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!

Fuji Sub-um technology will bring pixel-shift and 400mpx on GFX100

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Do I have to drag you kicking and screaming to one of our DT Capture One Masters classes?? We just finished a round in NYC but should have another in a few months.

There is zero chance that you are getting the most out of C1. I say that with confidence because I've been professionally instructing the most advanced classes on Capture One for more than a decade and I still learn new workflows, tips, and tricks every month.

https://www.dtcommercialphoto.com/capture-one-training/
Well, that's me told.

All yours, Doug.
 

ErikKaffehr

Well-known member
I finally read the report. There are a number of big "if"s there. Like, "we have to control the sensor with 10 times the accuracy needed for IBIS". That does not sound like a done deal.

OTOH, Frame Averaging would be a simple processor task. I bet the difficulties THERE are all patent related.

Matt
Hi,

Pixel shift and pixel averaging are entirely different techniques.

  • Pixel shift is intended to reduce aliasing
  • Pixel averaging is intended to reduce noise

Pixel shift essentially makes sense when the sensor has lower resolution than the lens. The ideal solution is to have a sensor with twice the resolution, like 400 MP on the Fuji GFX. But, you cannot buy that sensor yet...

Using pixel shift would also reduce noise, as each pixel would sample 4-16X more photons. So, pixel shift would also work as pixel averaging.

Best regards
Erik
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Would love to see such a class come to the middle of the US, St Louis, or Dallas?

Always seem to west/east coast oriented.

Paul C
Being from Ohio, I feel you.

The primary reason for LA and NYC is that is where our offices are so we incur no travel or hosting costs. Since the class size is kept small, even modest travel costs are hard to amortize over the attendees.

We do host at least once a year in Texas (Dallas, Austin, or Houston) as we already travel there twice a year for a long-established roadshow, so have only minimal added costs to host there. And we have tried, over the years, to host in other Midwest or Southern cities, but rarely have gotten the critical mass that offsets the cost of travel. The issue isn't lack of interest in those areas, but that the interest is geographically less dense.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Hi,

Pixel shift and pixel averaging are entirely different techniques.

  • Pixel shift is intended to reduce aliasing
  • Pixel averaging is intended to reduce noise

Pixel shift essentially makes sense when the sensor has lower resolution than the lens. The ideal solution is to have a sensor with twice the resolution, like 400 MP on the Fuji GFX. But, you cannot buy that sensor yet...

Using pixel shift would also reduce noise, as each pixel would sample 4-16X more photons. So, pixel shift would also work as pixel averaging.

Best regards
Erik
Erik,

I was not intending to confuse the two techniques. They are quite different, and with different purposes. My point was that PA would be easier to implement, and that PS was a great technique for solving a different problem. And PA is also to produce long exposures without filters, which is its primary interest to landscape photographers.

Best,

Matt
 

dougpeterson

Workshop Member
Well, that's me told.

All yours, Doug.
I'd just like to clarify that I was not, in my previous post, meaning to denigrate or question your intelligence or abilities. Quite the contrary I meant to denigrate the (lack of) intuitiveness of C1.

My point was that C1 can be a PITA to learn, especially when you want to move beyond the basics that are either self evident or well explained in the free online webinars/tutorials, and that in-person classes focused on advanced technique can have a profound impact on what you can achieve in that software, and how quickly and easily you can do so. It surely beats the wandering-in-the-wilderness feeling that can come about from trying to figure it all out on your own.

I suspect that is true of most software, but my personal expertise is in C1 so know with confidence that it is true of C1.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I'd just like to clarify that I was not, in my previous post, meaning to denigrate or question your intelligence or abilities. Quite the contrary I meant to denigrate the (lack of) intuitiveness of C1.

My point was that C1 can be a PITA to learn, especially when you want to move beyond the basics that are either self evident or well explained in the free online webinars/tutorials, and that in-person classes focused on advanced technique can have a profound impact on what you can achieve in that software, and how quickly and easily you can do so. It surely beats the wandering-in-the-wilderness feeling that can come about from trying to figure it all out on your own.

I suspect that is true of most software, but my personal expertise is in C1 so know with confidence that it is true of C1.
Thank you. As I seem to be spending a lot more time in C1, I'll look for that training next time you're in town.

Matt

PS. If anyone needed convincing that one can add drama to a C1 BW conversion, here's an online example.
https://blog.captureone.com/tutorial-create-stunning-black-white-image/

Now I have to try it myself...

PPS. Works nicely. Now to try the other end of the spectrum with the silvery darktable conversion. :toocool:
 
Last edited:
Top