Pixel Shift vs Regular Capture - quick comparison w S1R

[SSelvidge]

For the full context of why I did this, below is a linked comment I made yesterday that was the genesis of this post, along with @LABlueBike @VladS and @Harry -

FF Pixel Shift versus MF Scan (Preliminary/Non-Macro)

I have been testing pixel shift vs single capture for a few weeks now on a Panasonic Lumix S1R. Before that, I read about it constantly for a few months off and on trying to understand the value - perceived vs real. I have not had the opportunity to test FF pixel shift vs digital medium formats 44x33mm (Hasselblad/Fuji’s “affordable” MF) or 54x40.5mm (Phase One). They surely do amazing things with single image, 16bit capture. And some of them have pixel shift abilities as well. I am sure you N…

@SSelvidge

“Briefly” on various topics

1. Sharpness: the images are not sharper, per se, in the grand scheme at real viewing sizes and distances. They are as sharp as the original film and lens made them. However, there is more data captured at the grain level and it has much smoother, finer transitions within colors and edges when you go in to 400% or more. A win, IMHO, but not for the reasons most would expect. The images at extreme magnifications appear to be softer. While at normal viewing distances only a little better or not at all. But in the lower resolution single capture images it is simply the effect of hitting the pixel level of the image, creating artificially sharp edges once zoomed in far enough. I find the grain more pleasing in the high res pixel shift images because it’s smoother, more like it would be in a print because light and enlargers dont use pixels. Said another way, more and smaller pixels means those edges have more detail and thus cleaner transitions at typical and 100-200% viewing distances compared to the lower res image. Great for a 60inch wide print or a 50% crop, but of limited or no utility at all for an 8x10inch print or Instagram.
2. Resolution: related to more pixels mentioned already… a clear win on the condition that you want to print it large at 300dpi and/or, especially, crop extensively. Otherwise you just have huge files. Final viewing size and viewing distance is what matters. So subjectively useful depending on your needs.

From the last post in summary (but I had a LOT of detail, too, haha!)

@SSelvidge

TLDR of the longer thoughts below: Pixel shift has great benefits if you can utilize them. But the film emulsion cannot give what it does not have as far as detail goes… so for viewing on nearly any screen and for prints smaller than, say, 16-20" on the long edge I think there is limited usefulness of the technology. At some point, you just “scan” deeper into the grain or dye clouds. Also, alignment and vibration becomes a huge issue compared to single capture.

For me, its the perfect and affordable tool to make higher quality scans of selected images for public presentation and long term preservation. The effort it took to get here was considerably harder than I expected and I am not done trying to perfect it.

For most people I don’t know that pixel shift has strong benefits unless they are printing physical books, cropping extensively, producing large exhibitions or involved in scientific and cultural heritage applications or library and historical archives purposes.