# 5D Mark IV: Dual Pixel Raw allows focus in post. Wow!



## Ozarker (Aug 22, 2016)

According to this post at Creative Live, dual pixel raw allows users to focus in post. Wow!

http://blog.creativelive.com/canon-5d-mark-iv-dual-pixel-raw/?utm_campaign=canon-5d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook

Canon never innovates. Sony.


----------



## David the street guy (Aug 23, 2016)

This is cool! I wonder, however, how someone like me would manage these numerous 67 Mb pictures.

For now, I'm somewhat able to eliminate without too much hesitation the blurry pictures or the ones that are clearly missed, but if I can keep them "to work on them later" (yeah, sure!), I'm afraid of what could become of my photo library… ;-)


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2016)

David the street guy said:


> This is cool! I wonder, however, how someone like me would manage these numerous 67 Mb pictures.
> 
> For now, I'm somewhat able to eliminate without too much hesitation the blurry pictures or the ones that are clearly missed, but if I can keep them "to work on them later" (yeah, sure!), I'm afraid of what could become of my photo library… ;-)



Haha! David, if you are as bad at this as I am there aren't too many keepers anyway. For me, though, even if even if things in perfect focus (what I want to be in focus) very few photos make me go "ooooo, ahhhhh!" Those are the only one's I keep.

Besides, a terabyte is very inexpensive these days. A DVD to file the best of the best to is even less expensive. I print those too.

I used to take hundreds of photos on an outing. Now I might take twenty. Life is a lot easier and I find I get more keepers.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Looks like someone has created a blog post after reading too much hype on canonrumors.



We'll know in a few days.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2016)

Forecast: chance of rain on parade day



> Image Micro-adjustment: by using the depth information, to fine-tune the maximum position of the sharpness and resolution (original: micro-adjusts the position of maximum sharpness and resolution)



Where is the word 'focus' used? Nowhere except in people's interpretation of translations of a rumor/leak. 

Consider what it _actually_ says – use depth information to adjust position of maximum sharpness. That seems quite reasonable – dual pixels allow determination of what is in focus vs. out of focus based on phase information. So DPP will apply selective sharpening to the in-focus areas. 

Also consider the other stated functionality – bokeh shift. In other words, the converse of the above...selective application of blur to already OOF areas.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Aug 23, 2016)

The translations are confusing, but some people have great imaginations. Its going to be a tweak, and Neuro is likely correct. 

I wonder how useful it will actually be. I also wonder what other possible uses might pop up using the phase information from the dual pixels. I think Canon may be continuing to develop this in future years. The Dual pixel technology is still relatively new.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Forecast: chance of rain on parade day
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Except that doesn't explain "adjust position of." Selectively sharpening in focus areas may be what it means, but it isn't what it says. Nor does it say you can adjust the position of focus. Probably lost in translation, but perhaps "adjust maximum sharpness based on position" is more accurate.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 23, 2016)

Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology. In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology. In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.



As long as Canon can also beam fresh Ahi or Kobe beef Sashimi (Or other thinly sliced raw meats) to put in or on my Sushi here in Mesquite, Nevada... I'll be real happy.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology. In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.



Probably need to use this neutrino coated lens though.


----------



## monkey44 (Aug 23, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> YuengLinger said:
> 
> 
> > Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology. In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.
> ...



Eventually, depending on the camera you use with this lens, you either materialize a one foot tall version of yourself beamed to your home-site if you shoot with a Rebel, or a full-size version of self with the newest 1D series. Need a high end 3D printer tho.


----------



## transpo1 (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Forecast: chance of rain on parade day
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes, these seem like minute changes to select areas of the image, not Lytro-style refocusing as the blog post seems to imply.


----------



## Hjalmarg1 (Aug 23, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> According to this post at Creative Live, dual pixel raw allows users to focus in post. Wow!
> 
> http://blog.creativelive.com/canon-5d-mark-iv-dual-pixel-raw/?utm_campaign=canon-5d&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook
> 
> Canon never innovates. Sony.


I agree that Canon has recently improved what they have but not any innovation. In innovation area, Sony is the leader and that is the reason many Canon/Nikon shooters have moved to Sony despite their flaws.
Touch screen and WiFi connectivity's been in the market and just they are adding it to 1Dx2 and 5D4, what a shame...
DPRAW will be a good help but people may be more interested in aspects such as better ISO performance and DR


----------



## rs (Aug 23, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> Touch screen and WiFi connectivity's been in the market and just they are adding it to 1Dx2 and 5D4, what a shame...



Any ideas who out of Canon and Sony was first to bring a touch screen to a camera?


----------



## Mancubus (Aug 23, 2016)

CanonFanBoy said:


> According to this post at Creative Live, dual pixel raw allows users to focus in post. Wow!



If this is true, it's the best news in photography I can remember.

I think it's WAY more important than any DR, ISO noise, fps, resolution or touch screen improvements. If the 5d4 was exactly like a 5d3 but with this post focus adjustment, I'd still be very happy.

I say this, because focusing is the ONLY factor that is beyond our total control when taking a photo (using viewfinder). Exposure, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, composition...all these factors can be controlled and a good photographer will know how to do it. 

However, there is simply no way to ensure that the 200mm 2.8 portrait you shot will have the focus right on the eyes. If you're using a top quality gear it probably will be, but no matter what you're doing, there is always a chance that it will be slightly missed by a hair. And it's so damn frustrating when it happens to your best shot of the session. 

Really hoping for the blog to be right.


----------



## pokerz (Aug 23, 2016)

Yes, it looks interesting.
So do your have any sample to share or just plain text? :-\


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2016)

Hjalmarg1 said:


> CanonFanBoy said:
> 
> 
> > According to this post at Creative Live, dual pixel raw allows users to focus in post. Wow!
> ...



My "Canon never innovates" was pure sarcasm. The Canon T5i had a touch screen. So did the 70D which also had touch screen, DPAF, and the new STM lenses.


----------



## TommyLee (Aug 23, 2016)

sorry if I am not 'up to speed' on this spec for 5d4..
but if it is dual pixel bassed and handled in dpp file processing of RAW...

would the 1dx2 ALSO be capable of doing this once the NEW dpp is out?

(maybe an enablement is required on 1dx2.... in a firmware update... that could not be enabled at release because the 5d4 was not out yet)

am I missing something ...besides a few teeth on my gears...ha

////
everyone here seems up on this.. so clue me in ..
if I get the 1dx2... I likely can dothat dual pixel time travel and focus - tune the shot...

I am leaning BACK to 1dx2 because of some nice features that wont be on 5d4
and I have a 5d3 so I am close to modern there

I am not in NEED of 30 versus 20 megapixels.. 
$2500 saved smaller footprint

and not in NEEd OF 14/16 FPS... 
LOVE spot meter-focus, better shutter speed in aperture, Manual exp comp, ..on and on

BOTH ARE NICE...but not ...defining


thanks for the help..
groggy...woke early... please forgive ...silly questions if that is what this is..

I dont mind canon rummaging thru my wallet ....
I enjoy the experience...the toys

tom


----------



## ajfotofilmagem (Aug 23, 2016)

It seems that the rumor "world's first DSLR" referred to this. :


----------



## Act444 (Aug 23, 2016)

But we don't know this FOR SURE, do we? I'd be careful to jump the gun here before official confirmation...

Or, maybe it's simply for click bait


----------



## BeenThere (Aug 23, 2016)

TommyLee said:


> sorry if I am not 'up to speed' on this spec for 5d4..
> but if it is dual pixel bassed and handled in dpp file processing of RAW...
> 
> would the 1dx2 ALSO be capable of doing this once the NEW dpp is out?
> ...


For this to work on other dual pixel cameras, as a minimum, firmware upgrade would be needed. There is talk of new firmware upgrade for 7D2, so maybe this focus adjustment could be in the upgrade?


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 23, 2016)

So..What specifically will it do for us?..Allow us to choose between two different points of focus or a range of focus...? or other?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

mycanonphotos said:


> So..What specifically will it do for us?..Allow us to choose between two different points of focus or a range of focus...? or other?



The consensus at the sane end of speculation seems to be that it will enable you to provide additional sharpening sharpening within the acceptable depth of field without needing to go into oversharpening territory. The original focus plane will be the same but you can correct something from 'acceptably sharp' to 'Jeez, that's good'. 
The idea of totally refocusing the image s you can with Lytro is a pipedream.


----------



## YuengLinger (Aug 23, 2016)

If Canon went so far as to dispense with AF in favor of post-processing focus, would Sigma lenses finally work on Canon bodies???


----------



## rs (Aug 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> mycanonphotos said:
> 
> 
> > So..What specifically will it do for us?..Allow us to choose between two different points of focus or a range of focus...? or other?
> ...



+1

Far too many people are getting carried away with misconceptions of what dual pixel raw means. The are two pixels behind each microlens. Lytro used 10 pixels below each microlens to gain much greater data about where the light came from, and much greater adjustments in post. Refocusing with dual pixel raw will not be possible, other than a very minor amount of horizontal alignment. Any vertical focus issues will be impossible to adjust, therefore the chances of Canon allowing for any adjustment of phase is pretty much zero.

However, with depth information, it will be known what is in focus and what is out of focus, so intelligently applying noise reduction to out of focus areas and sharpening to the in focus areas can improve the perceived qualities of the image. Additionally, with foreground objects, selectively switching off (or even reducing) one of the two phases will allow for a small amount of 'looking around' an object should it be framed badly in the first place.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2016)

C'mon people, have faith!!!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> C'mon people, have faith!!!



OI! Stop taking the mickey. Some of consider the first to be 'acceptably sharp' but we are working to improve.


----------



## mycanonphotos (Aug 23, 2016)

rs said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > mycanonphotos said:
> ...




Carried away is what it appears Canon may want in this case..How many end users will actually comprehend its true day to day use. It may look good on paper as a bullet point but is it really beneficial..?


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

mycanonphotos said:


> It may look good on paper as a bullet point but is it really beneficial..?



This is where I think many misunderstand Canon's approach. Canon talks to many professionals about what would make their life easier and these are people who do not follow fads for the latest technology. They are people who need to see a clear cost-benefit to what they are paying for and their priorities are often not what the man in the street would like to see in their bright shiny new toy. 
If the move from 12fps to 14fps (1Dx to 1Dx2) or from 7fps to 10fps (7D to 7D2) is seen as a worthwhile improvement in getting the money shot, then I see this feature in the same vein. A nice option to have and the times you need it you will be saying 'Thank God!'.

For action photographers that may well be a more worthwhile improvement than improving DR by half a stop. And, dare I say it, in marketing terms it could be a fantastic way of catching everyone else off guard, moving the line in the sand in a completely different direction in the same way introducing video to the 5D2 did.


----------



## Ozarker (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> C'mon people, have faith!!!



This will truly be the end of photographers under the influence of 19th century Impressionism.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Aug 23, 2016)

rs said:


> Refocusing with dual pixel raw will not be possible, other than a very minor amount of horizontal alignment. Any vertical focus issues will be impossible to adjust



While I agree that it's likely a pipe dream, what do you mean by the above? I understand horizontal and vertical lines (or diagonal) as they pertain to focusing, but once an image has been focused and recorded, what does in plane directionality have to do with anything?

Thanks!


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> I say this, because focusing is the ONLY factor that is beyond our total control when taking a photo (using viewfinder). Exposure, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, composition...all these factors can be controlled and a good photographer will know how to do it.



Weeelll.... Not quite. We bump into limitations in all these things sometimes. A photographer is not a god - it is not always possible (or even desirable) to control the light.


----------



## rs (Aug 23, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Refocusing with dual pixel raw will not be possible, other than a very minor amount of horizontal alignment. Any vertical focus issues will be impossible to adjust
> ...



A conventional sensor has a single pixel behind each microlens. The idea is that any light which hits the microlens will be captured by the sensor, regardless of the direction.

With a dual pixel sensor, there are two rectangular shaped pixels behind each microlens - one receives the left phase, the other the right phase. Combined, they see the both phases as one, which is the same as a normal sensor. However, use just one and you see half the focused image. Its purely a left/right split. There is no option to split up/down with the way the sensor is built.

Should Canon have put 4 pixels behind each microlens - top left, top right, bottom left, bottom right - there would then be options to align phase both left/right and up/down. Even better, scatter a larger number of pixels behind each microlens such as Lytro have, and then more granular options become available. At this point, the original concept of on sensor phase detect becomes very distant.

However, unlike Lytro, the 5D4 isn't an experimental toy - it will follow in its predecessors footsteps as being a rock solid reliable tool for working professionals. Dual Pixel sensors are tried and tested to deliver the goods - the 1D X II is proof of this. DPRAW simply allows post processing to leverage some of the previously untapped information captured by these sensors.


----------



## midluk (Aug 23, 2016)

3kramd5 said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > Refocusing with dual pixel raw will not be possible, other than a very minor amount of horizontal alignment. Any vertical focus issues will be impossible to adjust
> ...


Out of focus means that the light from one point, coming through the four quadrants of the lens, does not meet in one pixel again. The light coming through the left half is shifted to pixels on the right, the light coming through the right half is shifted to the left, top->down and bottom->up. Even if you can correct the left-right shift with the information of the dual pixel raw to reduce the blur, you will still have the blur/shift in top-bottom direction uncorrected (or the other way round, depending on the orientation of the pixel halves).
And even this limited correction will not be very good, because with only two partial pixels you can not treat light from the very border of the lens (large shift) different to light coming from near the center (only small shift). So the borders will still be undercorrected and the center parts will be overcorrected.


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

midluk said:


> Out of focus means that the light from one point, coming through the four quadrants of the lens, does not meet in one pixel again. The light coming through the left half is shifted to pixels on the right, the light coming through the right half is shifted to the left, top->down and bottom->up. Even if you can correct the left-right shift with the information of the dual pixel raw to reduce the blur, you will still have the blur/shift in top-bottom direction uncorrected (or the other way round, depending on the orientation of the pixel halves).
> And even this limited correction will not be very good, because with only two partial pixels you can not treat light from the very border of the lens (large shift) different to light coming from near the center (only small shift). So the borders will still be undercorrected and the center parts will be overcorrected.



Surely the point of post processing is that the software will be programed for that and take selected information to account for it.


----------



## rs (Aug 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Out of focus means that the light from one point, coming through the four quadrants of the lens, does not meet in one pixel again. The light coming through the left half is shifted to pixels on the right, the light coming through the right half is shifted to the left, top->down and bottom->up. Even if you can correct the left-right shift with the information of the dual pixel raw to reduce the blur, you will still have the blur/shift in top-bottom direction uncorrected (or the other way round, depending on the orientation of the pixel halves).
> ...



Pretty tricky if the data isn't captured in the first place


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

rs said:


> Pretty tricky if the data isn't captured in the first place



Which is why the likely limit is minor tweaking within a DOF of what is already acceptably sharp and not a wholesale re-focussing.


----------



## Mancubus (Aug 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> Mancubus said:
> 
> 
> > I say this, because focusing is the ONLY factor that is beyond our total control when taking a photo (using viewfinder). Exposure, ISO, aperture, shutter speed, composition...all these factors can be controlled and a good photographer will know how to do it.
> ...



What I mean is: the other factors are within your control. If the light is coming from one direction, it's up to you how to make the best of it for your shot. In most cases you can move/rotate the source or the subject around in order to get what you want.

With focusing, there is always an error possibility (less with more expensive gear), and there's currently no guarantee that your shot will be in perfect focus unless you are on a tripod manual focusing with the live view.

The AF misses (and misses a lot!) in every DSLR body. It also makes your photo unrecoverable in post processing. You can change exposure, reduce noise, sharpen, crop, remove unwanted distractions....but you can not save that slightly out of focus photo, there is no tool that will move the (mis)focus from the ear to the eye.


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2016)

YuengLinger said:


> Dual pixel, with its incorporation of hadron tendrils, will without a doubt lead to commercial transporter beam technology. In fact, according to my friends in Switzerland and Japan, Canon already has a working prototype, successfully beaming sushi from Tokyo to Geneva, and perfectly functioning cuckoo clocks in the other direction.



finally someone who both knows their science and has insider connections as well


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 23, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > Out of focus means that the light from one point, coming through the four quadrants of the lens, does not meet in one pixel again. The light coming through the left half is shifted to pixels on the right, the light coming through the right half is shifted to the left, top->down and bottom->up. Even if you can correct the left-right shift with the information of the dual pixel raw to reduce the blur, you will still have the blur/shift in top-bottom direction uncorrected (or the other way round, depending on the orientation of the pixel halves).
> ...



So, you're anticipating the triumph of firmware over physics? Tell ya what, you let us know when that happens, mmmmmkay?


----------



## scyrene (Aug 23, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > Mancubus said:
> ...



Oh I agree  But we like advances in all areas


----------



## LetTheRightLensIn (Aug 23, 2016)

5D4 Mark II is rumored to have triple focus pixels that will be able to capture the lightwaves from the past. So you can say go out to the lake at a nice time like 2PM and capture the sunrise that took place at a hideous hour earlier in the day. Sleep in and still get magic morning light. Or say you hit one place and can only stay there a day and it's pouring rain, set the triple focus back 24 hours and capture it on a clear day and you can even dial it in for the evening golden hour lighting from the day before to boot!


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 23, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> So, you're anticipating the triumph of firmware over physics? Tell ya what, you let us know when that happens, mmmmmkay?



Not at all.
Where you have camera shake you can sharpen excessively to get something better, but that is only possible with small amounts of shake and there is a limit.
Maybe (and it is a maybe) you can manipulate in post processing within limits. When I said that the software may to some extent account for the effect midluk described it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the re-sharpening will mainly be on the centre of the image (maybe the area of the focus point) and be applied in a decreasing fashion further away from that point. 
In a similar way (this is the best analogy that springs to mind immediately, even if the technology maybe different) to sharpening where the detail slider applies more sharpening to areas of detail and less sharpening to areas of uniform shade such as a blue sky.


----------



## AlanF (Aug 23, 2016)

scyrene said:


> A photographer is not a god -



There are some who think they are.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Aug 24, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > So, you're anticipating the triumph of firmware over physics? Tell ya what, you let us know when that happens, mmmmmkay?
> ...



The key point in midluk's argument was that if all the pixels are split in the same orientation, the software has phase information in only one orientation. I think that's a big factor that precludes much of the potential. Dual pixel isn't enough.


----------



## retroreflection (Aug 24, 2016)

Maybe some clarity is needed.

What we know (I think, please correct me if I'm wrong).
When a point in an image is in focus, the various rays arriving at that point in the image (having taken various paths through space and the lens) are in phase. By splitting an autofocus sensor in two and measuring the phase relationship, the degree of focus at that point can be measured. In addition, phase detect sensors can sense the direction and magnitude from an out of focus state to the correct focus state. This additional capability allows for fast open loop autofocus control. (Contrast detecting autofocus sensors need to continue to send data as the correct focus is eventually found - hunting is likely.)
Even if the phase detect sensor knows that correct focus is 1mm of positive lens translation away, there is no information on what the focused image will reveal. Hence, the need to go to correct focus.

Now the speculation.
If every pixel is a dual pixel, and thus a phase detect pixel, and if the per pixel phase relationship is recorded with each image, what can be done with this innovative data?
Map the in focus portion of the image (in focus within some range). Thereby create a more accurate focus peaking display? Select the in focus regions for processing differently than the out of focus regions? (Neuro's speculation)
Map the magnitude and direction of focus error. Combine this map with lens characteristics to create a 3D map of the scene? 
Note, dual pixel phase relationship data will not double the file size. A few bits should cover several generations of applications of this data. And BTW, Canon would have INFINITELY more phase relationship dynamic range than Sony or Nikon.

Can we also agree that software based sharpening is not the same as focusing better, or holding steadier?


----------



## Jack Douglas (Aug 24, 2016)

Oh, poor Nikon and Sony!  Infinity is a long catch up. 

Jack


----------



## Mikehit (Aug 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> The key point in midluk's argument was that if all the pixels are split in the same orientation, the software has phase information in only one orientation. I think that's a big factor that precludes much of the potential. Dual pixel isn't enough.



Fair point.


----------



## midluk (Aug 24, 2016)

retroreflection said:


> When a point in an image is in focus, the various rays arriving at that point in the image (having taken various paths through space and the lens) are in phase. By splitting an autofocus sensor in two and measuring the phase relationship, the degree of focus at that point can be measured. In addition, phase detect sensors can sense the direction and magnitude from an out of focus state to the correct focus state.
> 
> [...]
> 
> ...



We don't have coherent light here, so I don't think it is correct to talk about "phase" for single light rays and image points. You can of course assign some phase shift value to a single pixel, but only after evaluating all the pixels around it and not with just the values from that pixel.

The phase is relating to the (light+dark) structures in the image. Let's assume we are taking an image of a flat, light pattern on a dark background. When the image is in focus, we get a perfectly sharp image and the partial images from the different parts of the lens have no shift and match perfectly. If the images are out of focus, the pattern in the partial images coming through the different parts of the lens are shifted and this amount of shift can be called "phase shift". Because of the finite lens area going into each partial pixel (actually half the lens each) the shifted partial images will still be blured (although only half as strong as the complete image).
If we have a regular pattern, it will not even be possible to properly determine the phase shift, if the shift is exactly a multiple of the grid spacing in the pattern.

Due to all of this, the final resolution of the "in-focusness" or the distance information generated from the dpRAW will likely be much less than the actual image resolution.


----------

