shift, ms, whatever

cunim

Well-known member
Some years ago, I used a 50 MP Hasselblad MS camera for a while. Sure, the MS feature had limited application but, when it could be used, it was an obvious leap in image quality. It was so good that I ended up using it whenever I had static objects - this despite the extra time and trouble it took. Sadly, I switched to Phase equipment (for reasons that were compelling to me) and lost the MS capability. I miss it.

I see recent statements from Phase dealers that MS used to be relevant, but no longer is, that today's high res sensors are so good that they receive minimal benefit from it. Perhaps this is true but I have not seen comparison images that would prove the case. What I have seen is the result from Sony's pixel shift (DPrev) using a modern sensor and lens system. The improvement is clear and even profound.

I am open to seeing proper image comparisons made with the latest MS Hassies. If these fail to show a benefit to MS I will stop obsessing. Until then, I can't ignore the image quality improvement I have seen in the past. MS works. What does Phase have against it?

Whenever I think about upgrading my IQ180 I run up against the same question - "Why?" To date, the incremental improvements in the IQ line have been insufficient to justify the serious expenditure. However, considering what an MS version of the IQ series could do leaves me in full "I wish I had that" mode. Just sayin'.....
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
I see recent statements from Phase dealers that MS used to be relevant, but no longer is, that today's high res sensors are so good that they receive minimal benefit from it. Perhaps this is true but I have not seen comparison images that would prove the case. What I have seen is the result from Sony's pixel shift (DPrev) using a modern sensor and lens system. The improvement is clear and even profound.

I am open to seeing proper image comparisons made with the latest MS Hassies. If these fail to show a benefit to MS I will stop obsessing. Until then, I can't ignore the image quality improvement I have seen in the past. MS works. What does Phase have against it?
If anyone would like to run a direct comparison we'd be glad to offer up Phase One hardware at our NY or LA office.

Multishot absolutely has advantages, but most of the comparisons you'll see are made against single-shot backs processed in raw convertors that are years behind in image quality regarding demosaicing; mediocre single shot demosaicing vs multishot shows a profound difference. But when you compare against, for example, a modern Phase One back processed in Capture One 10, the gap in our experience is quite small.
 

Nebster

Member
Doug's reply is the standard you'll see in forums. However, what he neglects to mention is that comparing a modern 100MP single-shot sensor to older or lower-resolution pixel-shift sensors is also not apples-to-apples.

A 100MP back with multishot would wipe the floor with the single-shot equivalent.

The Sony A7R3 multishot images in the latest dpreview comparison stand up very favorably to the IQ3100 single-shot studio image. In some areas they look better.
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Doug's reply is the standard you'll see in forums. However, what he neglects to mention is that comparing a modern 100MP single-shot sensor to older or lower-resolution pixel-shift sensors is also not apples-to-apples. A 100MP back with multishot would wipe the floor with the single-shot equivalent.
It's pretty hard to make useful comparisons between a product that exists and one that does not.

I think a fair "apples to apples" comparison is best kept in the realm of things that exist. But I understand your point.

The Sony A7R3 multishot images in the latest dpreview comparison stand up very favorably to the IQ3100 single-shot studio image. In some areas they look better.
I don't think DPReview processes their IQ files using Capture One, but I don't spend a lot of time on that site and could be mistaken. I also have no hands on experience wth the A7R3. Do you?
 

cunim

Well-known member
Doug's reply is the standard you'll see in forums. However, what he neglects to mention is that comparing a modern 100MP single-shot sensor to older or lower-resolution pixel-shift sensors is also not apples-to-apples.

A 100MP back with multishot would wipe the floor with the single-shot equivalent.

The Sony A7R3 multishot images in the latest dpreview comparison stand up very favorably to the IQ3100 single-shot studio image. In some areas they look better.
My impression exactly. Here's a simple test. Few of us have the equipment but Doug might. When I used filter wheels they did a good job with fat pixel cameras, but I never tried them with a modern high resolution CCD. Maybe it would be instructive to do that.

Doug, could you set up a filter wheel and monochrome CCD? Compare images fused from discrete 100MP primaries with the best that a C1 demosaiced image can provide. I think the result would be very obviously in favor of the fusion. After all, there is a reason that Phase offers a monochrome camera. Imagine if we could obtain those benefits in tonality, resolution, and dynamic range - but in color.

If the results do not meet my expectations, I can finally stop longing for multishot.
 

Nebster

Member
I think a fair "apples to apples" comparison is best kept in the realm of things that exist. But I understand your point.
We do have those apples-to-apples comparisons: take any HB multishot back and compare it to the non-MS image out of it or out of a similar Phase back with the same size sensor. It's not even close.

It's pretty hard to make useful comparisons between a product that exists and one that does not.
All the more reason for Phase to get it together and give us an actuated sensor for pixel shift. The market is speaking to you, right here on this thread.

I don't think DPReview processes their IQ files using Capture One, but I don't spend a lot of time on that site and could be mistaken.
Probably not; I'm not sure either.

I also have no hands on experience wth the A7R3. Do you?
Certainly not; why is that relevant?
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
Curious as to what market is speaking to needing multishot?

As a user from the K1 (Pixel shift), I currently don't see any advantage unless the issue of motion is taken into account somehow. If you are a product shooter, in controlled lighting, MS is great. If you subject moves it's not, it's just that simple. Even the dpreivew examples show issues, quite a few in fact. Harsh CA, and several spots where something or someone moved and you see the traditional aliasing issues.

The Sony takes up to 1.5 seconds between shots for capture, much slower than the Pentax K1 (which takes all 4 shots in about 1.5 seconds, but does take about 12 to 14 seconds to process internally), Sony requires a separate piece of software, PC only, which has no support in Adobe yet, may happen sometime in the future. Good LR support for the K1 pixel shift never happened, but Sony has a lot more users. In fact maybe this will force Phase One to support it as they have a dedicated support for Sony cameras, again only time will tell.

But the Elephant in the room is motion and how to correct for it. So far from what I have seen, Sony has the same issues that Pentax had and they do not have a better correction. It's next to impossible to use MS outdoors unless you are lucky to have a totally windless day and no subject motion.

For me the 100Mp 44 x 33 solutions from Fuji, Hasselblad and maybe P1 (in the future) hold much more value until someone brings MS into the mainstream of raw conversion, for either Adobe or Capture One.

Paul Caldwell
 

Nebster

Member
Curious as to what market is speaking to needing multishot?
Since any sensor can be actuated, and some of us shoot a lot of static scenes and want to print big, there's certainly a market for it no matter how good next year's sensor will be. (Whether it's large enough to justify the R&D, I don't know.)

I tend to come back with very few images from the field, and I can often see the promise of one or two in particular while in situ. I'm willing to put up with the extra hassle to get the extra acuity. Motion is a non-factor for my typical subjects.
 

MrSmith

Member
Curious as to what market is speaking to needing multishot?
People like me. A still life photographer. I used the old ixpress multi-shot backs and although there is only a handful of pixel shift images from Sony out there I fully expect the results to be better than the examples offered so far, especially when used with the best lenses.

I'm sure phase would offer a very good pixel shift implementation if they could develop one themselves but I guess there are maybe patent issues and the fact they have no sensor based image stabilisation/movement system/technology of their own to start with.
(The sales price would no doubt be stratospheric too)
 

Quentin_Bargate

Well-known member
I see recent statements from Phase dealers that MS used to be relevant, but no longer is, that today's high res sensors are so good that they receive minimal benefit from it. Perhaps this is true but I have not seen comparison images that would prove the case. What I have seen is the result from Sony's pixel shift (DPrev) using a modern sensor and lens system. The improvement is clear and even profound....

It is profound. I have owned and used a Hassy 50mp multishot camera. For much the same reason as you articulate, I also used foveon based cameras for the same reason: once you have experienced the difference it is hard to go back to the mess of moire and low level image degradation that interpolated Bayer sensors provide.

Modern sensors are better it so many ways that the advanages of MS or Foveon type true RGB sensors tend to be overlooked, but they remain compelling. Check out, for example, the output from a Pentax K1 35mm
camera. That proves uninterpolated multishot output can be achieved as a side benefit to any camera offering in camera image stabilisation [/QUOTE]
 

Abstraction

Well-known member
Some years ago, I used a 50 MP Hasselblad MS camera for a while. Sure, the MS feature had limited application but, when it could be used, it was an obvious leap in image quality. It was so good that I ended up using it whenever I had static objects - this despite the extra time and trouble it took. Sadly, I switched to Phase equipment (for reasons that were compelling to me) and lost the MS capability. I miss it.

I see recent statements from Phase dealers that MS used to be relevant, but no longer is, that today's high res sensors are so good that they receive minimal benefit from it. Perhaps this is true but I have not seen comparison images that would prove the case. What I have seen is the result from Sony's pixel shift (DPrev) using a modern sensor and lens system. The improvement is clear and even profound.

I am open to seeing proper image comparisons made with the latest MS Hassies. If these fail to show a benefit to MS I will stop obsessing. Until then, I can't ignore the image quality improvement I have seen in the past. MS works. What does Phase have against it?

Whenever I think about upgrading my IQ180 I run up against the same question - "Why?" To date, the incremental improvements in the IQ line have been insufficient to justify the serious expenditure. However, considering what an MS version of the IQ series could do leaves me in full "I wish I had that" mode. Just sayin'.....

Check out this article: https://petapixel.com/2015/02/21/a-practical-guide-to-creating-superresolution-photos-with-photoshop/

You may find it helpful.
 

cunim

Well-known member
Thanks for the link. With large and hi-res images it becomes really difficult (and slow!) to acquire multiples. You want as much of the procedure automated as possible. Shooting MS takes discipline - and sometimes concrete floors - but the acquisition and processing is fairly straightforward. Make sure conditions are right. Then, trigger acquisition to Phocus which creates a stack and a final image right there. Going through the super resolution process with an IQ180 would seem to be just a bit beyond what is practical.

We are heading for 150 MP within a year or so and that level of res would seem pretty adequate. Pixel shift has to deliver more than resolution. There is something else about those MS images. Maybe it is the noise averaging, lack of moire, and true color rendition. I don't really know. They just look more "right". Again, I think of it as getting the equivalent of a monochrome sensor, but in color.

I don't really believe Phase will support this. Certainly they are capable of it, but I would guess there are intellectual property issues that they loose control of with pixel shifting. Rather, they seem committed to improving the demosaicing process and I wish them well with that. I am hoping Sony will develop something around one of their MF sensors. The Sony camera would then leave other MF manufacturer's offerings in the dust (by being cost effective and pixel shifted). Course, they might not want to be so aggressive.
 

MrSmith

Member
MS seems to deal with specular and metal/chrome/shiny highlight areas and edges better than single shot RGB capture, something i spend ages looking at as i shoot a lot of tech and wristwatches. some of this i guess is the sensor and you get kind of highlight bleed or flare around the high contrast edges, i’m hoping the new sony will improve on this area (its the same for the H/blad/Phase that use sony sensors)
i can already see an improvement in colour fidelity with the DPreview image on the colour wheel.

whatever the dealers/cool aid drinkers/reps say if there was multi-shot technology in phase backs the images would be better, end of.
it would be nice to have the option if the conditions allowed you to use it.
you always shot a single shot at the same time as the multi so you had it in reserve.
if you are using studio lighting it needs to be of high quality and not drift in power, when using a single tungsten light on car shoots we would get jaggies on edges not from movement but power fluctuations. solved by using 2 lights next to each other to make one light source.
 
Top