Digital 2x and 4x extender

drsnoopy wrote:

RLight wrote:

No Digital TC, SOOC JPEG, Large

2X

4X

Notice the exposure shift on the minimum shutter, smart. Camera shake does become more pronounced at longer focals, even digitally cropped. Canon has a point...

It also makes it easier to see your camera shake, even with IS enabled, so to help you think to stabilize it...

Shot in P, btw.

Thank you, RLight, for these samples. You have effectively answered my earlier question about image size, these are all 6000x4000 so interpolation/upscaling has taken place in camera. There is no visible gain in apparent resolution, to my eyes these look rather like upsampling in Photoshop before “preserve details” or “super resolution” became available. No doubt some users will find these acceptable, particularly the 2x image, depending on their output requirements.

The exposure shift (faster shutter speed, higher ISO) is exactly what P mode would be expected to do, given the effective focal length, no more smart than normal operation.

Yes, except if you crop a RAW/JPEG, the shutter isn’t raised for the desired pixel level sharpness. Also the framing function isn’t used either if cropping. I actually think this feature will benefit the target audience. That said an advanced shooter? Not so much. I may use it ironically. I may be an old fart shooter but it’s effective for being lazy. Lazy can be good.

Ephemeris wrote:

RLight wrote:

No Digital TC, SOOC JPEG, Large

2X

4X

Notice the exposure shift on the minimum shutter, smart. Camera shake does become more pronounced at longer focals, even digitally cropped. Canon has a point...

It also makes it easier to see your camera shake, even with IS enabled, so to help you think to stabilize it...

Thanks for the images. I hadn't thought of the camera shake. Reminds me of digital cam corders when they came out with a digital X10 button.

Shot in P, btw.

The R50 has 10x digital zoom in HD video!

RLight wrote:

No Digital TC, SOOC JPEG, Large

2X

4X

Notice the exposure shift on the minimum shutter, smart. Camera shake does become more pronounced at longer focals, even digitally cropped. Canon has a point...

It also makes it easier to see your camera shake, even with IS enabled, so to help you think to stabilize it...

Shot in P, btw.

Thank you for the test. Looks OK on a 11’’ ipad screen even for the 4x DTC.

John Sheehy wrote:

davesurrey wrote:

A general comment:

I’ve just seen this post and I have to say I disagree with those who are quite adamant that a 4x crop must give 1.5MP resolution. This doesn’t seem to be thinking out the box or considering what DSP technology can do these days.

Here’s a simple example. When CDs first came out I happened to work for Sony and so could get one of their CD players very cheap with staff-sales but I bought one from Philips instead.

Friends were baffled as the Sony used a 16 bit DAC whereas the Philips “only” used a 14 bit DAC. They just couldn’t believe it would sound as good, let alone better, until they heard it for themselves.

The reason was that the Philips used 4x over-sampling so could use a more linear 14 bit DAC (16 bits DACs were not so linear in those days) and the anti-aliasing or reconstruction filters could have a much more gradual pass band leading to far less phase distortion/ripples in the pass band. As a result they just sounded better.

It's rarely wise to underestimate what engineers can do, which may appear to “cheat” the laws of physics.

That doesn't seem like an applicable analogy. The sensor would have to be read multiple times in a row, either slowing the rolling shutter time or doing low-bitdepth readout, to curb noise a bit (eliminate far outliers), but that will not increase resolution. You'd have to shift the sensor to multiple positions, too, to increase capture resolution beyond 1.5 million samples to 24 million, and shifting to 16 positions would be very time consuming.

It wasn't meant to be any sort of analogy, John. And definitely not a suggestion of how this works in the R6ii.

It was just an example of how some folk seem to jump to conclusions without giving much thought as to what might be possible with some clever processing.

Which if you re-read what I wrote you'll see is what I said it was (see quote in bold above.)

Dave