Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-08-2012, 06:46 PM   #31
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
BTW, have you tried to take each of the 5II and 5IIs files and sharpen them as far as they both will allow and compare them?
Well, addressing my own question, there is a very little, but not necessarily insignificant, advantage of the 5IIs image. I find that they are very close indeed after sharpening, with the 5II images reaching their sharpening limit just a little before being able to reach the sharpness of the IIs image. Fine detail starts to show artifacting and needs to be backed off a little short of the IIs' ability to show fine detail.

What it seems to me is, while noting that sharpening is also a subjective art in itself, the IIs images can show all the detail it captures "perfectly" sharp. In other words, I stopped sharpening the IIs image not because I was noticing any degradation due to artifacting, but because it reached a point where it was just not necessary to go any further; it was "perfect", and nothing was lacking sharpness in any way that I could see. That is AWESOME!

Of course, there is also moire to be dealt with. From what I can tell, it is not impossible to deal with (far from it), but could potentially be quite time consuming. I don't have CS6, and so ACR does not offer a moire removal function. Perhaps with a tool like that it will be worth the effort to remove moire manually. In PS, however, I noticed fairly straightforward ways of dealing with moire, but again, it could be time consuming, creating different blurs and masking affected areas (an interesting way was to use motion blur to run "across" the moire pattern. There was another blur function that also worked very well, but I've forgotten what just now, while making corrections using the color noise filter was rather effective in removing false colors). I'll try to post more about moire removal later, but perhaps in another thread.

It's hard to not consider the IIs at the top of my shopping list, but the 5II is so, so close, and there will probably never be a need to manually remove moire. It is a tough decision for me, being interested in landscape photography primarily, but I wouldn't consider either a bad decision. I can totally see going filter or sans; it really is a decision primarily about convenience probably more than anything else. For some, moire removal will not be a concern very often. For others, it could be a real concern.

Hmm. Tough to go against either version in my opinion.

12-09-2012, 01:44 AM   #32
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
Trying to play with software to improve K-5II images to come close to the K-5IIs is best left to armchair experts who probably got time to kill. All I know is my K-5IIs delivers awesome images that don't need excessive post processing straight from the camera.
12-09-2012, 02:21 AM   #33
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Trying to play with software to improve K-5II images to come close to the K-5IIs is best left to armchair experts who probably got time to kill. All I know is my K-5IIs delivers awesome images that don't need excessive post processing straight from the camera.
Glad you're happy with your 5IIs. But although armchair experts may desire to kill time by sharpening 5II images, I and others are doing so to see if the IIs is worth the extra outlay in cash, and/or if it is going to significantly add to our post processing time.
12-09-2012, 02:58 AM   #34
Veteran Member
creampuff's Avatar

Join Date: May 2007
Location: Singapore
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,955
brntoki, I've put in more than a thousand shots so far and all I can say is the added sharpness from the K-5IIs is well worth the price difference over the K-5II. Definitely better imo than the K-5, so no regrets ditching the K-5.

12-09-2012, 03:23 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jan 2012
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 588
Sharpening a K5II is trying to extract something from nothing. OTOH the K5IIs will have the sharpness already in there without sharpening.

Will the difference in sharpness actually make any difference? Probably not. When you are looking at a shot you don't normally compare it with another shot. You are either satisfied or unsatisfied with the sharpness. That's all that counts.

Having said that, I got the K5IIs as upgrade to my K5. The decision was more of trying something different than expecting anything surprising.
12-09-2012, 03:25 AM   #36
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
creampuff, that's meaningful feedback from a person on the ground with boots. Thanks. I was all on the IIs bandwagon and was trying to convince others that it is better than the 5II. But upon doing some comparisons, there isn't quite as much between them as it might seem. For a body price difference only, I'd probably go sans filter, but there is a bigger difference also in the availability of kit lens. It complicates things a little.

I'm a bit torn, but I need to keep my pennies in the bank for a while until I can buy either and will probably have it figured out by then.
12-09-2012, 03:47 AM   #37
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
dtmateojr, as I said, the IIs does have a sharper image with "perfect" sharpness. And I can say that very, very fine detail seems to be captured that the 5II doesn't. It is hard to be sure if it is actually detail, however, or if it is moire which can in some cases give the appearance of more detail. I'll call it detail, since we often refer to detail when talking of things other than actual detail, such as the appearance of more detail when talking about grain or noise, or microcontrast, etc. So, we may as well call it detail since it appears that way and that's good enough.

But the detail that is captured that I cannot find on the 5II image is so blindingly small it is insignificant. It simply would never be missed. So, as far as actual image detail captured, the 5II and 5IIs are both getting it into the pixels, in practical terms, equally. The 5IIs just has it blurred less. And if that is the case, we are not asking for information from where there is none, which certainly would be futile, but rather asking for a clarifying of the information that is there already, which is, I must admit, a very fruitful endeavor, as all digital photographers should agree as that is what ALL sharpening to ANY file is about, bringing out the detail that is already there. So, if we can say that the detail is there in the 5II file to begin with, just not as sharp, then it is a matter of enhancing that detail as is needed for all digital files. We are not asking for something from nothing, but just a clarification, if you will.

And read the thread. I was a doubter about how close the end result would be. I thought the IIs would be probably twice as far ahead of the 5II than I found it to be. I still have the IIs on the top of my Santa list, also. It is impressive. Both are impressive.
12-09-2012, 04:48 AM   #38
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,893
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Both are impressive.
Agreed.

However one day I would like a reputable testing organisation or site to report conclusively that the K-5 IIs delivers 15% (or 25%, or whatever) more measurable resolution than the K-5 II. Using the same settings for ISO, lenses, lighting etc. So far no one has done this.

Even Pentax themselves provide no data about precisely how much K-5IIs vs K-5 II resolution is improved by the lack of an AA filter, which is surprising. The K-5 IIs 'AA-filterless design achieves superior resolution' and 'creates opportunities for deeply rich, detailed imagery at supreme resolution levels' is about all I've been able to find on the subject on any Pentax web sites.

12-09-2012, 06:25 AM   #39
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by creampuff Quote
Trying to play with software to improve K-5II images to come close to the K-5IIs is best left to armchair experts who probably got time to kill. All I know is my K-5IIs delivers awesome images that don't need excessive post processing straight from the camera.
It would be absurd to conclude that sharpening an images be called excessive post processing for anyone shooting RAW.

QuoteOriginally posted by dtmateojr Quote
Sharpening a K5II is trying to extract something from nothing. OTOH the K5IIs will have the sharpness already in there without sharpening.
I'm note sure I understand this statement, however... since you cannot get something that isn't already there, it wouldn't make much sense to conclude that anyone not sharpen their images. Including but not limited too: OOC images.

Having said that, undoing or deblurring the effects of the Bayer filter on the K-5 II will most certainly reveal what was lost on the K-5 II in contrast to the K-5 IIs.

Last edited by JohnBee; 12-09-2012 at 07:56 AM.
12-09-2012, 06:43 AM   #40
Pentaxian
JohnBee's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: front of computer
Posts: 4,630
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
... have you tried to take each of the 5II and 5IIs files and sharpen them as far as they both will allow and compare them? Also, something that may be interesting other than the problem of deconvolution also enhancing noise, is how it affects desired blur due to shallow depth of field. I suppose it shouldn't be a problem, but it would be interesting to see if there is any disadvantage there.
QuoteOriginally posted by brntoki Quote
Well, addressing my own question, there is a very little, but not necessarily insignificant, advantage of the 5IIs image. I find that they are very close indeed after sharpening, with the 5II images reaching their sharpening limit just a little before being able to reach the sharpness of the IIs image. Fine detail starts to show artifacting and needs to be backed off a little short of the IIs' ability to show fine detail.

What it seems to me is, while noting that sharpening is also a subjective art in itself, the IIs images can show all the detail it captures "perfectly" sharp. In other words, I stopped sharpening the IIs image not because I was noticing any degradation due to artifacting, but because it reached a point where it was just not necessary to go any further; it was "perfect", and nothing was lacking sharpness in any way that I could see. That is AWESOME!

Of course, there is also moire to be dealt with. From what I can tell, it is not impossible to deal with (far from it), but could potentially be quite time consuming. I don't have CS6, and so ACR does not offer a moire removal function. Perhaps with a tool like that it will be worth the effort to remove moire manually. In PS, however, I noticed fairly straightforward ways of dealing with moire, but again, it could be time consuming, creating different blurs and masking affected areas (an interesting way was to use motion blur to run "across" the moire pattern. There was another blur function that also worked very well, but I've forgotten what just now, while making corrections using the color noise filter was rather effective in removing false colors). I'll try to post more about moire removal later, but perhaps in another thread.

It's hard to not consider the IIs at the top of my shopping list, but the 5II is so, so close, and there will probably never be a need to manually remove moire. It is a tough decision for me, being interested in landscape photography primarily, but I wouldn't consider either a bad decision. I can totally see going filter or sans; it really is a decision primarily about convenience probably more than anything else. For some, moire removal will not be a concern very often. For others, it could be a real concern.

Hmm. Tough to go against either version in my opinion.
Hi brntoki,
I'm sorry I missed your posts.

To answer your questions:

I did try pushing each file to the absolute limits following deblurring process, and interestingly enough, once an image is deblurred, there is usually little if any need to sharpen the image. ie. when properly shot, the K-5 IIs files will have a very low sharpening threshold. Which I found this to be the case for the deblurred K-5 II images as well.

With respect to your second comment, I'd say that you are right on the money in terms of artifacts. Though there are tools/methods to sharpen images without artifacts such as the high pass sharpening method and/or tools such as FocalBlade which offers halo, surface and edge control etc. Though for the most part, these types of tools are most often used with images in need of remediation(High ISO images, NR processing, OOF or cropping etc).

Though what really stood out for me in this case study, was just how little deblurring is needed to the K-5 II on par with the K-5 IIs. ie. with Topaz Detail, all it took was a 4-6 setting on the strength slider and that was it.

Having said all that, I'd agree on the intent and sharpening methods as well. That is to say that it's seems impossible to settle on a single setting given the variations in final media. ie. having a few LCD's screen and one older CRT, there seem to be vast differences in how each screen renders images. Whereas an image destined for printing will almost always look severally overcooked on screen.

In conclusion I'd say that though tolerances for moire are no doubt subjective. I personally don't see the sense in shooting camera with such risks and limitations for people shooting RAW given how easy it is to adjust the K-5 II image to match the K-5 IIs and more importantly, as you yourself mentioned, where dealing with moire will undoubtably be far more demanding than sharpening an image.

Hope this helps.

Last edited by JohnBee; 12-09-2012 at 08:06 AM.
12-09-2012, 11:12 AM   #41
Forum Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 73
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Even Pentax themselves provide no data about precisely how much K-5IIs vs K-5 II resolution is improved by the lack of an AA filter, which is surprising. The K-5 IIs 'AA-filterless design achieves superior resolution' and 'creates opportunities for deeply rich, detailed imagery at supreme resolution levels' is about all I've been able to find on the subject on any Pentax web sites.
I can understand Pentax' reluctance to make any definitive statements. Though I think a somewhat accurate comparison can be made, we are still dealing with images where "proper", "good", and "better", will be held subjectively in the eye of the beholder.
12-09-2012, 12:07 PM   #42
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Even Pentax themselves provide no data about precisely how much K-5IIs vs K-5 II resolution is improved by the lack of an AA filter, which is surprising. The K-5 IIs 'AA-filterless design achieves superior resolution' and 'creates opportunities for deeply rich, detailed imagery at supreme resolution levels' is about all I've been able to find on the subject on any Pentax web sites.
Because it also depend on the image, the lens the light and what not.
For example lets assume that the AA filter blur the image by 1 pixel, that would mean that with for example RED image only there won't be any increase in resolution because 1 of the 4 pixels are red.
Resolution charts are black and white so they use all pixel colours but that is not real world situation.

There simply are too many "if's"
12-09-2012, 03:21 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,893
QuoteOriginally posted by Anvh Quote
There simply are too many "if's"
Agreed. But it's the same with battery testing, AF testing, lens testing etc - millions of potential variables could complicate any of those sort of tests too.

Pentax should be able to quantify to buyers the advantage of going AA-less. Even if it comes with a disclaimer. So they should be able to say something like this: 'removing the AA filter in the K-5IIs delivers a 12.5% increase in resolution over the K-5 II' - then the fine-print: 'based on shooting the ISO 12233 resolution test chart in a standard environment. User results may vary according to lens used, scene type, and lighting conditions'.
12-10-2012, 05:26 PM   #44
Veteran Member
Anvh's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,616
yeah but here comes the fun, what would be a standard lens for such an ISO?
And which RAW program/algorithm?

Simply too many variables for a standard.
12-11-2012, 04:43 PM   #45
New Member




Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 15
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Contrary to your statement, the OP's request makes a lot of sense.

Say you take two images, one using regular metering and one using a two stop negative exposure compensation in order to protect highlights from blowing out.

When you compare the two images, do you push the second image by two stops first, or do compare a normally exposed image with one that is two stops underexposed? Your statement suggests the latter.

The Bayer-AA-filter in front of the sensor blurs the image slightly in order to avoid colour artefacts. It is valid and recommended to undo that blur by a bit of capture sharpening (deconvolution sharpening would be ideal, but regular sharpening methods work as well).

A K-5 IIs image, on the other hand, did not receive a pre-blur that needs to be undone.
Hello
I am playing with my Av settings and trying to see if I can increase the sharpness just a little bit on my K-5 ii. I don't see Sharpness control, so would it be the "High ISO NR" control under menu 3 that I need to play with to control the sharpness? Thanks
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, k-5, k-5 ii, k-5 ii vs, k-5 iis, k5, pentax k-5, pictures, settings, sharpness, vs
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K-5 K-5 II K-5 IIs, e dial issue, Noise Eder Pentax K-5 17 06-03-2014 12:33 AM
K-5 IIs vs K-5 II - can you tell the difference? JohnBee Pentax K-5 85 11-19-2012 10:48 PM
Pentax K-5 II and K-5 IIs Now In Stock! Adam Pentax K-5 24 10-25-2012 03:38 PM
Suggestion K-5 forum renamed to K-5, K-5 II, and K-5 IIs? Buschmaster Site Suggestions and Help 2 10-16-2012 02:17 PM
Pentax could we get the K-5 II / K-5 IIs in color please? Hegemon Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 10-14-2012 01:59 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:59 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