Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
02-20-2015, 08:29 AM   #16
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
Not to be offensive here but I fail to understand the relevance of the lens correction issue. How is that relevant? Does the lens correction provide some enhancement of sharpness to say compensate for the difference in sharpness between the 02 and 01 lenses or what? It is my understanding that the lens corrections only provide some degree of compensation for lens aberrations. Or am I missing something here?
Lens correction compensates for distortion in addition to aberrations. Since the native, uncorrected image is in fact malformed by the lens correction process, the result may be a bit softer than the uncorrected image - particularly in the corners, where the image is "stretched" to compensate for barrel distortion. In my experience, image-correction software has improved a lot over the last few years.

For those who shoot RAW but do not use software with lens profiles, you can try out PTLens, which supports the Q & Q7.

02-20-2015, 09:52 AM   #17
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
I understand what you are showing here but if you go up to your original posting you talked about "Sharpness". Are you asking about sharpness or distortion? They are not the same. They are two separate issues.
It started out as sharpness and the discussion seemed to turn into distortion which go hand in hand in conversion. In the pictures above I sharpened the Silky Pix and not the DNG. The Silky Pix conversion without sharpening was not as sharp as the DNG conversion, but the DNG conversion is distorted and much more noise. The Silky Pix conversion sharpened does not show as much noise as the DNG conversion not sharpened. I obtained worse results with CS2 Photoshop. Am I making any sense?
02-20-2015, 10:07 AM   #18
Site Supporter
CWRailman's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Scottsdale, Arizona
Photos: Albums
Posts: 504
One of the problems I see is that your DNG converter is spitting out an image, at least what was posted here, that is 72DPI while your Silkypix is producing an image, as was posted here, that is 300DPI. Set them both to the same DPI and see what happens. It won't do anything for the distortion factor but that should provide a better comparison of the the sharpness differential.

I also see that you are shooting at ISO 1600. The original Q starts producing "noise" around that ISO and that may be causing what appears to be a lack of sharpness.

Last edited by CWRailman; 02-20-2015 at 10:18 AM.
02-20-2015, 03:59 PM   #19
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by CWRailman Quote
One of the problems I see is that your DNG converter is spitting out an image, at least what was posted here, that is 72DPI while your Silkypix is producing an image, as was posted here, that is 300DPI. Set them both to the same DPI and see what happens. It won't do anything for the distortion factor but that should provide a better comparison of the the sharpness differential.

I also see that you are shooting at ISO 1600. The original Q starts producing "noise" around that ISO and that may be causing what appears to be a lack of sharpness.
I realize all your points, but with the conversions untouched, no pp, are considerably different. https://www.flickr.com/photos/24877856@N00/sets/72157648591106723/# All these are from the same raw file and processed by different engines. There is a definite difference. They are even cropped different caused by the distortion.

02-20-2015, 04:54 PM   #20
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
I realize all your points, but with the conversions untouched, no pp, are considerably different. https://www.flickr.com/photos/24877856@N00/sets/72157648591106723/# All these are from the same raw file and processed by different engines. There is a definite difference. They are even cropped different caused by the distortion.
Each program converts RAW files differently, there is no software-independent "standard" RAW conversion. As soon as the photo information is taken from the camera and assembled in such a way that a picture is displayed, it has been, in effect, "post-processed" - just not by you, but rather by a team of people who work for Pentax, or Adobe, or Silkypix, or whoever.
02-20-2015, 05:31 PM   #21
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by luftfluss Quote
Each program converts RAW files differently, there is no software-independent "standard" RAW conversion. As soon as the photo information is taken from the camera and assembled in such a way that a picture is displayed, it has been, in effect, "post-processed" - just not by you, but rather by a team of people who work for Pentax, or Adobe, or Silkypix, or whoever.
Exactly what I was trying to say.
02-20-2015, 05:48 PM   #22
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: NJ
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 4,882
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
Exactly what I was trying to say.
02-20-2015, 09:05 PM   #23
Senior Member




Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Albums
Posts: 226
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
I am using CS2 and does not have the tab, but thanks for the info. Guess I will have to stick with using Silky Pix.
Yes, that makes sense then. The RAW converter in CS2 will predate the Q whereas Silky Pix should be up to date. A lot of mirrorless cameras now rely on software to make up for the shortcomings of the lenses so without the latest lens profiles the RAW converter can struggle. In this case Photoshop would just be applying the standard conversion for a DNG file which may not include any sharpening at all. Silky Pix may do a similar conversion and then add sharpening of its own according to some template provided by Pentax for the Q. All RAW files need sharpening, so it saves time if the converter knows a good starting point for your particular camera. The aim would be to give you files that just need to be tweaked to taste, rather than needing serious correction.

02-20-2015, 09:26 PM   #24
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,688
Hi Nelson. Are you talking good care of my lovely little Q? ;-)

The Pentax software reads all the camera settings. ACR and LR only read very limited settings, so you have to manually process the files.
One thing I've noticed is that it's best to start with the Embedded profile rather than Adobe Standard, and adjust other parameters as required.
02-21-2015, 07:18 AM   #25
Pentaxian
Rimfiredude's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Washington
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,177
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Hi Nelson. Are you talking good care of my lovely little Q? ;-)

The Pentax software reads all the camera settings. ACR and LR only read very limited settings, so you have to manually process the files.
One thing I've noticed is that it's best to start with the Embedded profile rather than Adobe Standard, and adjust other parameters as required.
Thanks
02-22-2015, 10:11 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,983
QuoteOriginally posted by Rimfiredude Quote
I realize all your points, but with the conversions untouched, no pp, are considerably different. All these are from the same raw file and processed by different engines. There is a definite difference.
My view of your questions is conditioned by nearly fifty years of taking pictures and over thirty years as a software engineer.

In the past few years, I've been scanning my boxes and boxes of old slides; after scanning each slide, I examine the image to make sure that it is a reasonable representation of the original slide and whether there are any major issues with the original picture itself; seldom do I make any changes in the original picture, partly because of the work I do to properly compose it in the first place, but every so often I come across something that demands to be "fixed" - for example, I might have a picture of a railroad locomotive in front of a ground-based antenna that appeared to sprout from the top of the locomotive itself. In that case, I would replace the antenna with sky-looking color if possible. My experience with such editing is that the separation between vehicle and sky usually occurs over several pixels in the actual scan, so my change doesn't look right if I run the sky color right up to the original vehicle; instead, (knowing that the joint between the side and top of an actual vehicle is never a razor sharp edge) once I have painted the sky in, I will blur the boundary to make it consistent with the boundaries that were already there. In looking at these scans at the pixel level, I have noticed that there may be abrupt sharp divisions in lettering, for example at a horizontal or vertical separation, but not if the separation is a diagonal.

If i were part of a team working on "sharpening" for pictures, we would have to take all of those situations, and many more, into account. I believe that the actual algorithm a team would come up with for sharpening would be unique to that team, as they analyzed the various situations and decided how they would decide to identify and address them. In other words, sharpening is much more difficult than it appears at first glance, and I would expect each team to come up with their own approach to the issues.

Thus, I am not at all surprised that the various software tools for modifying photographs would come up with different solutions, and in fact I would be extremely surprised if two distinctly different tools output exactly the same result.
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, files, mirrorless, pentax q, pentax q10, pentax q7, q-s1, q10, q7
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Q-S1 filter in raw paranoia23 Pentax Q 7 02-19-2015 04:28 AM
Pentax Q to K adapter: Increased sharpness? GibbyTheMole Pentax Q 6 07-14-2014 10:00 AM
Q sharpness pntx Pentax Q 5 07-18-2013 05:01 PM
Which free RAW editing software to increase sharpness more kamisu Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 8 05-22-2012 04:34 AM
Sharpness of K10D RAW Photos Kit Zoom vs Prime Lenses? StevenDeLapp Photographic Technique 19 01-04-2008 08:02 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:34 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