K-5, ISO200 vs ISO3200, Sampled from RAW PP/NR: OFF

JohnBee · 10-27-2010, 06:41 PM

I was processing some K-5 RAW images(by: dgaies) and decided to give RPP a try.

And I thought the ISO3200 from RAW looked rather good against a nominal equivalent without any NR or PP.
Though a touch of NR could most likely make them quite difficult to distinguish

K-5, ISO200, 13/10s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF

Full size image here...

K-5, ISO3200, 1/13s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF

Full size image here...

...the end

Last edited by JohnBee; 05-01-2011 at 10:53 AM.

dgaies · 10-27-2010, 06:46 PM

My first thought when I just viewed them was "John usually does a better job with the NR".

Then I noticed these were with NR turned off.. not to shabby for 3200 without any NR

**jpzk** · 10-27-2010, 07:14 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

I was processing some K-5 RAW images(by: dgaies) and decided to give RPP a try.

And I though the ISO3200 from RAW looked rather good against a nominal equivalent without any NR or PP. Though a touch of NR could most likely make them quite difficult to distinguish

K-5, ISO200, 1/1.3s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF

Full size image here...

K-5, ISO3200, 1/13s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF

Full size image here...

...the end

Enough to convince me to keep saving for the K5!

Just can't wait to get this "thing" out there for BIF and other wildlife.

JP

**jpzk** · 10-27-2010, 07:16 PM

Has anyone tried the K5 high ISO under difficult lighting conditions, outside, and with moving subjects?
Tough call ... maybe too tough?

Dare! Dare!

JP

JohnBee · 10-27-2010, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by jpzk

Has anyone tried the K5 high ISO under difficult lighting conditions, outside, and with moving subjects?
Tough call ... maybe too tough?

Dare! Dare!

JP

You mean, like... when a bird is in the underbrush in low light and you have to really push the system just to identify it, let alone crop to 100% in the process?

Yea... I'd like to see that too!

I can't count the no. of times I ran into this with some amazing smaller birds this summer. The seem to love the early morning and dusk for socializing. Not the friendliest of camera conditions tbh.

I can't wait to test a K-5 in such conditions in spring.
However, I just ordered an adaptall 2 adapter for my 60-300 lens so I can test it against the K-5 without breaking the bank. No clue how it will perform, but I can't wait to see how it works on a D700

**jpzk** · 10-27-2010, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by JohnBee

You mean, like... when a bird is in the underbrush in low light and you have to really push the system just to identify it, let alone crop to 100% in the process?

Yea... I'd like to see that too!

I can't count the no. of times I ran into this with some amazing smaller birds this summer. The seem to love the early morning and dusk for socializing. Not the friendliest of camera conditions tbh.

I can't wait to test a K-5 in such conditions in spring.
However, I just ordered an adaptall 2 adapter for my 60-300 lens so I can test it against the K-5 without breaking the bank. No clue how it will perform, but I can't wait to see how it works on a D700

Exactly!

Like last summer trying to get sone pics of very small Kinglets which necessarily inhabits deep coniferous forests, usually right in the darkest part of a tree.
I tried pushing it with the K20D, up to ISO 1600-2000, and let me tell you that it wasn't that great as far as results are concerned.
I did try with the K7 ... no further comment.

What will be the real test is when I get the K5 and go "hunt" for early morning/late afternoon small forest dwelling birds. The combo is likely to be the DA*300/4 with and without the Pentax AF A 1.7X adapter.
At those times, especially during early Spring and late Fall, the light is rather dimmed in the forest to say the least.
If the K5 can handle that, it'll be be a revelation!

Cheers! .... going to bed now here ... early bird gets the worm!

JP

dgaies · 10-28-2010, 03:39 AM

I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific.

~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~

I forgot there was no 6400 shot

You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop).

Last edited by dgaies; 10-28-2010 at 06:18 AM.

Edvinas · 10-28-2010, 05:20 AM

And I am not joking.

There's no colour noise in ISO3200 sample. Only luminance noise. This means, that either camera applied RAW noise reduction or by RAW converter did that— ACR with default settings does some noise colour removal.

dgaies · 10-28-2010, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

And I am not joking.

There's no colour noise in ISO3200 sample. Only luminance noise. This means, that either camera applied RAW noise reduction or by RAW converter did that— ACR with default settings does some noise colour removal.

There may be some NR done on the RAW file before it gets written to the memory card, but according the OP there was no NR done during the RAW conversion.

For what it's worth, he didn't use ACR for this shot, but rather a raw converter called RPP.

dgaies · 10-28-2010, 06:01 AM

Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but I wouldn't read too much into the slightly different blue "blob" just above the beer bottle label. I believe that's just light reflected off the projector screen as it was on during the shots. Had I thought about it, I would have turned it off as the color and amount of light coming off the screen did change depending on what was on TV at that point in time.

JohnBee · 10-28-2010, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific.

~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~

I forgot there was no 6400 shot

You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop).

Wow I never even noticed!
I was going to process the ISO6400 version today

dgaies · 10-28-2010, 07:16 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but I wouldn't read too much into the slightly different blue "blob" just above the beer bottle label. I believe that's just light reflected off the projector screen as it was on during the shots. Had I thought about it, I would have turned it off as the color and amount of light coming off the screen did change depending on what was on TV at that point in time.

Originally posted by dgaies

I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific.

~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~

I forgot there was no 6400 shot

You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop).

Originally posted by JohnBee

Wow I never even noticed!
I was going to process the ISO6400 version today

Yeah, that's why when you asked for the 25600 shot I had to go back downstairs and take it... which is why the framing isn't exactly the same in the 25600 shot.

Again, in hindsight I should have just taken one at every stop.

It might still be interesting to look at the 12800 shot w/o NR, just for kicks.

Gimbal · 10-28-2010, 07:51 AM

Looks very good, except the strange blue artifacts in the highlights. What is that? Look at the highlights in the bars holding the chips. The blown areas are blue.

dgaies · 10-28-2010, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by Gimbal

Looks very good, except the strange blue artifacts in the highlights. What is that? Look at the highlights in the bars holding the chips. The blown areas are blue.

See post #10.

I think they are reflections from the TV/projection screen I have in my basement. I was watching football when I took the shots, and I have a feeling that is what you are seeing. Had I thought about it, I would have turned the TV off for the shots, but I was just fooling around with a new lens and taking some test shots in low light and didn't think about it at the time.

Gimbal · 10-28-2010, 08:16 AM

Originally posted by dgaies

See post #10.

I think they are reflections from the TV/projection screen I have in my basement. I was watching football when I took the shots, and I have a feeling that is what you are seeing. Had I thought about it, I would have turned the TV off for the shots, but I was just fooling around with a new lens and taking some test shots in low light and didn't think about it at the time.

Ops, missed that post.

But I don't think it is a reflection. It's much too sharp. It might be a bug in the rawconverter though.

10-28-2010, 05:20 AM	#8
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Noise reduction definitely is ON in ISO3200 sample And I am not joking. There's no colour noise in ISO3200 sample. Only luminance noise. This means, that either camera applied RAW noise reduction or by RAW converter did that— ACR with default settings does some noise colour removal.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
K-x and K200D iso200	planedriver	Pentax DSLR Discussion	23	01-20-2010 12:22 PM
first k-x ISO3200 photo	devorama	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	10-01-2009 02:01 PM
Fuji Superia ISO200	Gooshin	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	17	01-25-2009 01:14 PM
The Need for ISO1600 and ISO3200	racinsince55	Pentax DSLR Discussion	29	03-29-2007 10:43 AM
EV range, and ISO200-3200 v.s. 100-1600	kmccanta	Pentax DSLR Discussion	6	03-07-2007 05:17 PM

10-27-2010, 06:41 PM	#1
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667	K-5, ISO200 vs ISO3200, Sampled from RAW PP/NR: OFF I was processing some K-5 RAW images(by: dgaies) and decided to give RPP a try. And I thought the ISO3200 from RAW looked rather good against a nominal equivalent without any NR or PP. Though a touch of NR could most likely make them quite difficult to distinguish K-5, ISO200, 13/10s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF Full size image here... K-5, ISO3200, 1/13s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF Full size image here... ...the end Last edited by JohnBee; 05-01-2011 at 10:53 AM.

10-27-2010, 06:46 PM	#2
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	My first thought when I just viewed them was "John usually does a better job with the NR". Then I noticed these were with NR turned off.. not to shabby for 3200 without any NR

10-27-2010, 07:14 PM	#3
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by JohnBee I was processing some K-5 RAW images(by: dgaies) and decided to give RPP a try. And I though the ISO3200 from RAW looked rather good against a nominal equivalent without any NR or PP. Though a touch of NR could most likely make them quite difficult to distinguish K-5, ISO200, 1/1.3s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF Full size image here... K-5, ISO3200, 1/13s, f6.3, RPP RAW, NR OFF Full size image here... ...the end Enough to convince me to keep saving for the K5! Just can't wait to get this "thing" out there for BIF and other wildlife. JP

10-27-2010, 07:16 PM	#4
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Has anyone tried the K5 high ISO under difficult lighting conditions, outside, and with moving subjects? Tough call ... maybe too tough? Dare! Dare! JP

10-27-2010, 07:30 PM	#5
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by jpzk Has anyone tried the K5 high ISO under difficult lighting conditions, outside, and with moving subjects? Tough call ... maybe too tough? Dare! Dare! JP You mean, like... when a bird is in the underbrush in low light and you have to really push the system just to identify it, let alone crop to 100% in the process? Yea... I'd like to see that too! I can't count the no. of times I ran into this with some amazing smaller birds this summer. The seem to love the early morning and dusk for socializing. Not the friendliest of camera conditions tbh. I can't wait to test a K-5 in such conditions in spring. However, I just ordered an adaptall 2 adapter for my 60-300 lens so I can test it against the K-5 without breaking the bank. No clue how it will perform, but I can't wait to see how it works on a D700

10-27-2010, 08:58 PM	#6
jpzk Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Québec Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 8,251	Originally posted by JohnBee You mean, like... when a bird is in the underbrush in low light and you have to really push the system just to identify it, let alone crop to 100% in the process? Yea... I'd like to see that too! I can't count the no. of times I ran into this with some amazing smaller birds this summer. The seem to love the early morning and dusk for socializing. Not the friendliest of camera conditions tbh. I can't wait to test a K-5 in such conditions in spring. However, I just ordered an adaptall 2 adapter for my 60-300 lens so I can test it against the K-5 without breaking the bank. No clue how it will perform, but I can't wait to see how it works on a D700 Exactly! Like last summer trying to get sone pics of very small Kinglets which necessarily inhabits deep coniferous forests, usually right in the darkest part of a tree. I tried pushing it with the K20D, up to ISO 1600-2000, and let me tell you that it wasn't that great as far as results are concerned. I did try with the K7 ... no further comment. What will be the real test is when I get the K5 and go "hunt" for early morning/late afternoon small forest dwelling birds. The combo is likely to be the DA*300/4 with and without the Pentax AF A 1.7X adapter. At those times, especially during early Spring and late Fall, the light is rather dimmed in the forest to say the least. If the K5 can handle that, it'll be be a revelation! Cheers! .... going to bed now here ... early bird gets the worm! JP

10-28-2010, 03:39 AM	#7
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific. ~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~ I forgot there was no 6400 shot You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop). Last edited by dgaies; 10-28-2010 at 06:18 AM.

10-28-2010, 05:56 AM	#9
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Edvinas And I am not joking. There's no colour noise in ISO3200 sample. Only luminance noise. This means, that either camera applied RAW noise reduction or by RAW converter did that— ACR with default settings does some noise colour removal. There may be some NR done on the RAW file before it gets written to the memory card, but according the OP there was no NR done during the RAW conversion. For what it's worth, he didn't use ACR for this shot, but rather a raw converter called RPP.

10-28-2010, 06:01 AM	#10
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but I wouldn't read too much into the slightly different blue "blob" just above the beer bottle label. I believe that's just light reflected off the projector screen as it was on during the shots. Had I thought about it, I would have turned it off as the color and amount of light coming off the screen did change depending on what was on TV at that point in time.

10-28-2010, 07:12 AM	#11
JohnBee Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Newrfoundland Photos: Albums Posts: 4,667 Original Poster	Originally posted by dgaies I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific. ~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~ I forgot there was no 6400 shot You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop). Wow I never even noticed! I was going to process the ISO6400 version today

10-28-2010, 07:16 AM	#12
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by dgaies Also, I don't know if anyone noticed, but I wouldn't read too much into the slightly different blue "blob" just above the beer bottle label. I believe that's just light reflected off the projector screen as it was on during the shots. Had I thought about it, I would have turned it off as the color and amount of light coming off the screen did change depending on what was on TV at that point in time. Originally posted by dgaies I think the 3200 w/o NR looks terrific. ~~How did this compare with the 6400 shot w/o NR?~~ I forgot there was no 6400 shot You would think since I took the damn shots I would have remembered that I only took shots every two stops (though in hindsight I wish I had take them at every stop). Originally posted by JohnBee Wow I never even noticed! I was going to process the ISO6400 version today Yeah, that's why when you asked for the 25600 shot I had to go back downstairs and take it... which is why the framing isn't exactly the same in the 25600 shot. Again, in hindsight I should have just taken one at every stop. It might still be interesting to look at the 12800 shot w/o NR, just for kicks.

10-28-2010, 07:51 AM	#13
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Looks very good, except the strange blue artifacts in the highlights. What is that? Look at the highlights in the bars holding the chips. The blown areas are blue.

10-28-2010, 08:05 AM	#14
dgaies Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Maryland / Washington DC Posts: 3,917	Originally posted by Gimbal Looks very good, except the strange blue artifacts in the highlights. What is that? Look at the highlights in the bars holding the chips. The blown areas are blue. See post #10. I think they are reflections from the TV/projection screen I have in my basement. I was watching football when I took the shots, and I have a feeling that is what you are seeing. Had I thought about it, I would have turned the TV off for the shots, but I was just fooling around with a new lens and taking some test shots in low light and didn't think about it at the time.

10-28-2010, 08:16 AM	#15
Gimbal Pentaxian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,106	Originally posted by dgaies See post #10. I think they are reflections from the TV/projection screen I have in my basement. I was watching football when I took the shots, and I have a feeling that is what you are seeing. Had I thought about it, I would have turned the TV off for the shots, but I was just fooling around with a new lens and taking some test shots in low light and didn't think about it at the time. Ops, missed that post. But I don't think it is a reflection. It's much too sharp. It might be a bug in the rawconverter though.