• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Sony Camera Upgrades - Color and Pixel Shift

I use Sony A7R4 for scanning but I only used pixel shift once to create a 230 MP copy of a slide. I am not sure if it makes any difference.

Better color = better light and negative conversion software.

Shadow detail/noise/dynamic range = HDR (taking bracketed exposures).

I actually tried HDR with a 100-year old glass plate that had an insane dynamic range and it worked well and the process was very straightforward in Affinity Photo.

You didn't tell us what format you shoot and scan. For 35 mm color negative film I doubt that you can get noticeable improvement in image quality by increasing sensor resolution.
 

I have never tried HDR, but it may be worth a shot for something like Ektar in hard lighting.
 
I don't know about the Sonys, but on the Pentax K-1 the high dynamic range and pixel shift settings are not able to be used at the same time. You could of course take your own several exposures and combine them in software. I've tried that a few times - it's a very rare shot where the gains are worth it, usually something like a picture of a window where you try to get the interior and exterior looking good.
 
Last edited:
koraks said:
Pixel shift has come up a couple of times in this context here on Photrio, but I don't recall anyone reporting any significant practical benefit.
Click to expand...

Pixel shift is great for reproducing artwork. It does afford truer color and there is a slight increase in overall sharpness. I use 4-shot mode on the Sony A7r 4. 16-shot isn't worth the trouble.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I went down a bit of a rabbit hole about pixel shift and scanning negatives. Looks like there can be a decent improvement scanning 35mm B&W with pixel shift because it lessens grain aliasing. The bigger the format the less of an issue it is.
 
isaac7 said:
I went down a bit of a rabbit hole about pixel shift and scanning negatives. Looks like there can be a decent improvement scanning 35mm B&W with pixel shift because it lessens grain aliasing. The bigger the format the less of an issue it is.
Click to expand...

The bigger the format the more likely you are to have film that doesn't conform to the 2:3 ratio of 35mm, which means the standard 2:3 DSLR or mirrorless sensor is going to be wasting sensor area if copying even a 6x6 negative never mind a panorama. Pixel shift can help compensate for the wasted sensor area, like above and below a panorama negative or each side of a 6x6, by giving the resolution a boost for what the sensor is covering.
 

I’ve been thinking about sensor area lately as well, but more from the perspective of lens coverage and optimizing optical performance. If I were to upgrade from the A7Rii to iv, I could move the neg a little farther away (smaller image) and get better corner performance without losing resolution compared to the Rii. Add in pixel shift for important or difficult images.
 

Sure. How big a problem that is depends on what you need the digital files for. 4/3 sensors would be a better aspect ratio. So many cameras are overkill for what a lot of people use film scans for. Even for printing. When I eventually get set up I’ll probably use an AR7 II, it will be plenty especially when using pixel shift. If I were only getting the camera for scanning I might consider an Olympus instead. Certainly be good enough for scanning old 110 negatives lol.

You can also use stitching if you want to go nuts with the resolution.
 

The II does not have pixel shift. That started with the III.
 
isaac7 said:
Sure. How big a problem that is depends on what you need the digital files for.
Click to expand...

Scan once and scan well. These could be famous last words but with the current camera resolution and technology a 45mp (+ or -) camera with pixel shift and a good macro lens is unlikely to be significantly improved upon for getting the most information out of a film. Other aspects of camera technology will move on to make things easier than having to use pixel shift, but they won't be extracting any more information than a darkroom print could because there is an upper limit imposed by the film itself. So after a quick low resolution scan to make a digital contact sheet the average hit rate even for a great photographer will be three or four keepers/useful images, so it's hardly work, and if it is work it's not work you'll have to do again.
 
My main camera is a A7RII, but I also shoot Olympus M4/3. I have been thinking of upgrading from my OM-D 5 mkII and OM-D I mkI to a newer 20mp Oly with pixel shift. I have a medium format scanner, but it has been acting up lately and I'm worried it could die at anytime. Hence, the reason for this question, would it be better to keep the A7RII and use the newer Olympus with 20mp and pixel shift or forgo the Oly 20mp camera and upgrade the Sony to the A7RIII or IV for digital copy.
 
koraks said:
Pixel shift has come up a couple of times in this context here on Photrio, but I don't recall anyone reporting any significant practical benefit.
Click to expand...

In my usage, pixel shift is a big improvement. If your lens and technique are spot on...idk maybe everyone is different but to me the detail level at 100% is night and day. Probably does not make a difference at moderate to small print sizes but when scanning idk who would not want to start with the best reproduction. Color I guess is theoretically better but I never saw anything that made me jump out of my chair. The noise level when doing recovery is wayyyy lower. So from a detail and noise perspective, I'd say it's worth it.

It is not however worth it to use the pixel count increase, especially now since we have sensors ranging from 60-100mp. Your lens is not really going to resolve 400mp from a Fuji GFX anyway and the best way to get higher res camera scans is via stitching. It can be helpful with 6x6 I suppose because the crop necessary is so extreme.

Split RGB lights are interesting to me but the software side needs to step up for a seamless experience. Nobody wants to deal with a cludgy system. You may as well deal with a drum scanner at that point. Anyone want to clean the dust off the underside of my Creo's top lid? It cracks a little more every time.
 

CRI is an obsolete and nearly worthless measure of color accuracy. The CRI standard dates back to 1964, and was designed for matching fabrics to the human eye. The standard CRI is only 8 patches of pastel colors. And TLCI is a little better, but not much. It was developed for specifiying color accuracy in live TV studios using tube-based cameras. The most accurate light for color fidelity is tungsten/quartz, followed by a high-end strope such as Broncolor or Elinchrom, lastly there are some reasonably good LEDs, but it's hard to find a manufacturer that will publish specs beyond the old cri and tlci values. LEDs offer better fidelity in the reds when set to 3200K.
 

Thanks for the informed perspective. I know enough to take CRI ratings with a pinch of salt, but they remain widely referenced even amongst photographers. I use strobe and my film work these days is monochrome. What colour material I have is archival and the important stuff was Imacon scanned at the time.

For my part I’d be curious to know how to practically compare the colour rendering capabilities of different strobe / flash gun units as I have a few options available.
 

My experience with pixel-shift/multi-shot is that there's a big difference between an Alien Bee strobe vs. Elinchrom. It's not a good idea to use the former, as color consistency varies too much from one pop to the next. I used Elinchrom strobes for years and found color accuracy and consistency to be top-notch. The same for Broncolor and probably Profoto.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register