[Erik]

Is there any evidence that in camera chip processed raw sharpness is in anyway better then post processing a raw file?

Plenty of evidence, but it goes the other way around. Post processing in a good RAW converter is way ahead of the in-camera JPEG engine, and this I think goes for every single RAW-capable camera ever produced.

I cannot fathom there'd be different algorithms for the process in pentax software, with the exception of utilising more complexity on a pc with the extra power/processing available.

Nail on head. The in-camera JPEG processing throws away a LOT of data that is never going to be recoverable, in order to save CPU time. In the K-5, for instance, there is a chip much slower than that in a mainstream PC, which needs to be able to process seven RAW files a second. You only need to realize that it takes probably a couple of seconds to render that same RAW file with a converter like Lightroom to know that the quality difference is substantial. Or, just look at the pictures

[Gimbal]

In the K-5, for instance, there is a chip much slower than that in a mainstream PC, which needs to be able to process seven RAW files a second.

Since no normal PC can keep up with that rate it's not really fair to call the K-5 slow, unless you call PC's ultra-slow.

[simico]

I have come to the conclusion that OGL is both wasting time and space here.

You only discovered this now? I already put him on ignore list half year ago

[ManuH]

You only discovered this now? I already put him on ignore list half year ago

I'm naive: I believe that people like him can change their minds in face of logical arguments. But on some people reason has no effect it seems. So I'm out of this thread too unless Ogl can tell us why a weak AA filter with all its inherent demosaicisation errors is preferable.

Note that I also would like to hear why Leica choose to not put an AA filter.

[pefoto01]

Аз харесвам по-острите изображения,защото имам астигматизъм.
Вероятно е нашия приятел ogl има астигматизъм и иска по-остри кадри.
Салют!

[Jeff Charles]

Good resolution and rather mediocre sharpness. :ugh:

So, sharpen the image to increase accutance. "Problem" solved.

Jeff

[Erik]

Since no normal PC can keep up with that rate it's not really fair to call the K-5 slow, unless you call PC's ultra-slow.

It's not exactly a fair comparison, because as far as I know there's no such thing as a minimal, speed-optimized RAW converter written in assembly language. That's what you'd have to use to compare somewhat fairly to in-camera processing

My entire point is that converters on PC can afford to be much more CPU-intensive, since 1) the power is there and 2) the time is available. A camera has two disadvantages to any modern PC; a slower processor, and less than two-tenths of a second to perform the conversion. Rest assured that your quad-core PC could run rings around the K-5 if it wanted, but there are simply no implementations of that algorithm for that platform that I know of.

EDIT: We're getting into territory where it is impossible to compare embedded hardware intended to do one thing to a general-purpose PC, but let's just ballpark estimate the differences in raw power we have to do with here: the Fujitsu FR80 core in the K10D (which itself is a part of the Fujitsu Milbeaut M-4 MB91680 dedicated image processing chip; no idea what hardware is in the K-7 or K-5) runs at 200 MHz, does 259 MIPS, has 8K cache... So yes, by PC standards, a camera is SLOW. It's very fast at what it does, but write an optimized program for a 64-bit, quad-core Intel-compatible CPU to do the same thing and the FR80 is going to go home and cry in a corner. And before someone asks: no! none of this will help me or you take better pictures, but I am not only a photographer, I am also a computer nerd

---

Last edited by Erik; 11-26-2010 at 08:15 AM.

[Gimbal]

It's not exactly a fair comparison, because as far as I know there's no such thing as a minimal, speed-optimized RAW converter written in assembly language. That's what you'd have to use to compare somewhat fairly to in-camera processing

But since there are no such software, fact remains that the "slow" K-5 is a lot faster then a PC. A PC could perhaps be faster, but currently they aren't.

[ogl]

MY FINAL VERDICT: K-5 has good IQ and not bad sharpness.
If somebody need more sharp photos - just add a bit sharpness in converter.
Not much.

For example, I use 30-40@0.8 in LR for K200D. For K-5 - 45-50@0.8 is really good.

10 MP vs 16.3MP is not small difference.

[jpzk]

MY FINAL VERDICT: K-5 has good IQ and not bad sharpness.
If somebody need more sharp photos - just add a bit sharpness in converter.
Not much.

For example, I use 30-40@0.8 in LR for K200D. For K-5 - 45-50@0.8 is really good.

10 MP vs 16.3MP is not small difference.

Ogl, with all due respect, you are now announcing that the K5 as good IQ and not bad sharpness.
Hoping my memory serves me right, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I though you had posted some "unsharp K5" comments in at least a couple of threads.

I am lost trying to follow your line of thought.

By the way, this thread is about posting sharp K5 images and putting an end to this ridiculous "softness" of the K5.

Cheers.

JP

[ogl]

Ogl, with all due respect, you are now announcing that the K5 as good IQ and not bad sharpness.
Hoping my memory serves me right, and please correct me if I am wrong, but I though you had posted some "unsharp K5" comments in at least a couple of threads.

I am lost trying to follow your line of thought.

By the way, this thread is about posting sharp K5 images and putting an end to this ridiculous "softness" of the K5.

Cheers.

JP

I've hardly examined DNG from K-5 today.

[jpzk]

I've hardly examined DNG from K-5 today.

When you do, please do post some (DNG) images h.ere.
It would be nice to see if you get a difference between JPEG's and RAW images.

JP

[ogl]

When you do, please do post some (DNG) images h.ere.
It would be nice to see if you get a difference between JPEG's and RAW images.

JP

https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5-forum/123768-photozone-de-k-5s...ml#post1283423

[Schraubstock]

Oh dear, must be my poor lenses or poor technique then. Allow me to quote myself:



As someone who tests a camera by taking and printing my own pics rather than peeping other peoples on a screen, I find the K5 results easily as good as I managed on any previous Pentax and will no doubt surpass this once my workflow adapts to the K5 output.

Can't compare it to other cameras or brands as I don't own others, but if that level of real-world quality isn't enough then I'm not entirely sure what you're looking for. Have fun on the internets trying to find it though... I'll be out taking more of my trademark 'soft' pics

Oh yes digitalCG and don't forget to cover up the PENTAX logo with a CANON plate so you don't have to be ashamed of your camera and everybody will compliment you on the resolution as well as on the sharpness of you pics.
Greetings

[cem.kumuk]

NO COMMENT..!

F/13 @ 1/180 ISO 400, FLASH Metz 48 AF1



CROP OF THE SAME IMAGE