HELP! Why strange pixels in my Hi-Res Oly images?

I am using an Oly OM-D E5 Mark 2 and sometimes my hi-res images show very annoying pixel patterns on vertical lines.  See the comparison below. These are JPG (not RAW) images.

This image below is zoomed in to show the problem.  The left image is not hi-res, the right one is hi-res.  Clearly the hi-res shot is unacceptable, and not as good as the normal res.  I have some really great hi-res shots, but on occasion I get the mess shown below.  This image was taken on a sturdy tripod with a 2 second delay.  Has anyone else experience this?  Could the problem be due to using a high FL and atmospheric motion?   Or is it a flaw or defect in the camera, or maybe in the JPG processing combining the multiple images?  The lens for the image below was a Panasonic 40-150mm, but I have also seen this problem in images with my Panasonic 14-45mm lens at 43mm.

Regular resolution on the left, high resolution on the right

Have you tried shooting RAW to see if they're on the raw files, too.  Then you'll know if it's a Jpging problem.

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

They do look like the patterns you get when there is any movement between shots, I did like the heat-haze suggestion above.

Robiro wrote:

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

Those are the reasons why I still believe a superresolution technique like is explained here  is a better option that Olympus high res mode. The only advantage being that Olympus approach produces a RAW, but in actual shooting conditions, doing it yourself seems like a better option.

I do love to have it, though, and I'm expecting the new E-M1 Mark II gives us the next best iteration of high res mode, hopefully being able to shoot handhold, but if not, you can still do it yourself with any camera, and get all the benefits from it.

Martin Ocando wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

Those are the reasons why I still believe a superresolution technique like is explained here is a better option that Olympus high res mode. The only advantage being that Olympus approach produces a RAW, but in actual shooting conditions, doing it yourself seems like a better option.

I do love to have it, though, and I'm expecting the new E-M1 Mark II gives us the next best iteration of high res mode, hopefully being able to shoot handhold, but if not, you can still do it yourself with any camera, and get all the benefits from it.

Nice link, thanks. I've played with Photo Acute, but it's never been as good as I would have hoped. (I even dusted down the old GH3 as it's on the list of supported cameras, unlike my GH4.)

It looks like camera movement to me.

A couple of points:

1. You don't need the 2 sec delay (only need it if using a non-Olympus Flash).

2. If you shoot the High Res in SLF+raw instead of just the SLF jpeg you will get three final images. A high res jpeg, an even higher res raw and a file with an .ORI extension that is actually the first of the eight raw images the camera takes in High Res mode. This third image is a regular (low res) raw image that won't show any of the artifacting you may get from something moving in your high res composite image. You can use this third image as a layer in Photoshop paint out any artifacts in the high res image.

Dick

Rusk wrote:

Big challenge to get the sensor readout to be anywhere near handheld levels from current 1 second period. The current readout speed would give at best now 1/8 second or something similar.

It is, but according to their engineers, interviewed after CP+, that's what they are aiming for.

Martin Ocando wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

Those are the reasons why I still believe a superresolution technique like is explained here is a better option that Olympus high res mode. The only advantage being that Olympus approach produces a RAW, but in actual shooting conditions, doing it yourself seems like a better option.

I agree, and I believe that such techniques will become available in-camera as soon as processing power catches up. I.e. it's inevitable.

I further believe that continuous 8K capture and automatic "stacking" of frames, or parts of frames where there is no movement, will become standard features. It is also just a matter of electronics becoming good enough.

Ulric wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

Those are the reasons why I still believe a superresolution technique like is explained here is a better option that Olympus high res mode. The only advantage being that Olympus approach produces a RAW, but in actual shooting conditions, doing it yourself seems like a better option.

I agree, and I believe that such techniques will become available in-camera as soon as processing power catches up. I.e. it's inevitable.

I further believe that continuous 8K capture and automatic "stacking" of frames, or parts of frames where there is no movement, will become standard features. It is also just a matter of electronics becoming good enough.

You're still limited by physics though, you can play with it a bit, but not ignore it.

Dr_Jon wrote:

Ulric wrote:

Martin Ocando wrote:

Robiro wrote:

Two possible reasons:

1 - The camera moved a little while taking the high-res shots. Shaky tripod? Wind?

2 - Heat haze. (Irrecoverable.)

Those are the reasons why I still believe a superresolution technique like is explained here is a better option that Olympus high res mode. The only advantage being that Olympus approach produces a RAW, but in actual shooting conditions, doing it yourself seems like a better option.

I agree, and I believe that such techniques will become available in-camera as soon as processing power catches up. I.e. it's inevitable.

I further believe that continuous 8K capture and automatic "stacking" of frames, or parts of frames where there is no movement, will become standard features. It is also just a matter of electronics becoming good enough.

You're still limited by physics though, you can play with it a bit, but not ignore it.

None of what I predict is at odds with physics.

Could it be IBIS confusion from the blur?

Either that, or aliens...