March 2017
The images here are terrible. I will reprocess if you contact me.
RONC
1 reply
March 2017
In what way? You’re invited to share some new ones with us! 
1 reply
March 2017
▶ patdavid
Some of them have compression artifacts that are really bad. Resolution
one needs better one. I’m sending Ingo one where I shot handheld Pixel
Shift and it needs COMPENSATION badly. I have resolution I need to locate
and will send to Ingo.
Ingo is sending me file name and locations.
Good hearing from you. Don’t hesitate hollering my way.
Regards,
RONC
1 reply
March 2017
I feel you’re looking at them here on the forum, you’re seeing a compressed version from the forum software. For articles and blog posts you should look at the actual website post:
Hopefully that looks better! 
1 reply
March 2017
▶ patdavid
If any of the examples needs replacing, the zoomed-in image of the bricks is the one. It’s somewhat out of focus, so it’s extremely hard to tell the difference between the non-pixel-shift and the pixel shift one.
March 2017
Agreed that the sample images could be improved:
- The histograms could be stretched to go from black to white, especially in the “less noise”, “mess moire” and “hard transition” examples,
- the difference in the brick wall is hard to see on a smartphone,
- and the comparison using leaves could be tweaked using curves so that the RT version matches SilkyPix more. I expect readers of this article who are unfamiliar with RT to think that the flat tones show a problem with the software when in fact it’s a feature they’re unaware of - that RT can show the actual neutral image with no behind-your-back tweaks as most other programs do.
I can help if you like.
It would probably also be good to split these comments from the actual article.
1 reply
March 2017
I will need the raw files.
