Firmware 1.1 Undocumented Changes

ndjedinak · 10-29-2012, 06:23 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor.

Firmware is on its way

wanderography · 10-29-2012, 06:41 PM

Originally posted by JHD

Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor.

I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created...

EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I...

ndjedinak · 10-29-2012, 06:59 PM

Originally posted by bmonki

I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created...

EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I...

Of course, you could get it right in camera when you shoot it... JOKING ! (Half)

In all seriousness, please let's not devolve this thread into a RAW vs JPEG debate. It's highly likely the changes didn't affect RAW shooters in a meaningful way, so move along now

JHD · 10-30-2012, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by bmonki

I seriously find this comment hilarious...

For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun.

JHD · 10-30-2012, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by ndjedinak

Firmware is on its way

Many thanks - looking forward to it...

wanderography · 10-30-2012, 12:30 AM

Originally posted by JHD

For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun.

Expensive novelty is it not? Kinda like buying a hunting rifle to shoot bottles in the backyard... I figure if I have something I'm going to use it to it's utmost abilities, novelty or not...

ndjedinak · 10-30-2012, 03:53 AM

Originally posted by JHD

Many thanks - looking forward to it...

Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB.

JHD · 10-30-2012, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by ndjedinak

Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB.

No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet.

ndjedinak · 10-30-2012, 11:24 AM

Originally posted by JHD

No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet.

Can hotmail accept that large of a file? I'd say likely not, as it should have been there long ago.

In other news... Anyone else done any testing on this?

JHD · 10-31-2012, 07:53 PM

Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ.

FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

ndjedinak · 11-03-2012, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by JHD

Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ.

FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

Thanks for posting the links! I haven't successfully mailed the firmware to JHD so that is very helpful.

Yes, you can absolutely revert back (and forth), as I described initially.

I shot with FW1.1 late at night Halloween, and the new heaver in-camera NR is very noticeable. You lose almost all fine details over ISO 1000

That said, it is a mixed bag. Focusing is definitely faster and more reliable in low light.

JHD · 11-03-2012, 06:14 PM

I have a busy week ahead of me, but I run my own tests and resport back.

ndjedinak · 11-15-2012, 07:43 AM

I have done some RAW testing since posting this thread. Certainly the folks who mentioned RAW PP are correct that there's a lot in those Q RAWs that the JPEG engine doesn't drag out. For me, I find the break over point to be about ISO640. Up to 640, the JPEG engine does just as well as ACR or Raw Therapee (provided you set it up well). Over and including 640 RAW is preferable, and I'd say over ISO 1250 RAW is necessary.

I post processed some really high ISO shots and I'm pretty astonished what I could get out of the RAWs. Here's an ISO 2500 shot from Halloween trick-or-treating:

I haven't touched luminance noise at all, just chrominance. You could easily reduce grain a little if you are grain averse (I am not). The JPEG engine made a waxy mess of this shot, with my wife and daughters faces looking like they belonged in tussauds. Here's a JPEG shot seconds before; its not a 1:1 comparison but you can get an idea:

At ISO 125-320, I see little benefit to using RAW with the intent of post-processing, as the JPEG engine does very well at low ISOs (even if FW1.1 removes more luminance than I'd like now, obscuring detail). Of course, RAW has benefits, even for Q JPEG shooters, and if you want to PP, the option is there.

Something else I'd like to mention, and perhaps I will do a longer write up someday, is that the Q reminds me very much of my Nikon D200. Up to ISO 640, the Q actually performs quite similarly at a RAW level, with even BETTER luminance grain (the D200 sometimes "clumps" it's grain). Chrominance is a little higher than the D200 over ISO320, but with modern NR technology you'd never know. The "feeling" of images is quite similar. This is astonishing to me! A camera I can hold in the palm of my hand, which is essentially equal to a nice DSLR that I dragged around the world a few times. Sweet!

**barondla** · 11-15-2012, 06:31 PM

Cool post and pics ndjedinak. You have done a good job of processing the Q images. Agree that the Q has nice grain vs many other cameras.

Ctein, wrote a fascinating article on high ISO processing. His technique was to shoot Raw + jpeg and let the camera do noise reduction on the jpeg. Then he would use a 3rd party image editing program to apply noise reduction to the Raw file. Next he would merge the jpeg & Raw. Since the noise reduction was different in the two he would gain about 1 full step of ISO quality. He did this for M43 but it should work for the Q. Have you tried this? I want to work on it this winter.
thanks
barondla

wanderography · 11-15-2012, 08:09 PM

Originally posted by creampuff

Considering that the Q's sensor is so small, unless one wants quick snaps it is pretty pointless to be just shooting with jpeg when one could get the best possible results shooting RAW. Imo the Q's jpeg rendition is just so-so, no matter what firmware version, new or old.

I agree, that was one of the advantages of the Q, small sensor camera that shoots RAW, I feel if you shoot jpeg your better off with WG-2 it's more pocketable does everything the Q can do and more, except change lenses and shoot RAW. The Qs JPEGs are not even close to it's RAW output...

10-29-2012, 06:41 PM	#17
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by JHD Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor. I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created... EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I... Last edited by wanderography; 10-29-2012 at 06:47 PM.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Any more undocumented features of the K-5?	tram57	Pentax K-5 & K-5 II	4	03-12-2013 05:53 AM
firmware K-01?	i83N	Pentax K-01	5	08-31-2012 12:31 PM
K5 firmware available	rechmbrs	Pentax News and Rumors	14	11-19-2010 05:25 PM
Undocumented workers pay our bills ;)	jeffkrol	General Talk	30	09-06-2010 02:00 PM
Undocumented auto-focus feature?	Ivan Glisin	Pentax DSLR Discussion	2	03-20-2007 11:50 AM

10-29-2012, 06:23 PM	#16
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD Thanks, I really appreciate that. I cannot be bothered to shoot raw and PP with the Q. If I need better IQ than what the Q can give me in Jpeg I use a camera with a bigger sensor. Firmware is on its way

10-29-2012, 06:59 PM	#18
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	Originally posted by bmonki I seriously find this comment hilarious, when I learned to PP properly JPEG became an utter hassle, you have to upload your images to the computer right? Or do you take your SD card to the store to get developed? If so it makes complete sense to shoot JPEG, but if your uploading to your computer you can just do a direct upload to lightroom which takes the same amount of time to upload to your computer, you have a bar on the bottom to scroll through all your images and the ones you choose to upload or print will automatically be corrected with your presets you have already created... EDIT: with JPEG you usually have to use the in browser uploaders to upload to the net or sent to get printed, in LR I have direct connection to upload services, I drag and drop and can upload to facebook, flickr, and sent to get printed with the click of a button... And where I'm going with this is that with this short process to upload it takes just an extra click to get my RAWs edited. No one is more lazy than I... Of course, you could get it right in camera when you shoot it... JOKING ! (Half) In all seriousness, please let's not devolve this thread into a RAW vs JPEG debate. It's highly likely the changes didn't affect RAW shooters in a meaningful way, so move along now

10-30-2012, 12:10 AM	#19
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by bmonki I seriously find this comment hilarious... For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun.

10-30-2012, 12:12 AM	#20
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by ndjedinak Firmware is on its way Many thanks - looking forward to it...

10-30-2012, 12:30 AM	#21
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by JHD For the record, I don't take the Q all that seriously. I have far more capable cameras that are worth the extra effort of shooting raw and post processing. The Q is more a novelty and about having fun. Expensive novelty is it not? Kinda like buying a hunting rifle to shoot bottles in the backyard... I figure if I have something I'm going to use it to it's utmost abilities, novelty or not...

10-30-2012, 03:53 AM	#22
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD Many thanks - looking forward to it... Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB.

10-30-2012, 10:44 AM	#23
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Originally posted by ndjedinak Did you see it yet? I sent yesterday. It's 15MB. No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet.

10-30-2012, 11:24 AM	#24
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD No, that's strange, because I haven't received it as of yet. Can hotmail accept that large of a file? I'd say likely not, as it should have been there long ago. In other news... Anyone else done any testing on this?

10-31-2012, 07:53 PM	#25
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ. FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com

11-03-2012, 05:30 AM	#26
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	Originally posted by JHD Good news... In light of ndjedinak's preliminary discovery (see the first post in this thread) anyone who fears the latest firmware version 1.10 is too much of a step backwards can revert back to 1.01! I`ll run my own tests to see if they concur with ndjedinak's results and if so, I`ll forego the benefits of 1.10 in favor of IQ. FW 1.01 can be downloaded here... Pentax Q Firmware Update v1.01 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com And for your convenience, here's 1.10... Pentax Q Firmware Version 1.10 Released - Pentax Camera News & Rumors - PentaxForums.com Thanks for posting the links! I haven't successfully mailed the firmware to JHD so that is very helpful. Yes, you can absolutely revert back (and forth), as I described initially. I shot with FW1.1 late at night Halloween, and the new heaver in-camera NR is very noticeable. You lose almost all fine details over ISO 1000 That said, it is a mixed bag. Focusing is definitely faster and more reliable in low light.

11-03-2012, 06:14 PM	#27
JHD Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Photos: Albums Posts: 1,406	I have a busy week ahead of me, but I run my own tests and resport back.

11-15-2012, 07:43 AM	#28
ndjedinak Senior Member Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 186 Original Poster	I have done some RAW testing since posting this thread. Certainly the folks who mentioned RAW PP are correct that there's a lot in those Q RAWs that the JPEG engine doesn't drag out. For me, I find the break over point to be about ISO640. Up to 640, the JPEG engine does just as well as ACR or Raw Therapee (provided you set it up well). Over and including 640 RAW is preferable, and I'd say over ISO 1250 RAW is necessary. I post processed some really high ISO shots and I'm pretty astonished what I could get out of the RAWs. Here's an ISO 2500 shot from Halloween trick-or-treating: I haven't touched luminance noise at all, just chrominance. You could easily reduce grain a little if you are grain averse (I am not). The JPEG engine made a waxy mess of this shot, with my wife and daughters faces looking like they belonged in tussauds. Here's a JPEG shot seconds before; its not a 1:1 comparison but you can get an idea: At ISO 125-320, I see little benefit to using RAW with the intent of post-processing, as the JPEG engine does very well at low ISOs (even if FW1.1 removes more luminance than I'd like now, obscuring detail). Of course, RAW has benefits, even for Q JPEG shooters, and if you want to PP, the option is there. Something else I'd like to mention, and perhaps I will do a longer write up someday, is that the Q reminds me very much of my Nikon D200. Up to ISO 640, the Q actually performs quite similarly at a RAW level, with even BETTER luminance grain (the D200 sometimes "clumps" it's grain). Chrominance is a little higher than the D200 over ISO320, but with modern NR technology you'd never know. The "feeling" of images is quite similar. This is astonishing to me! A camera I can hold in the palm of my hand, which is essentially equal to a nice DSLR that I dragged around the world a few times. Sweet!

11-15-2012, 06:31 PM	#29
barondla Site Supporter Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: midwest, United States Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 5,714	Cool post and pics ndjedinak. You have done a good job of processing the Q images. Agree that the Q has nice grain vs many other cameras. Ctein, wrote a fascinating article on high ISO processing. His technique was to shoot Raw + jpeg and let the camera do noise reduction on the jpeg. Then he would use a 3rd party image editing program to apply noise reduction to the Raw file. Next he would merge the jpeg & Raw. Since the noise reduction was different in the two he would gain about 1 full step of ISO quality. He did this for M43 but it should work for the Q. Have you tried this? I want to work on it this winter. thanks barondla

11-15-2012, 08:09 PM	#30
wanderography Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Hayward, California, USA Posts: 567	Originally posted by creampuff Considering that the Q's sensor is so small, unless one wants quick snaps it is pretty pointless to be just shooting with jpeg when one could get the best possible results shooting RAW. Imo the Q's jpeg rendition is just so-so, no matter what firmware version, new or old. I agree, that was one of the advantages of the Q, small sensor camera that shoots RAW, I feel if you shoot jpeg your better off with WG-2 it's more pocketable does everything the Q can do and more, except change lenses and shoot RAW. The Qs JPEGs are not even close to it's RAW output...