Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
01-12-2014, 03:38 AM   #46
Pentaxian
RonHendriks1966's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,557
Does K-3 still do the Dark Frame distraction?

01-12-2014, 03:52 AM   #47
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Southern Indiana
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 14,963
QuoteOriginally posted by RonHendriks1966 Quote
Does K-3 still do the Dark Frame distraction?
I believe you can turn it off if you want to.
01-12-2014, 07:02 AM   #48
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,238
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Which camera settings are imported depends on the raw program. DCU5 shows the raw view with all camera settings. Lightroom imports white balance, noise reduction and sharpness. Some raw programs ignore the camera settings. In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated with loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not.
Hey thanks, Dan. I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software. For my K-3, I'm currently importing DNG files (converted from PEF with Adobe's free software) into Aperture, which has yet to be updated for the K-3. Now I wonder whether I'll have to re-learn my PP approach once that update occurs - I've no idea what camera setting Aperture may drag in.

Jer
01-12-2014, 07:13 AM   #49
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
Hey thanks, Dan. I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software. For my K-3, I'm currently importing DNG files (converted from PEF with Adobe's free software) into Aperture, which has yet to be updated for the K-3. Now I wonder whether I'll have to re-learn my PP approach once that update occurs - I've no idea what camera setting Aperture may drag in.

Jer
Even I am starting to get irritated by Apple's slowness here Jer. I can post the images in the thread to show what I'm seeing, but the K-5 images are imported through an Aperture profile, the K-3s are not. It could be that the Aperture profile will bring these images back to a level playing field. It's also possible that it won't. The only thing I can say is that the software that came with my K-3 didn't do any better. So maybe Pentax didn't do a custom profile for the camera either? Armed with this information, I'll probably do a couple of test shots later today to see if there is any difference with NR on and off.

I don't want to give folks the impression, I can't clean up the noise... I can, but I'd rather not have to.

K-3 800 ISO image, cleaned up to look nice.


01-12-2014, 07:34 AM   #50
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated with loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not.
I just noticed that I made a typo that turns this 180 degrees from what I meant to say. Here's the corrected sentence: "In all cases though, all raw settings can be manipulated without loss, whether they were read by the raw program, or not."

I corrected this error in the original post. Sorry for any confusion.
01-12-2014, 08:07 AM   #51
Pentaxian
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,631
QuoteOriginally posted by Sailor Quote
I've labored for years under the illusion that camera settings (other than exposure) invariably have no influence on RAW files, regardless of PP software.
Strictly speaking, your statement is correct. A raw file is unaffected by camera settings. What is affected is the raw conversion software's interpretation of how the image should look.

Every software will give a different interpretation of contrast, saturation, hue, sharpness, NR, WB, etc., and some attempt to incorporate the camera settings when they import. But none of these settings are written to the file until you convert to jpeg. They can be changed without loss, whereas any changes made in jpeg will cause some loss of quality.

Note that DCU5 and LR5 for example will import NR, WB and sharpness settings from the camera, but how they show these in the raw viewer, and how they convert will differ, because each is using its own algorithms.
01-12-2014, 09:49 AM   #52
Site Supporter




Join Date: Sep 2012
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,728
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I finally got around to comparing images today.

I've been under the impression that K-3 images were a bit noisier than k5 images were, so I finally got around to comparing them today, using the same camera settings a 2 sec. delay, and cropping to produce a 1:1, approx 500x400 section.

With the same processing (the curves were almost identical) these are the results. Sometimes I think one is better , sometimes the other. It's pretty much a saw off. Go down further in the thread for the correct comparison.

Oops I made a mistake. the first is the K-5 on a tripod, but no delay at 1600 the second is on a tripod, but with a 3 second delay.


What I've been seeing in several comparison photos is color is not identical in the K-3 vs other Pentax bodies. Norm, to your eyes which hass the more accurate shade of orange in the feeder?
01-12-2014, 09:57 AM   #53
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
Original Poster
Holding up an un-opened package to the next to the screen to compare, the K-5 is the more accurate. But I'm sure I could alter my presets to make them the same. This is going to require having K-3 presets.

01-12-2014, 12:49 PM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,345
Okay, I re-edited my photos from Friday and they turned out much better...see these photos.

Last night I shot the 80's band, The Motels, using TAV mode and the K3 rocked. The venue was super dark and the camera chose ISO 16,000 which I was very nervous about. No need to be...wow I am so impressed. This K3 is wonderful in low light. I tried using my previous concert camera, my KX, it wouldn't focus in that light. The K3 never had any trouble.

ISO 12,800


ISO 10,000


ISO 10,000

Last edited by john5100; 01-12-2014 at 02:11 PM.
01-12-2014, 01:13 PM   #55
Ash
Community Manager
Loyal Site Supporter
Ash's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Toowoomba, Queensland
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 22,679
John, those are some of the cleanest ISO 10,000+ images I have seen to date. Well done with these results.
01-12-2014, 02:23 PM   #56
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,238
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Even I am starting to get irritated by Apple's slowness here Jer. I can post the images in the thread to show what I'm seeing, but the K-5 images are imported through an Aperture profile, the K-3s are not. It could be that the Aperture profile will bring these images back to a level playing field. It's also possible that it won't. The only thing I can say is that the software that came with my K-3 didn't do any better. So maybe Pentax didn't do a custom profile for the camera either? Armed with this information, I'll probably do a couple of test shots later today to see if there is any difference with NR on and off.

I don't want to give folks the impression, I can't clean up the noise... I can, but I'd rather not have to.
Yeah, Norm, it's time Apple updates the program for us so we can compare our K-5s and K-3s starting at the same baseline. Not that I'm displeased with my K-3; on the contrary I love its operational improvements over the K-5, I'm enjoying the increased cropping latitude of the new camera, and - in truth - probably 90% of the photos I take are done so below ISO 1200. Also, for the few photos I've taken at ISO 3200 with the K-3, I've found that after applying PP they don't look far different from those I would get from my K-5. However, I've shot few of these and what I've done may not be representative. Anyway, I used the link provided by a forum member to ask Apple for a K-3 update; also, I have some Apple shares so maybe I can complain as one of the company's owners .

Do you use Aperture's NR tool, or do you employ some plug-in or other software?

Thanks,

Jer

Last edited by Sailor; 01-12-2014 at 02:45 PM.
01-12-2014, 02:28 PM   #57
Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 18,238
QuoteOriginally posted by audiobomber Quote
Strictly speaking, your statement is correct. A raw file is unaffected by camera settings. What is affected is the raw conversion software's interpretation of how the image should look.

Every software will give a different interpretation of contrast, saturation, hue, sharpness, NR, WB, etc., and some attempt to incorporate the camera settings when they import. But none of these settings are written to the file until you convert to jpeg. They can be changed without loss, whereas any changes made in jpeg will cause some loss of quality.

Note that DCU5 and LR5 for example will import NR, WB and sharpness settings from the camera, but how they show these in the raw viewer, and how they convert will differ, because each is using its own algorithms.
Thanks again, Dan. I'm relieved that my basic understanding of RAW files and their manipulation was on target, but I'm startled and a bit embarrassed after all this time to discover that different converters would present a "biased" view of the RAW file on my screen.

Jer
01-12-2014, 06:22 PM   #58
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: outer eastern melbourne, australia
Posts: 357
Those look great, john. And noise issues aside anyway, those pics are a fantastic example of why we should view camera bodies as complete "tools". The K3 got wonderful results where my K5 could not possibly have nailed focus. Which would have rendered the noise argument entirely moot.
01-12-2014, 06:34 PM   #59
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,781
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by john5100 Quote
Okay, I re-edited my photos from Friday and they turned out much better...see these photos.

Last night I shot the 80's band, The Motels, using TAV mode and the K3 rocked. The venue was super dark and the camera chose ISO 16,000 which I was very nervous about. No need to be...wow I am so impressed. This K3 is wonderful in low light. I tried using my previous concert camera, my KX, it wouldn't focus in that light. The K3 never had any trouble.

ISO 12,800


ISO 10,000


ISO 10,000
Amazing images.... now if I was there with you, I'd have more idea, if it's just my camera, or it was my shooting conditions were not as favourable. Your shooting situation had bright lights and high contrast, mine the whole histogram filled half to 3/4s of the window, so very low contrast. The contrast function I used ( About +10) accentuated the noise, where as I'm guessing you had all the contrast you needed in your original image, just a guess, so probably much lower contrast setting.
01-12-2014, 07:06 PM   #60
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2008
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,345
Normhead, Ash, and saladin, Thank you

Just the opposite. It was extremely dark with moving subjects. It was so dark that my KX had a hard time focusing and at some points it didn't focus. The K3 just powered forward and didn't slow down.

I shot another show last night where many of my photos were at ISO 16,000 in TAV mode. I have spend so much time in the dark shooting shows that I think I have LR4 noise reduction down. I edited 900 photos in 2 hours.

Saladin - you are right. It is a complete system that makes the difference. As some of you have seen, my KX has rocked as a concert camera but my K3 is leaps and bounds ahead of it.

Last edited by john5100; 01-12-2014 at 11:17 PM.
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!
dslr, images, k-3, k3, k3 vs k5, k5, k5 high iso, pentax k-3
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New K3 vs K5ii high iso RAW tests ihasa Pentax K-3 8 11-04-2013 09:15 AM
DR/Noise performance: pushing exposure vs high ISO HSV Photographic Technique 8 03-12-2013 06:51 PM
K-R VS X100 High Iso Noise Comparison Ryan Cole Pentax DSLR Discussion 20 02-01-2013 02:36 PM
K5 High ISO Noise Reduction Setting daphnejohn Pentax K-5 2 11-06-2011 07:45 PM
High ISO Noise vs. Underexposure Correction yoon395 Photographic Technique 7 08-27-2011 06:13 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:55 AM. | See also: NikonForums.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