Are you sure that the attached image is really a 100% grab and that the original capture was raw?

Yes on both questions.

[Winder]

Yes on both questions.

Here are some 100% crop shots:
" target="_blank">

" target="_blank">

If you are getting that much pixelization then either you have a defective camera or you are doing something wrong. I have to go to 300% crop to see the level of pixelization you are showing.

Why not post a link to the original and we can take a look at your file.

[squareeyes]

Comparing the pixels in Winders extracts against the OP image...
The "Stairsteps" appear to be down-sampled artifacts with some amount of pairing of pixels. Aside from smaller print output, I'd suggest checking the settings in whatever RAW converter you are using.
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/members/29853-squareeyes/albums/4692-rons...ure105114.html
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=337062&stc=1&d=1482892425

Time flies and I have a new K-1 and the problem with these enoying artefacts still remain.

So, it can not only be my images that have them.

Any ideas out there?

Using DCU gives better results but the program is impossible to use so Lightroom/Camera RAW is the only alternative.

[Class A]

Any ideas out there?

I thought Winder made a good suggestion:

"Why not post a link to the original and we can take a look at your file."

And no, LR/ACR are not the only alternatives.

[MJKoski]

Enable AA filter simulation if sharp image bothers you. As I wrote last year every camera with Bayer type sensor, no AA-filter and low enough resolution (no, 36MP is not that much) produces staircasing with sharp lens.

Never mind...



I finally found what was the culprit.

[Gimbal]

And it was....?

[Class A]

And it was....?

+1

What caused your problem?

Removal of CA in ACR is one part of the problem, CA the other.

[Class A]

Removal of CA in ACR is one part of the problem, CA the other.

Thanks for letting us know.

So glad I left LR a while ago...

[Wheatfield]

So, how do one counter act this nuisance?

Don't look at your pictures at 100%. This is not something that will show up in a print or on a monitor at decreased resolution.
Or, figure out when it's going to happen in your images and turn on the anti aliasing filter simulator for those images.

Many comments say "Don't pixel peep" or "Don't look at the images at 100%"

Those comments only apply when you are using the whole sensor output. If you have to crop the image you are suddenly alot closer to the 100% problems.

If these problems will be seen on a print or not depends on the printed resolution, i.e the amount of pixels at your disposal. If cropped tight, they will show.

I check for sharpness and composition in the field. Checking for moiré or CA is impossible on the LCD, i.e the software has to be able to counter the problem.

I also want to add that I do want to look at my images at near 100%. If I only wanted to look at the images at screen size or at 3 feet from a A3+ print I would not need the K-1, nor the K-3. It would suffice with the K10D, well the K-5 since the K10D is not as user friendly as the K-5 and newer. I love to see the small details that the high resolution camera picks up when I use a really sharp lenses. Already the K10D outresolved most of my slides and negatives taken during the 80's through the first years of the new millennia. My fathers old kodak slides are more high res. Should not have used Agfa and Fuji so much =/

[TonyW]

Many comments say "Don't pixel peep" or "Don't look at the images at 100%"

Those comments only apply when you are using the whole sensor output. If you have to crop the image you are suddenly alot closer to the 100% problems.

If these problems will be seen on a print or not depends on the printed resolution, i.e the amount of pixels at your disposal. If cropped tight, they will show.
...

I agree that you may need to look at 100% view for things such as sharpening.

However it must be remembered that at 100% view you are looking at a screen representation of your image where 1 pixel from your sensor is being represented by 1 pixel from your monitor - this always results in you seeing an image that is bigger than a normal print and is dependent on your monitor PPI.

Most current standard monitors have a resolution of around 100 PPI therefore if you are viewing an image at 100% view and your output device is a Canon/HP printer then your screen view is 3x print size and will show all artifacts much magnified.
If you want to view at print size in this case you would be looking at using a zoom of 33.33%, but this presents its own problems. FIrst PS and other software resizing algorithms can present problems with these partial reductions leading to misinterpratation of image data. Second your (standard) monitor does not have enough resolution to display fine detail correctly (it would need 300 PPI to do this for Canon/HP type printers)

The problem is not just related to cropping an image but the requirements in PPI of your output device for the size of that image - at some point there will just not be enough pixels to represent fine resolution. This will occur using the full sensor as well as a crop