Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-05-2015, 08:29 PM   #1
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 416
Pixel Shift RAW: LR5 vs Silkypix 5

Did a test shot using a DFA100mm WR and tripod. Used the same image for processing, no changes - as shot. The first one is the LR5 image at 932KB, the Silkypix image is 7.01MB, you can also see there was a slight breeze in the lower right corner of the second one. Looks like it might be worth learning Silkypix, at least until LR catches up.


Edit to add the RAW image started out as 103MB

Another Edit - "Silkypix 5" is actually Pentax Digital Camera Utility v5.4, thanks rawr

Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 

Last edited by longbow; 06-05-2015 at 09:19 PM.
06-05-2015, 08:53 PM   #2
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
What is the result like with Pentax Digital Camera Utility v5.4 supplied with the camera?

Or is that what you are talking about when you say 'Silkypix 5'?
06-05-2015, 09:20 PM   #3
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
What is the result like with Pentax Digital Camera Utility v5.4 supplied with the camera?
Or is that what you are talking about when you say 'Silkypix 5'?
You're right, what came with the camera - Pentax Digital Camera Utility v5.4

It's been edited, thanks
06-05-2015, 10:14 PM   #4
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,800
QuoteOriginally posted by longbow Quote
It's been edited, thanks
Cool. I just asked because proper Silkypix itself has multiple versions. It's possible that they too have updated the 'proper' Silkypix to support the K-3 II. Folks might get confused about what Silkypix you used.

06-06-2015, 03:22 AM   #5
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: traverse city MI
Posts: 341
QuoteOriginally posted by longbow Quote
Did a test shot using a DFA100mm WR and tripod. Used the same image for processing, no changes - as shot. The first one is the LR5 image at 932KB, the Silkypix image is 7.01MB, you can also see there was a slight breeze in the lower right corner of the second one. Looks like it might be worth learning Silkypix, at least until LR catches up.


Edit to add the RAW image started out as 103MB

Another Edit - "Silkypix 5" is actually Pentax Digital Camera Utility v5.4, thanks rawr
Ok so can anyone help me out here? The second pic is 7MB vs 932kb - tine first pic is not as sharp as the second but considering the the file size difference why would we expect anything else? What am I missing seems we are talking apples and oranges? Not being sarcastic just trying to get this clear.
Thanks
06-06-2015, 05:30 AM   #6
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,148
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
Ok so can anyone help me out here? The second pic is 7MB vs 932kb - tine first pic is not as sharp as the second but considering the the file size difference why would we expect anything else? What am I missing seems we are talking apples and oranges? Not being sarcastic just trying to get this clear.
Thanks
Look at the EXIF data. These are processed images in jpeg. Not the original RAW format. The first image is 98kB and the second one is 120 kB. That is the difference you are seeing. The numbers posted in the original post were before uploading to the site.
06-06-2015, 05:38 AM   #7
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by MikeD Quote
Ok so can anyone help me out here? The second pic is 7MB vs 932kb - tine first pic is not as sharp as the second but considering the the file size difference why would we expect anything else? What am I missing seems we are talking apples and oranges? Not being sarcastic just trying to get this clear.
Thanks
Thats what I thought at first too, but you don't have to zoom in very far to see the difference - the first one quickly becomes very pixelated. Personally, I really don't think that Pentax's software does it justice either. Just don't understand how 7mb is the you get from a 103mb image, seems like something is missing. But I'm sure someone will develope software to take advantage of all that data. I don't plan on putting much more time into pixel shifting until the software is improved, it was the least reason I bought the K-3II to begin with, so not a big deal.
06-06-2015, 05:44 AM   #8
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Rochester, NY
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,148
longbow,

Try saving the files as tiffs instead of jpeg. You should see some pretty big files there.

06-06-2015, 06:15 AM   #9
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Try saving the files as tiffs instead of jpeg. You should see some pretty big files there
Thank you, I'll do that
06-06-2015, 06:24 AM   #10
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,825
But isnt a part of the difference the Pentax Forums processing? Since the photos were uploaded to the forum, they got resized and recompressed automatically, which affects image quality. It looks like a good comparison, but you have to look at the actual photos, not further recompressed images.
06-06-2015, 09:04 AM   #11
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 102
Lightroom gives you a fair bit of control over size, quality, sharpening, etc. when exporting (not to mention its internal noise reduction, sharpening, clarity adjustment, and so on). So for the comparison to be meaningful we'd need to know what settings were used. Also, it looks to me as if there's a blade of grass in the lower right quadrant that moved between shots and that SilkyPix interpreted as four different objects. That's an odd artifact of its attempt at deghosting.
06-06-2015, 10:08 AM   #12
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,295
QuoteOriginally posted by gaweidert Quote
Look at the EXIF data. These are processed images in jpeg. Not the original RAW format. The first image is 98kB and the second one is 120 kB. That is the difference you are seeing. The numbers posted in the original post were before uploading to the site.
Yes, they are both JPEG, that would be expected for an image posted for Web viewing. Both images have been munged by the forum software, including the EXIF. The difference in file size might be traceable solely to intrinsic difference between the two images. JPEG is strange that way. File size varies.


Steve
06-06-2015, 10:16 AM   #13
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,295
To the OP...This is a little off-topic, but I would suggest hosting through Flickr or similar and posting through to moderate-sized versions for display and providing a separate link to the full resolution version. Flickr actually provides the BB code snippet to accomplish the former.

Example:

Display a moderate-sized image hosted at Flickr:




Link to the full version:

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7638/16355159713_d254bd7327_o_d.jpg


Steve
06-06-2015, 11:46 AM   #14
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: NW Oregon
Posts: 416
Original Poster
Everyone thanks for your help this place is great !!

gaweidert, used your TIFF suggestion. This photo is PS (no tripod, so please excuse the blur) processed TIFF in camera which gave me a 69mb file. It was too dark, so imported into LR to process further, exported which gave a 11mb JPEG - much better. Can't see a way to export as TIFF with LR, am I missing something ?

stevebrot - I'll check into Flicker, seems like a good idea, thanks
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3 II  Photo 
06-06-2015, 01:25 PM   #15
Pentaxian
Tjompen1968's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,322
I have the K-3 and when taking a HDR in RAW it creates this huge file containing all files taken and when opened in Adobe or Pentax software it only displays one of the files so the only way to get a processed jpg or tiff is to do it in the camera or use Pentax software to extract the files and do a HDR merge in photoshop or what ever software you like.
May this be the same with the pixel shift thingy?
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, image, k-3, k3, lr5, pentax k-3, pixel shift, shot, silkypix
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Request Adobe to support Pentax HDR and Pixel Shift RAW files Pentor Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 16 06-24-2015 01:49 PM
Pixel shift and bracketing Spodeworld Pentax K-3 9 04-23-2015 08:56 PM
Any opinions on Aftershot Pro 2 vs. LR5 for RAW conversion Bryce K Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 10 03-03-2015 07:47 PM
Optical IS (in lens) vs optical SR (body sensor shift) vs DS (pixel tracking) rburgoss Non-Pentax Cameras: Canon, Nikon, etc. 10 10-20-2014 07:07 PM
Lightroom2 vs. SilkyPix 4 vs Bibble 5 jfalcon7 Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 20 10-23-2009 11:29 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:36 PM. | 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