[MJKoski]

Processing a PS file in LR or camera RAW requires some tweaking to sharpening settings. You need to use high amount and small radius to make the details pop without destroying the photo with oversharpening. Required amount is easily double of the default value.

See here for working PS file in Lightroom: Pentax K-1 Review - Pixel Shift in the Studio - Photography Classes in Seattle | National Park Photography Workshops | Photography Classes in Seattle | National Park Photography Workshops

[madbrain]

I have no idea how to use Raw Therapee effectively, when I open PS RAW, DNG or PEF it says Pixel-Shift and I can export it which works, but to get maximum details out of it I dunno what settings works best with it. I only tried the EXIF modification with PEF files, not with DNG. But, it seems to have the same camera model tag so change it to "Pentax K-1" and maybe then LR works with pixel shift as well.

Seems like there are 4 versions of the model in each DNG file - one for each frame. At least that's what I see in exiftoolgui .
I used exiftool -Model, but it only changed the value of the model for the first frame.
There is also another field called "uniqueCameraModel". Would appreciate if you could share what exact command you used to change the model for PEF that made the file work in LR.
I think I have pretty old exiftool/exiftoolgui on my system too, so need to update them. Knowing which versions you used that worked would also help.
Time for me to sleep for now...

[Class A]

And we have to wonder whether their assessment of the K-1II's IQ is based on these flawed images.

DPReview claim they only used the centre portion of the test shots to come to their conclusion.

They also advise everyone not to look at the corners. For some reason that advice is only made through comments by DPReview staff on the K-1 II article (as opposed to a caveat prominently displayed when using the comparison tool). Hence, as a regular visitor, one has no idea that some areas of the test shots are apparently "off limits" because DPReview is not capable or willing to create shots that support a full evaluation of the scene.

The argument that they don't get out of their way to obtain ideal lens copies from other manufacturers either just shows the level of ambition they have in order to provide useful information to their readers. Sure, if Pentax (Pentax USA? Pentax Japan?) has trouble providing them with lenses that perform consistently across the frame, report on that by all means, but don't just use any old lens that gets send your way if you intend to provide a useful service to your readers.

[Kunzite]

Someone suggested they should rent a known good lens from LensRentals.

[normhead]

Someone suggested they should rent a known good lens from LensRentals.

Or do what Imaging Resources does. Use a lens like the Sigma 70 macro that's a good lens, and available in most mounts, for their test images. DPR has always been comparatively shoddy when it comes to this kind of thing.

[Oakland Rob]

I meant tripod PS. It makes the end result worse

It uses fully electronic shutter which has effect on bokeh (makes it harsh) and every single frame still has this NR. Now, end result is amplify damage. Vector art.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 12:59 AM ----------

And this folks, is how it is done: Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark/README.md at master · cchen156/Learning-to-See-in-the-Dark · GitHub

Pure AI power. Now waiting for some brand to implement such, in the future (requires massive computation), and give an *option* to enable it.

OK. Still not surprised; YMMV.

All at 800ISO. Leaves outside, and they moved between frames; they're outside a window BTW. All processed through PDCU 5.8.1, shot in DNG. Cropped to just show the bokeh. One was processed with motion control on in PDCU.

[stevebrot]

DPR's K-1II test images demonstrate serious lens-related problems... See below... The first image shows the comparison of the bottom right corner of the test image, comparing K-1 and K-1II, where everything looks good on both images.

I noticed the same thing. Their copy of the D FA 50/2.8 Macro has a problem.


Steve

[stevebrot]

It uses fully electronic shutter which has effect on bokeh (makes it harsh)

Now you are in Voodoo territory...cue the theramin...


Steve

[reh321]

Processing a PS file in LR or camera RAW requires some tweaking to sharpening settings. You need to use high amount and small radius to make the details pop without destroying the photo with oversharpening. Required amount is easily double of the default value.

See here for working PS file in Lightroom: Pentax K-1 Review - Pixel Shift in the Studio - Photography Classes in Seattle | National Park Photography Workshops | Photography Classes in Seattle | National Park Photography Workshops

We have,already established that the K-1ii is not the camera for you.

Please go back to the K-1 or get a Sony. You have done what you can here. Now your repeated words are just noise

[MJKoski]

Now you are in Voodoo territory...cue the theramin...


Steve

It is not voodoo. There was long discussion about this on FM-forums Sony Zeiss 50/1.4 FE thread when initial buyers got the lens. First note was that it has harsh bokeh but no. It was only after disabling fully electronic shutter that users got smooth results.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 10:31 AM ----------

Here is a crop of PEF PS file. This is absolutely horrible result:



Now look at it...sharp details are sharp but everything else has melted down to smooth uniform areas. This is much worse than a single exposure. ISO800, f/5.6, Samyang 35/1.4

Here is the PEF (modified EXIF so it opens with current lightroom / any other software able to open mk-1 PS files)
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Zcvy57IOREeuC83Uki2mCIyQDcIhlcL0/view?usp=sharing

[stevebrot]

There was long discussion about this on FM-forums Sony Zeiss 50/1.4 FE thread when initial buyers got the lens. First note was that it has harsh bokeh but no. It was only after disabling fully electronic shutter that users got smooth results.

It appears that Sony has a bug in the electronic shutter implementation.


Steve

[Rico]

DPReview claim they only used the centre portion of the test shots to come to their conclusion.

They also advise everyone not to look at the corners. For some reason that advice is only made through comments by DPReview staff on the K-1 II article (as opposed to a caveat prominently displayed when using the comparison tool). Hence, as a regular visitor, one has no idea that some areas of the test shots are apparently "off limits" because DPReview is not capable or willing to create shots that support a full evaluation of the scene.

The argument that they don't get out of their way to obtain ideal lens copies from other manufacturers either just shows the level of ambition they have in order to provide useful information to their readers. Sure, if Pentax (Pentax USA? Pentax Japan?) has trouble providing them with lenses that perform consistently across the frame, report on that by all means, but don't just use any old lens that gets send your way if you intend to provide a useful service to your readers.

Class A this is pretty funny my post at DPR I suggested using the center to see how much better the K-1MKII files are against the other cameras as ISO increases. The center works well as things are most equal at the center. What is happening at the center is really happening across the entire image. Plus the center you can overlap Black, White and Grey. You can tell a lot by how these are handled.

It is very clear when you increase ISO step by step from 100 that the K-1MKII holds the best continuous tone and maintains better value across all ISO levels. You can see right at ISO 200 the K-1MKII is already holding a better value. The Black for the K-1, Sony and Nikon all become more grey compared to the K-1MKII right from ISO200. As ISO increases the K-1MKII increases the advantages. At ISO12800 the B&W target has better clarity by far for the K-1MKII the black, white and greys all have better continuous tone and maintain better value. The Canon 5D MarkIV is at the same level to the K-1, Sony and Nikon.

What I think this means in real world situations is better shadow detail. More natural turn and shadow reflected light which creates better 3D pop.

My takeaways. :^) It is surprising the K-1 is on such par with the D850, A7III and 5D. There isn't much difference between them. As ISO increases for them a blanket of noise develops across the surface of the image. I am glad Ricoh/Pentax has offered a path to upgrade the K-1 without having to buy a new camera.

[MJKoski]

It appears that Sony has a bug in the electronic shutter implementation.


Steve

Maybe, maybe not. EFCS seems to be enough to trigger it:

Limitations of the electronic shutter function - phillipreeve.net

It may also affect Pentax bodies with such function.

[stevebrot]

Maybe, maybe not. EFCS seems to be enough to trigger it:

Limitations of the electronic shutter function - phillipreeve.net

OK, so apparently Sony has a bug in their EFCS implementation too. If bokeh goes harsh, the EFCS and ES must be leaving some sort of huge electronic wash in their wake...not ready for prime time?

It may also affect Pentax bodies with such function.

Thanks for the magic "may". I am confident that evidence of such will be forthcoming.


Steve

(...not really feeling snarky...just comes out that way...)

[BigMackCam]

[/URL]

It certainly doesn't look good. I guess the take-away here is, don't use pixel shift at mid-to-high ISOs... Same for Sony's electronic shutter, if you want the best looking out-of-focus rendering.

Reminds me of the old joke:

A man goes to see his doctor and says "Doc, it hurts when I do this”...
...and the doctor says “Then don’t do it”.