Canon R5 Mk Ii Drops Pixel Shift High Res – Is Canon Missing the AI Big Picture?
kguttag.com
kguttag.com
I've never figured out a good use-case for that mode, and I've tried to use it quite a few times to shoot landscapes or static scenes with a tripod.
Maybe Canon does it better, but perhaps they dropped it because it's just not producing worthwhile results.
I can't find it right now, but there's a YouTube video that demonstrates using this mode for astrophotography. It seems that a side effect of the computational process is that noise gets averaged out, resulting in a cleaner (and sharper, as you'd be expecting anyway) image.
The Nikon bodies were known to eat stars with its in camera noise removal worse than other makers, it was one of the reasons astro recommendations are to not use that feature for any body.
And yes that's what I said, sorry if I wasn't clear.
It does get more "pixels" resolution, the image file is 100MP, but it's certainly not 4X the image resolution in terms of image quality. Not that I was expecting that, but it's not even a middle ground that I consider usable, at least not good enough to use over a normal 25MP picture.
I've done a bunch of landscape shots (with a very solid tripod, camera in silent mode, shutter release delay, no wind, etc) and generally I've found the results mixed-to-bad..
Like I said, it seems like the algorithm has a hard time stitching the images together often so if you zoom into the details (and really if you're using this mode, it's ostensibly because you want more detail), things get fuzzy or muddy in most of the pictures I've taken.
To be fair I took maybe 20-30 test shots in the first 6 months I owned that camera, and I haven't gone back to the mode since.. Maybe some of it is user error, but I really did try to make it work because it seemed like a cool feature.
I feel like I really did everything I could to create the ideal conditions for this mode to produce good results, and it simply didn't.
That said, all this talk has made me want to go try again.. :-)
That's why 4x the mpx count isn't "4x better"
I would much prefer for these pixel shift modes to produce an image where each pixel has an RGB value associated with it, rather than yet another Bayer image that's just bigger.
It depends on the implementation but that's what pixel shift is for, you get full color information (essentially negating the bayer filter by moving the sensor 1px up/down/right/left): https://www.pentaxforums.com/articles/photo-articles/how-pen...
There is this kind of weird and intense competition for features and specs in this space of photography, and it doesn’t always make sense. I think if Canon dropped pixel shift, they probably figured that people wouldn’t terribly miss it, but for a little while, it was the feature of the moment. I did appreciate that they added it in firmware for the R5, but I never found a use for it.
Yet the smartphone picture still sucks, as it is too compressed, the colors are off, weird post processing is applied that ruins the picture, the sensor may have impressive resolution, but all other specs are not as impressive and of course the lens assembly doesn't even compare due to size constraints. Which in the end leads to a mix where the unprocessed gamma-adjusted picture of the cinema camera will look like the real thing, while the smartphone picture will have its flaws, that will come through or not depending on the source material.
As for features, making more use of existing hardware is good. I wouldn't need pixelshift in most cases, but when I would it is there.
The new R5 Mk II AI upscale is the same, a gimmick that got way to much attention by the press solely for using the word AI.
Canon does use AI features in their R5 AF tracking, and it's really impressive. But Canon calls those features deep learning or other more specific terms.
This is Sony's AF system, 2 generations ago. I'm sure big three can do these tricks, at least at 30FPS. Latest, highest end Sony cameras do it at 120FPS, plus it can track whole body after losing the face, so they can track the same person in the frame after latching to it.
In studio product photography where you control 100% of the light and have 0 movements
Right tool for the job and all that..
And I'll tell you, I did test this. I set up ideal conditions in my home studio with a tripod, good lights and - short of ground tremors - zero movement, and the results still weren't that usable.
Comparing the 100MP image to a 25MP version, you really couldn't see that much more detail, and when you zoomed in on the 100MP image, imperfections were quickly visible.
However it requires a solid reproduction column mount, excellent lenses, perfect focus and vibration free environment etc.
I might try something like this just to see the results..
I also think that the lenses have to be able to resolve this resolution. My 12mm prime looks somewhat sharper than my 8-25 zoom in high-res mode, even though there is no difference in regular mode.
I'm not sure how to quantify the increase in quality, but the details are sharp. However, I'd say that the real benefit of this mode is that the image is smoother than in the normal mode. Tonal transitions, in particular.
I can't find any specifics, but just taking a picture in this mode and looking at my watch, I think this particular camera takes 8 exposures.
I think that about sums it up. I've never before heard of anyone seriously using pixel shift. The consensus seems to be that it's more of gimmick that rarely delivers anything close to what you'd expect.
The camera should take pictures with the IBIS fractional picture shift and save the RAW files. They should give the option of how many "cycles" (go through all the shift orientations more than once) of pictures to take. With that level of information, smart software will be able to figure out and deal with at least small hand motions and considerable motion in the subject.
Smartphones are already using computational photography, combining multiple photos for things like panning and taking pictures in the dark. For a dedicated camera like the R5 mk ii, I would want the camera to save RAW images that can be put together later by "smart" software on a computer with greater processing and memory resources.
I also do not want any AI generation in my cameras. I want my cameras to take the photo I told it to make, and not to fake a photo it thinks I wanted to take.
It really is kind of a gimmick feature unless you have very specific locked down scenes, like a still life.
Another example is their issuance of one video-centric (or at least "hybrid") camera after another that's crippled by an insulting and nearly-useless micro-HDMI port, while everyone else offers full-sized HDMI.
I have a decent investment in Canon lenses; but after waiting and waiting for Canon to pull its head out of its ass and compete (especially in terms of video capability), I think I have to jump ship.
It's like Apple wanting you to buy a phone, tablet, and watch.
Canon is clinging to laurels that are long gone. And this is coming from a longtime Canon shooter who likes their still-image quality. They need an FX3 killer, pronto.
Sony makes top notch sensors and fairly mediocre cameras, and sensor development is something that has been leapfrogged multiple times in history.
Nikon is the one that has a decent chance of dethroning Canon, unless canon ups their RF lens game.
I don't assume anything about their market share; just the specs they currently offer. I wish Canon were more competitive for video shooters.
We'll see what happens with Nikon & Red.
:P Feels like a page out of the Apple playbook…
“There’s a dongle for that”
Conclusion is that supershift is better then interpolation, but not a lossless 2x magnifier. However, it should reproduce colors better. Because for each pixel we can gen 2 or 3 RAW colors instead of one in normal shot.
But it's mostly "shoot with a tripod, nobody move", and if I'm in that situation, most of the time you're better of getting a smaller FOV and taking shots for panoramic stitching.
Is there a real pixel shift use case outside of "I want a picture of my 4K monitor"?
Resolution matter for more than just filling the pixels on a big monitor. Many uses are more technical / less artsy, like digitizing film/prints/paintings/whatever, shooting through a microscope or telescope or, as the author mentions, avoiding artifacts by downscaling.
Anything that requires good color reproduction. Archiving for example (museums &c.)
TIL, thanks for sharing!
Looks to me like nothing except a little clickbait in the title.
I was excited yet after I tried it was nothing but total disappointment.
No RAW output, weird artifacts, extremely long processing time (though this is acceptable given what the camera is doing) to name a few. I can barely say anything from that session was usable, and it's not much better than AI upscale + sharpen on the computer. Yes, better, but a little better. Much worse than I expected.
Therefore I think Canon did the right thing by cleaning up a half-baked gimmick from a pro body.
However I'd be all in if they come of with a proper implementation that actually works well.