K20D Quality fooled an Art Director

**rparmar** · 10-27-2008, 08:01 AM

Originally posted by kenyee

We're at the point where we have enough information to print images at fairly large sizes finally...though I'm sure Ben's large poster/wall sizes could always use more resolution

Actually, the opposite can be true. If you look at a larger poster or billboard you will see the low resolution... individual dots will be distinct. For smaller prints and fine art 240dpi might be enough, for advertising posters something like 30dpi and billboards go down to 2, IIRC.

Lord Awesome · 10-27-2008, 02:58 PM

It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade.

benjikan · 10-28-2008, 09:39 AM

Originally posted by Lord Awesome

It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade.

Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like.

Ben

Gooshin · 10-28-2008, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by zntgrg

Now let's try with an *istD

you would need a truly perfect shot to blow up a 6mp image to A2 size and not see the pixilation.

Gooshin · 10-28-2008, 09:46 AM

Originally posted by Lord Awesome

It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade.

its also about megapixels..

why do you think the art director thought it was a MF shot? because even on an A2 spread the quality (and i'm going to take Bens word on this) was superb

no amount of light and lens is going to add pixels which then have to be blown up beyond any real ability.

now, if all you do is shoot for internet 800X600 images, then you might as well stick with any camera.. and any lens!

cindy s · 10-28-2008, 09:52 AM

Very nice image!

ghelary · 10-28-2008, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like.

Ben

I have really that felling.

When I upgraded from K10D to K20D (and also comparing with shots from my compact Pana LX2) I had the feeling that the K20D is producing a grain that is much more like Film than the other cameras I used. In particular in high Iso the K20 grain is much more homogeneous than on the K10D.

At the end that produces an effect that can be very nice. I tend to add some chrominance noise reduction and not luminance to accentuate it.

Anyway, fun to see that low mid-market cameras can achieve such results in good hands that it can fool the sharpest eye.

regken · 10-28-2008, 10:13 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like.

Ben

That is an interesting observation Ben. Do you feel these qualities are significantly different than your K10D?

Thanks,
Ken

benjikan · 10-28-2008, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by regken

That is an interesting observation Ben. Do you feel these qualities are significantly different than your K10D?

Thanks,
Ken

Yes Ken absolutely. I still have my K10D's and as strange as it may seem and please forgive me if I offend, I do not think that 100 percent magnification on the K10D is accurate nor correct. In observing the images closely, I find that between 90-95 percent is closer to the truth i.e. prior to seeing the pixels. With the K20D, even going to around 105 percent the evidence of pixels is more subtle.

The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome.

One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so.

OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot!

Here is the other image he commented on..

Ben

Jonson PL · 10-28-2008, 03:50 PM

I have been wondering why you didn’t use Medium Format or FF digital, but if you really get this kind of quality out of the Pentax DSLR line, then I guess there is no need to go in for overkill.
It is not the first time that you fooled some directors like this, but it is spectacular each time.
You’re really showing the pinnacle of what Pentax is capable of. And this is just another dreamy masterpiece. Some work I like more than others, but all are with very fascinating focus on the lighting.

Impressive shutterspeed, and thanks for supplying the info.

axl · 10-28-2008, 03:58 PM

keep going Ben... keep going,
and please don't jump the ship
THX

regken · 10-28-2008, 04:46 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome.

One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so.

OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot!

Here is the other image he commented on..

Ben

That makes tip #3 from you that has been very very helpful! Thanks. I think I'll live with the K10D another year in hopes the K20D upgrade uses the same sensor and addresses a few issues that are important to me.

Thanks again,
Ken

Lord Awesome · 10-28-2008, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by benjikan

Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like.

Ben

I've been shooting the K10 and K20 side by side for a few months now and I have noticed this as well. I also noticed what you had mentioned regarding up sizing. I was simply curious as to how the image would handle being increased in size and was really surprised by that as well.

I was saving for a 31mm limited, but then I ended up picking up an IR converted D-S from Frank, so that lens will have to wait. For now I've got Sup Taks in front of my K20

Samsungian · 10-29-2008, 09:51 AM

You are a master photographer. I wonder are you using either Antishake or Tripods when working? Do you find antishake function improved with K20D over K10D?

Originally posted by benjikan

Yes Ken absolutely. I still have my K10D's and as strange as it may seem and please forgive me if I offend, I do not think that 100 percent magnification on the K10D is accurate nor correct. In observing the images closely, I find that between 90-95 percent is closer to the truth i.e. prior to seeing the pixels. With the K20D, even going to around 105 percent the evidence of pixels is more subtle.

The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome.

One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so.

OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot!

Here is the other image he commented on..

Ben

falconeye · 10-29-2008, 10:17 AM

Originally posted by benjikan

"C'est pas vrai"

Interesting story.

You say "close to A2" and A2 at 240 dpi resolves 22 MPixels at most, so the 15 MP of the K20D haven't been a limiting factor, indeed.

The real story, of course it that the K20D is able to render all pixels. Which has a lot to do with an excellent lens, exact focus and good lighting.

10-28-2008, 03:43 PM	#24
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308 Original Poster	Originally posted by regken That is an interesting observation Ben. Do you feel these qualities are significantly different than your K10D? Thanks, Ken Yes Ken absolutely. I still have my K10D's and as strange as it may seem and please forgive me if I offend, I do not think that 100 percent magnification on the K10D is accurate nor correct. In observing the images closely, I find that between 90-95 percent is closer to the truth i.e. prior to seeing the pixels. With the K20D, even going to around 105 percent the evidence of pixels is more subtle. The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome. One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so. OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot! Here is the other image he commented on.. Ben Attached Images Last edited by benjikan; 10-28-2008 at 04:03 PM.

10-29-2008, 09:51 AM	#29
Samsungian Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Colorado USA Posts: 1,337	Benjikan, do you use inbody stabilization or tripod when shooting these? You are a master photographer. I wonder are you using either Antishake or Tripods when working? Do you find antishake function improved with K20D over K10D? Originally posted by benjikan Yes Ken absolutely. I still have my K10D's and as strange as it may seem and please forgive me if I offend, I do not think that 100 percent magnification on the K10D is accurate nor correct. In observing the images closely, I find that between 90-95 percent is closer to the truth i.e. prior to seeing the pixels. With the K20D, even going to around 105 percent the evidence of pixels is more subtle. The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome. One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so. OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot! Here is the other image he commented on.. Ben

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic I Object-Art Objects,Folk Art,Classical,Modern	bbluesman	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	152	02-11-2016 08:16 AM
How close is the K20D and K-7 on image quality?	justtakingpics	Pentax DSLR Discussion	67	05-29-2010 03:27 PM
PENTAX PROMOTES MARK SHERENGO TO DIRECTOR OF DIGITAL SALES	Adam	Homepage & Official Pentax News	8	12-31-2009 08:45 AM
Pentax K20D Quality...	benjikan	Photographic Industry and Professionals	14	08-14-2009 10:50 AM
Creative Director	benjikan	Photographic Technique	4	05-10-2007 10:12 PM

10-27-2008, 08:01 AM	#16
rparmar Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2008 Photos: Gallery Posts: 8,819	Originally posted by kenyee We're at the point where we have enough information to print images at fairly large sizes finally...though I'm sure Ben's large poster/wall sizes could always use more resolution Actually, the opposite can be true. If you look at a larger poster or billboard you will see the low resolution... individual dots will be distinct. For smaller prints and fine art 240dpi might be enough, for advertising posters something like 30dpi and billboards go down to 2, IIRC.

10-27-2008, 02:58 PM	#17
Lord Awesome Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Valparaiso IN USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 76	It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade.

10-28-2008, 09:39 AM	#18
benjikan Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,308 Original Poster	Originally posted by Lord Awesome It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade. Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like. Ben

10-28-2008, 09:44 AM	#19
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by zntgrg Now let's try with an *istD you would need a truly perfect shot to blow up a 6mp image to A2 size and not see the pixilation.

10-28-2008, 09:46 AM	#20
Gooshin Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Toronto, the one in Canada. Posts: 5,610	Originally posted by Lord Awesome It's funny how something like this makes people want the camera. It's all about lighting and the lens. Sure I have a K20D and it's a great camera, but this is no reason to upgrade. its also about megapixels.. why do you think the art director thought it was a MF shot? because even on an A2 spread the quality (and i'm going to take Bens word on this) was superb no amount of light and lens is going to add pixels which then have to be blown up beyond any real ability. now, if all you do is shoot for internet 800X600 images, then you might as well stick with any camera.. and any lens!

10-28-2008, 09:52 AM	#21
cindy s Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Marietta, Pennsylvania Posts: 257	Very nice image!

10-28-2008, 09:58 AM	#22
ghelary Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Paris, France Photos: Gallery Posts: 613	Originally posted by benjikan Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like. Ben I have really that felling. When I upgraded from K10D to K20D (and also comparing with shots from my compact Pana LX2) I had the feeling that the K20D is producing a grain that is much more like Film than the other cameras I used. In particular in high Iso the K20 grain is much more homogeneous than on the K10D. At the end that produces an effect that can be very nice. I tend to add some chrominance noise reduction and not luminance to accentuate it. Anyway, fun to see that low mid-market cameras can achieve such results in good hands that it can fool the sharpest eye.

10-28-2008, 10:13 AM	#23
regken Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bangor, Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,377	Originally posted by benjikan Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like. Ben That is an interesting observation Ben. Do you feel these qualities are significantly different than your K10D? Thanks, Ken

10-28-2008, 03:50 PM	#25
Jonson PL Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Copenhagen Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,842	I have been wondering why you didn’t use Medium Format or FF digital, but if you really get this kind of quality out of the Pentax DSLR line, then I guess there is no need to go in for overkill. It is not the first time that you fooled some directors like this, but it is spectacular each time. You’re really showing the pinnacle of what Pentax is capable of. And this is just another dreamy masterpiece. Some work I like more than others, but all are with very fascinating focus on the lighting. Impressive shutterspeed, and thanks for supplying the info.

10-28-2008, 03:58 PM	#26
axl Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Nove Zamky, Slovakia Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 7,183	keep going Ben... keep going, and please don't jump the ship THX

10-28-2008, 04:46 PM	#27
regken Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Bangor, Maine Photos: Gallery Posts: 1,377	Originally posted by benjikan The difference in sensors i.e. Sony vs Samsung is quite flagrant. It is really like two totally different camera's or more specifically and this may be a good thing, like two bodies with one using Fujichrome 50 and the other using Kodakcolor Gold 100 negative film. The K20D being the Fujichrome. One more observation. The K20D has a smoother gradation in how it renders images. It takes better to interpolation than the K10D does. However, a little secret. Want your images to look smoother with the K10D. Up-size the image in PS using Bicubic Smoother by 1 or so percent. You will find that the pixels are now not as harsh, nor as evident as they were prior to doing so. OH, one more thing. Great Glass HELPS a Lot! Here is the other image he commented on.. Ben That makes tip #3 from you that has been very very helpful! Thanks. I think I'll live with the K10D another year in hopes the K20D upgrade uses the same sensor and addresses a few issues that are important to me. Thanks again, Ken

10-28-2008, 04:55 PM	#28
Lord Awesome Forum Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Valparaiso IN USA Photos: Gallery Posts: 76	Originally posted by benjikan Yes this is true but, it is in the quality and rendition of the pixels that I find interesting. Very film like. Ben I've been shooting the K10 and K20 side by side for a few months now and I have noticed this as well. I also noticed what you had mentioned regarding up sizing. I was simply curious as to how the image would handle being increased in size and was really surprised by that as well. I was saving for a 31mm limited, but then I ended up picking up an IR converted D-S from Frank, so that lens will have to wait. For now I've got Sup Taks in front of my K20

10-29-2008, 10:17 AM	#30
falconeye Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: Munich, Alps, Germany Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,871	Originally posted by benjikan "C'est pas vrai" Interesting story. You say "close to A2" and A2 at 240 dpi resolves 22 MPixels at most, so the 15 MP of the K20D haven't been a limiting factor, indeed. The real story, of course it that the K20D is able to render all pixels. Which has a lot to do with an excellent lens, exact focus and good lighting.