Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-30-2012, 03:45 AM - 1 Like   #46
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Which shots are we talking about now? The test charts or others?
The outdoor shots. They seem too soft. I'll say that I'm not experienced with pixel-peeping at K-5 images (my K100D images look obviously crisper out of the box), but I'd be just a little surprised if that kind of softness were normal.


QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
As far as my understanding goes, there is no way for sharpening algorithms to know deterministically know what transformation, if you want to look at it that way, caused the blur. Thus, the sharpening can't perfectly undo it, even if it can do a good job.
In general, you are right, but in the case of capture-sharpening a RAW file, the sharpener knows how the blur came about and can apply a deconvolution to exactly undo the blur. Different RAW converters will do different things, but in theory a complete reconstruction is possible.

Remember, anything that cannot be reconstructed from the blur is detail the sensor should not record anyhow, because it exceeds its resolution power.

QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Here's a link to a raw file from the K-5:
Thanks. I played with it a little. See below a quick n' dirty attempt to sharpen the original K-5 file so that it competes with the K-5 IIs file.

The order of the images is:
  1. K-5 as sharpened by you.
  2. K-5 as sharpened with LR.
  3. K-5 IIs (called "RAW" but apparently already sharpened).

Name:  K-5 sharpening comparison.png
Views: 2875
Size:  582.0 KB

Note that what you labelled as "K-5 IIs RAW" (in your "best attempt") shows faint sharpening halos around the tree tops. Maybe your RAW converter has some default-sharpening which isn't exactly zero. Maybe they are JPG conversion artefacts (or the result of "sharpening for screen").

I had to muck around a bit with exposure and colours to make the K-5 shot resemble the K-5 IIs shot. Your RAW converter camera profile (or whatever produced the "K-5 IIs RAW" shot) seems to be quite different to LR when using the "embedded" camera profile.

I'll be the first to admit that my LR sharpened version could be called oversharpened but it would print just fine. I mainly wanted to show that one can extract apparently lost detail with some aggressive sharpening.

Finally, I'm not a 100% convinced that the K-5 shot has received optimal focusing. The unsharpened version (see your "best attempt") is very fuzzy. The sharpened version exhibits almost no sharpening halos. At 1:1 level, I'd expect to see some minimal sharpening artefacts. In other words, it hasn't been sharpened enough, AFAIC.

Finally, the K-5 IIs shots have higher mid-tone contrast than the K-5 shots in your "best attempt". This has nothing to do with AA-fitlers or sharpening. Whatever you or the RAW converter is doing, it does not create a plain level field for both cameras.

10-30-2012, 03:56 AM   #47
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by JeffAHayes Quote
... Fuji, the way they fixed the issue with their newest camera (by having a "random" arrangement of RBG pixels on the sensor, similar to how color film was made, has eliminated the need for an AA filter AND produces razor-sharp images with no moire!
  • The Bayer-pattern used buy Fuji is not random. It is just larger than the regular 2x2 pattern.
  • The pattern does not eliminate moiré. It makes it less visible, but trades this off with a higher chance of ocurring.
  • The approach does not create "razor sharp" images comnparable to AA-filterless images, since it trades-off resolution in return for making moiré appear less visible.
BTW, Adobe is still not supporting the Fuji Bayer-pattern with their RAW converters. A completely random pattern would be next to unsupportable.
10-30-2012, 05:54 AM   #48
Forum Member




Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Moscow
Posts: 67
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
User reports suggest that it has been fixed
Great to hear it
10-30-2012, 05:59 AM   #49
Senior Member
Tord's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Gothenburg, aka Göteborg
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 211
QuoteOriginally posted by fast50 Quote
Please remember when forming opinions of value that there is a whole world outside the USA. The UK list price for the IIs is £150 more than the II. That's about $240 or, to put it another way, not a bargain.
For better resolution $240 seems cheap to me, but to upgrade from a K-5 to a K-5 IIs is a steep hill to climb! I jumped ship, sold the K-5, and bought a D600 at a fair price, I thought (a little over 1660 pounds - 18,000 SEK).

10-30-2012, 07:02 AM   #50
Veteran Member
rparmar's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,783
I agree that a contemporary lens should be used for such a test. Older lenses do not have the same micro-contrast, which is particularly important in such an evaluation. The DA35 Limited is a good choice, perhaps.

From the responses to the level-headed review, I can only say that people really need to stop hyping every new product as the second coming. It was quite obvious from other examples (Nikon) that this model would be a minor incremental improvement over its predecessor and nothing more.

Nonetheless, I for one applaud Pentax for giving us the option of no AA filter. Far too expensive in the UK however.
10-30-2012, 10:19 AM   #51
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
Here's my attempt from the K-5 DNG kindly provided by Adam:

Name:  IMGP9843.jpg
Views: 1407
Size:  51.4 KB

And again Adam's jpeg comparison:



I used R-L Deconvolution in Raw Developer (Iridient), radius 1.0 pixel, 50 iterations. Thanks to Class A for clueing me in that R-L Deconvolution is, theoretically at least, the correct method to remove the blur caused by the "AA" filter. I don't know if these settings are correct for that purpose; I picked 1.0 pixel radius based on my very limited understanding of how these filters work, and 50 iterations because it is the maximum available in Raw Developer.

Last edited by baro-nite; 10-30-2012 at 10:19 AM. Reason: correction
10-30-2012, 12:15 PM   #52
Loyal Site Supporter
baro-nite's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: North Carolina, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 4,364
Hmm, I should have looked beyond 100% before posting. Clearly there is noise introduced by RL deconvolution at 1.0 pixel radius. Simply going by eye, somewhere around .40 to .42 is where noise starts to kick in. Here's 0.42:

View Picture EXIF
Name:  IMGP9843_42-50.jpg
Views: 1315
Size:  45.5 KB

Very similar to Adam's mildly-sharpened version of the K-5 shot.

QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Note that what you labelled as "K-5 IIs RAW" (in your "best attempt") shows faint sharpening halos around the tree tops. Maybe your RAW converter has some default-sharpening which isn't exactly zero. Maybe they are JPG conversion artefacts (or the result of "sharpening for screen").
Could this simply be aliasing caused by the filterless sensor? Edit: Or is that always going to be false color?

Last edited by baro-nite; 10-30-2012 at 02:38 PM. Reason: addendum
10-30-2012, 02:18 PM   #53
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2007
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 975
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
The outdoor shots. They seem too soft. I'll say that I'm not experienced with pixel-peeping at K-5 images (my K100D images look obviously crisper out of the box), but I'd be just a little surprised if that kind of softness were normal.
no, it is not.

thanks for the demonstration

for Adam: it is quite clear to me classA was not out to prove anything at all, he's just voicing valid concerns, and making sure we're comparing apples to apples, and staying objective. unfortunately "it's obvious IIs has better resolution, why don't people get it" is not what being objective means. the problem here is that it's easy to assume the k5IIs will be sharper, and find the proof when we're looking for it.

we need a physicist to outline the rigorously scientific test procedure to follow, in order to clarify what's what: more resolution? just less sharpening needed? etc . where's falco?

10-30-2012, 10:51 PM   #54
Inactive Account




Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Spartanburg, SC
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
  • The Bayer-pattern used buy Fuji is not random. It is just larger than the regular 2x2 pattern.
  • The pattern does not eliminate moiré. It makes it less visible, but trades this off with a higher chance of ocurring.
  • The approach does not create "razor sharp" images comnparable to AA-filterless images, since it trades-off resolution in return for making moiré appear less visible.
BTW, Adobe is still not supporting the Fuji Bayer-pattern with their RAW converters. A completely random pattern would be next to unsupportable.
Thanks for clearing that up for me... I've been wondering if I got a true story on this camera, or not, when Britain's Digital Photo magazine recently did like a 10-page "review" on it (I was getting the mag. at Costco here in America, but it's not there any more, and so far my email to the mag. has remained unanswered).

At any rate, the "review" was pretty obviously at least as much ADVERTORIAL as it was "review." Every page even said, at the top, "in association with Fuji" (or something similar -- don't have that issue handy at the moment). At any rate, they used a professional model for the shots for the review, and in one case showed a full-sized crop of just her eye from a photo above, clear as a bell, claiming that was due to Fuji's new "random pattern" that eliminated the need for the AA filter. Since that's the only place I'd seen this, it was a bit suspect to me, so I figured I'd throw it out here and see what I got back.

That was one of two British photo mags I could buy at Costco here in S.C. Digital Photographer disappeared this past summer; Digital Photo just in the past month or two. My last email to Digital Photographer was returned as being an invalid email address, so I fear that magazine has ceased publication. Shame. Each issue, while expensive, was more like a coffee-table book than a magazine. Both beat Popular Photography, in my opinion, although that's the only one I subscribe to, since it's cheap, lol (it was roughly $100/year to subscribe to either of those British mags, sometimes more). Last couple issues, both had reduced American subscription prices, though. I think they were getting desperate.

When you consider that NEWSWEEK will cease print publication in another two months, well, I'm guessing we'll be missing A LOT of mags we used to see within a year or two (unless we get them online).
Jeff
10-30-2012, 11:09 PM   #55
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
  • The Bayer-pattern used buy Fuji is not random. It is just larger than the regular 2x2 pattern.
  • The pattern does not eliminate moiré. It makes it less visible, but trades this off with a higher chance of ocurring.
  • The approach does not create "razor sharp" images comnparable to AA-filterless images, since it trades-off resolution in return for making moiré appear less visible.
BTW, Adobe is still not supporting the Fuji Bayer-pattern with their RAW converters. A completely random pattern would be next to unsupportable.
The Fuji XP1 does have "razor sharp" resolution. Look at the resolution tests for the Fuji 35mm lens.
Fuji is working with both Apple and Adobe to incorporate RAW support, and SilkyPix does support Fuji RAW which is shipped with the camera. I'm not sure why you think it is "unsupportable".
10-31-2012, 12:50 AM   #56
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Winder Quote
I'm not sure why you think it is "unsupportable".
I wrote "a completely random pattern" would be next to unsupportable. The Fuji pattern is not random.
10-31-2012, 08:49 AM   #57
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
I wrote "a completely random pattern" would be next to unsupportable. The Fuji pattern is not random.
OK. I misunderstood you comment.
10-31-2012, 09:23 PM   #58
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,193
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
Perhaps moire is at play, assuming it influences the raw data that the sensor captures before the image is processed.
Seems unlikely. My bet is on the new JPG engine and I hope you don't see the same mush in a K-5 IIs RAW file.

Are you still working on a more comprehensive K-5 vs K-5 IIs comparison? In addition to validating the AF microdadjustment settings on the cameras for the FA* 85/1.4, you should probably also try a different lens model (e.g., a macro) and preferably use the same lens copy on both cameras.

On a somewhat related note it would be great to learn more about the f/2.8 sensor of the K-5 II(s). Are you planning on doing any comparisons in the future?
10-31-2012, 09:51 PM   #59
Administrator
Site Webmaster
Adam's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 43,128
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Seems unlikely. My bet is on the new JPG engine and I hope you don't see the same mush in a K-5 IIs RAW file. Are you still working on a more comprehensive K-5 vs K-5 IIs comparison? In addition to validating the AF microdadjustment settings on the cameras for the FA* 85/1.4, you should probably also try a different lens model (e.g., a macro) and preferably use the same lens copy on both cameras. On a somewhat related note it would be great to learn more about the f/2.8 sensor of the K-5 II(s). Are you planning on doing any comparisons in the future?
The same lens was used for the test, but we can try a different lens (say a 77mm or a D-FA 100mm) if it'll make you feel more comfortable with the results.

Regarding the F2.8 AF thing, I don't think we're going to go into that much depth. I don't think any of the conclusions made in the review are going to be changed based on such investigations, though I'd be happy to take a look at them if a user decided to do a test. From what I've been reading on the forum in the past couple of days, it seems that users are trying very hard to find changes and improvements in the K-5 II beyond those that have already been listed and/or discovered; to me, this is concrete evidence of the fact that loyal Pentax users aren't going to be satisfied by this release. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the new Pentax APS-C camera, if one should be released anytime soon, will be a "direct upgrade" over the K-30, and not something that makes compromises in areas such as video and processing speed.

Adam
PentaxForums.com Webmaster (Site Usage Guide | Site Help | My Photography)



PentaxForums.com's high server and development costs are user-supported. You can help cover those costs by donating. Or, buy your photo gear from our affiliates, Adorama, B&H Photo, or Topaz Labs, and get FREE Marketplace access - click here to see how! Trusted Pentax retailers:

10-31-2012, 11:01 PM   #60
New Member




Join Date: Aug 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 23
QuoteOriginally posted by Adam Quote
I'm keeping my fingers crossed that the new Pentax APS-C camera, if one should be released anytime soon, will be a "direct upgrade" over the K-30, and not something that makes compromises in areas such as video and processing speed.
You several times mentioned about new Pentax APS-C camera. Do you have some insider info?
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
camera, dslr, ii, introduction, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 iis, k5, pentax, pentax k-5, pentax k-5 ii, review
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pentax K-01 Review Posted Adam Pentax K-01 88 06-07-2013 02:46 PM
Pentax K-5 IIs... Where Are You??? jcasey52 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 11-21-2012 02:18 AM
Just Posted: Pentax K-5 in-depth review ohce Pentax K-5 60 12-21-2010 03:39 AM
DPR posted K5 Review Buckeye Pentax News and Rumors 28 12-20-2010 05:30 AM
Lots of great photos being posted at DP Review peted Pentax DSLR Discussion 3 11-27-2006 06:40 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:08 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top