Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
06-02-2018, 03:23 AM   #46
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
They are doing real damage to the Pentax brand.
They don't care, as long as the brand name doesn't belong to the big three: there is no way of it hurting them.

06-02-2018, 04:14 AM   #47
Pentaxian
D1N0's Avatar

Join Date: May 2012
Location: ---
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,802
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
I just posted what the DPReview comparison scene shows. But they seem to show the same field of view in all the samples, so I would say that the Nikon and Sony, with more megapixels, would be *less* zoomed in (less than 1:1) since they have the same field of view.
Notice the top right corner where it says FULL. next to it is comp and then print. because 36 and 42 and 45 is not a lot of difference the FOV looks the same but it is actually a bit narrower for the higher megapixel cameras.


---------- Post added 02-06-18 at 13:17 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
They don't care, as long as the brand name doesn't belong to the big three: there is no way of it hurting them.
Yeah, now the question is, is it incompetence or malice. What would they gain from destroying a brand?
06-02-2018, 05:48 AM   #48
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by D1N0 Quote
Notice the top right corner where it says FULL. next to it is comp and then print. because 36 and 42 and 45 is not a lot of difference the FOV looks the same but it is actually a bit narrower for the higher megapixel cameras.


---------- Post added 02-06-18 at 13:17 ----------



Yeah, now the question is, is it incompetence or malice. What would they gain from destroying a brand?
You mean like Windows users bad mouthing Apple users all the time? For the less than self aware brand tribalism is a big thing. "My tribe does this, if you do this you're not in my tribe." "I dislike Pentax, if you don't you aren't cool guy like me."

Most lies are an attempt at attaining social standing.

Or to put it another way, these guys are all posers.
06-02-2018, 05:56 AM   #49
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 11,694
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
You mean like Windows users bad mouthing Apple users all the time?
...and how Linux users get caught in the non-stop crossfire.

06-02-2018, 06:08 AM   #50
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,202
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Well, I've been playing around with the ISO 6400 shots in Darktable, and in all honesty, the K-1 cleans up slightly better in post-processing than the K-1II straight out of camera.

With all noise reduction disabled for the K-1II image, I processed the K-1 image to reach approximately the same level of luminance noise reduction, and actually slightly better colour noise reduction. There's not a huge amount in it, but for me, the processed K-1 result is better so far as detail is concerned. Look at the body and arm of the magenta coat - this is where it's most noticeable - and to a lesser extent the red stripes on the shirt and trousers. The K-1II shows slightly blotchy / lost detail here, whereas the K-1 image with luminance and colour noise reduction from Darktable's Equalizer module (using custom settings - not the presets) retains the detail a little better. It's minimal, but it's there.

I think the K-1II is doing a remarkable job for in-camera noise reduction, and if that were on/off switchable or adjustable, it'd be awesome. For those who are prepared to spend time in post-processing, though, I'd say it's possible to squeeze just the tiniest bit more detail out of the original K-1's high ISO files...

The first image below is from the K-1II, and the second is from the K-1 with my processing applied.
BigMacCam The K-1 image just looks like an over processed image compared to the K-1MKII image. The K-1MKII image still has better 3D quality and better color and better continuous tone.
06-02-2018, 06:14 AM - 2 Likes   #51
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
...and how Linux users get caught in the non-stop crossfire.
Way to many people identify with their stuff on a tribal level.

---------- Post added 06-02-18 at 09:18 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Rico Quote
BigMacCam The K-1 image just looks like an over processed image compared to the K-1MKII image. The K-1MKII image still has better 3D quality and better color and better continuous tone.
I've noted the difference in the files as well. The K-1 noise is harsher, the K-1 mkII image is a little darker. The noise in the K-1 image is unacceptable for my liking. The K-1 mkII images just barely makes past the threshold although I might clean it up a bit further.

Thanks for the images Big Guy. This kind of work is thankless and tedious.

I'm starting to think this whole discussion was triggered by different noise reduction values. Tess and I simply will not print or show images with visible noise. Obviously others have different standards. We are more in line with the flowing strokes and solid colours fo painters, than the grainy hi-res, artifact loaded images of technical photogprhers. Simply stated, the K-1 MkII is photography headed our way.

To us solid colours and flowing lines are more important than detail on a level of difference of 1/100 inch or less.

Those who dislike the K-1 mkII seem to have no problem with artifact loaded images, the absence of artifacts is not an issue for them. Hence their tolerance of noise in their images. Two opposite poles that will never meet. For us the K-1mkII would be worth something. Just not $600.

I look at the files presented so far and think the K-1 mkII is a little better for what we do. But the K-1 is so good already, it's unlikely we'll be upgrading. For some the difference seems to be a big deal. For us, it's negligible difference barely worth taking the time to even think about.

Having looked at all available comparisons, my only comment would be "what's all the fuss about?" Compared to the old days comparing a D800 to my K-5, there were elements in the D800 image that weren't even in the K-5 images. That was a difference. This K-1 vs. K-1 mkII thing, very little practical difference with no clear evaluations that couldn't be accounted for with . lens, exposure, correctable contrast values and focus (and therefore DoF) differences. Much ado about nothing.

Last edited by normhead; 06-02-2018 at 06:40 AM.
06-02-2018, 06:30 AM - 2 Likes   #52
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
I've noted the difference in the files as well. The K-1 noise is harsher, the K-1 mkII image is a little darker. The noise in the K-1 image is unacceptable for my liking. The K-1 mkII images just barely makes past the threshold although I might clean it up a bit further.

Thanks for the images Big Guy. This kind of work is thankless and tedious.
You're welcome

And now, here's the good news. I've been working with the ISO 6400 K-1II image in Darktable for a couple of hours, and it seems to respond rather well to additional processing, such that detail can actually be recovered (or, more accurately, emphasised - as it doesn't seem to have been lost in the first place).

Here's a crop of the K-1II image with no processing options applied except for VNG4 demosaicing, base curve and white balance:



Note how the magenta coat looks smudged and lacking in detail.

Here's the same file but with chroma noise reduction and edge boosting using Darktable's "Equalizer" module, plus a little extra sharpening at low radius:



Notice how the magenta coat now shows considerably more detail and less smudging than in the first crop? Believe it or not, it's chroma noise reduction that is primarily responsible for bringing out that detail. The extra sharpening just gives it a final lift.

For comparison, here's the original K-1 image, with chroma and luminance noise reduction added to approximately match the K-1II's out-of-camera noise levels:



I'd still say there is just the tiniest bit of extra detail in the original K-1's file, but it's inconsequential IMHO.

Now, as I mentioned, this processing was carried out in Darktable. I'm not sure what other RAW development tools are capable of, and I no longer have Windows 10 and Lightroom installed, so I can't test that. But at least we can say that with appropriate RAW development software, it seems there's more detail in the K-1II's images than is apparent in DPR's test shots


Last edited by BigMackCam; 06-02-2018 at 06:50 AM.
06-02-2018, 06:39 AM   #53
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,126
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Sony is misfocused in that sample above. That 42MP sensor is capable of producing sharp details at that ISO no matter how noisy it becomes. But that aside, that green mess whatever it is, shows the same issue as my rabbit image. It has both sharp(ened) edges and abruptly vanishing details next to each other which is not happening in mk-1 crop. It is more unpleasant to look than slightly misfocused details.
I am quite sure that Sony is also has 'processing' in the path to their 'raw' files - it may be integrated into their sensor as another layer, but it is there somewhere.
06-02-2018, 06:49 AM - 1 Like   #54
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
I am quite sure that Sony is also has 'processing' in the path to their 'raw' files - it may be integrated into their sensor as another layer, but it is there somewhere.
It has never been established that there are any cameras with no NR applied in their high ISO images. People are complaining about what is standard practice in the industry. The whole industry is wrong in it's direction, they are right. One could argue, that's why they aren't camera company execs. This whole concept of "baked photos" is a part of a "artifacts make good images" movement. Personally for myself, the scene I'm photographing is good, artifacts are bad. Others it would seem have an opposing opinion.

---------- Post added 06-02-18 at 10:21 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
And now, here's the good news. I've been working with the ISO 6400 K-1II image in Darktable for a couple of hours, and it seems to respond rather well to additional processing, such that detail can actually be recovered (or, more accurately, emphasised - as it doesn't seem to have been lost in the first place).
Something many don't understand. There is a lot of detail in every image that is lost because contrast values don't permit it. You can have millions of gradations in the white, the high end of a digital file, but the human eye can't distinguish a million colours in the high end of the curve. By lopping off the whole bottom end just using the high end and contrasting the resulting file, you can bring out all kinds of detail. When you have millions of colours, a digital 16 value difference is imperceptible. But adjust your curve to the black end, where in jpeg, ou only have 16 values every value is perceptible. Nothing is more frustrating than try to bring out high end values without spot tools. If you get the detail you want in the high end, your dark end is completely black.

So the biggest factor i want to know in these kinds of comparisons is "is the centre of the histogram curve in both images the same?" Because moving the centre of the curve effects high and low end contrast. If the curve has been shifted to the right by your importing software, the left side fo the curve has more gradients to portray the low end end, shifted to the left gives you more gradient values in the high end.

Hence, a minor shift in the centre point of the curve will produce different contrast values in different parts of the picture and bring out detail in one end while suppressing it on the other. Most of the time we want good contrast values on the subject and we don't care about the rest. (especially in high tone photographs).and will create the illusion of more detail in one end or the other, just by making captured detail visible. But the detail was always there. This is what is so difficult for people when looking at these images. Differences in the adjustment of the centre point in levels causes different levels of detail in different parts of the photographs. Up until now it didn't matter because there were differences in resolution between different sensors that were so noticeable that such things didn't matter.

The comparison here has gotten so fine, that every little thing matters, to the point that many previously ignored factors are now starting to produce very uneven results. I suspect that some of the determinations people are trying to make can really only be examined using Byte value comparisons of the files under examination as a series of bytes, not a photograph. And I know of no software that can do that. The processes being used are just not good enough for the kinds of results being claimed.

It's pretty obvious to me what's happening. The measuring tools are obsolete. Leaving the door open for the haters at DPR to just make up stuff and spout opinion as if it has something to do with some really inadequate (for the task) example photos. We are trying to measure quark level differences with a tape measure.

To summarize, the level of difference in the original file is less than the values that can be changed by contrast, setting levels controls, NR and many other factors which all taken together present an insurmountable number of uncontrollable variables, that make more difference to the final output than the characteristics of the original files do..

Last edited by normhead; 06-02-2018 at 07:43 AM.
06-02-2018, 07:24 AM - 1 Like   #55
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Cork
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,882
Imagine for a moment if you will that it was proven that all RAW data had been manipulated to suit by all manufacturers, i.e. Baked RAW files. 2 questions..
Would Dpreview put up an editorial or letter to apologise to Ricoh / Pentax?
Should Ricoh / Pentax be applauded for a acknowledging that this process is happening and actually delivered a specific chip whose primary function is to deliver this in the most efficient way?
06-02-2018, 07:50 AM   #56
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 40,442
QuoteOriginally posted by robbiec Quote
Imagine for a moment if you will that it was proven that all RAW data had been manipulated to suit by all manufacturers, i.e. Baked RAW files. 2 questions..
Would Dpreview put up an editorial or letter to apologise to Ricoh / Pentax?
Should Ricoh / Pentax be applauded for a acknowledging that this process is happening and actually delivered a specific chip whose primary function is to deliver this in the most efficient way?
Naw, one of the key components of integrity is being able to admit when you're wrong. DPR has no integrity. Reshooting is an admission of error in a round about way, but, without a thorough and open evaluation of why they had to reshoot, they have learned nothing.
06-02-2018, 07:53 AM - 1 Like   #57
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,574
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
the biggest factor i want to know in these kinds of comparisons is "is the centre of the histogram curve in both images the same?" Because moving the centre of the curve effects high and low end contrast. If the curve has been shifted to the right by your importing software, the left side fo the curve has more gradients to portray the low end end, shifted to the left gives you more gradient values in the high end.
Switching off *all* processing in Darktable except for white balance (so not even loading a base curve) results in the following histograms - first the K-1, followed by the K-1II... there are indeed minor differences.
Attached Images
 
06-02-2018, 07:59 AM   #58
Moderator
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Baltimore
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,383
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
It took me around three minutes to do one image, but that processing can be stored as a preset. Similar presets would be required for each ISO level. So, a certain amount of work is required up front to create presets to one's individual tastes, but after that, it's very quick and potentially automated to apply.
I disagree that these could (should) be applied automatically as presets. In my experience, the individual files would need their own tweaks, and that would require looking at different bits of the image individually. So, by my calculations, add another 1-2 minutes per shot that you have determined is worth working on. I think it's at least an hour's extra work for 60-100 images, and for some shoots could be more than that. The time adds up fast. NR is a PITA in quick turnaround situations, again in my experience. YMMV.
06-02-2018, 08:15 AM   #59
mee
Veteran Member




Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 7,403
BigMackCam: The second shot does look improved. But the original K-1 shot still looks better to me. These are indeed minute details, though for a camera touting its high IQ I'd expect obvious class-leading IQ... in some of the test scene I even clearly prefer the aging D810 over it!


Yet I wonder if these tests are still being steered via the lenses and software used though? I understand it is quite difficult to definitively test a camera with so many dynamic elements affecting the output (lens, software, setup, human factor). This actually would make for an interesting article (if someone wants to spend the time writing it and has a bg in statistics and product testing) on product reviewing.

Hmmmmmmm..... I still think we can glean useful, comparative information from it. But it is just going to be very difficult for tribal bodies to tout their brand/product is true 'victor' in a field. Which is partly why I think these kinds of threads (where tribalism is on display scoffing at other people's tribalism) are a bit... ironical.
06-02-2018, 08:17 AM - 1 Like   #60
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 2,903
BigMackCam

Appreciate all your work on the post processing samples, and it really is interesting the way these images are shaking out. With the understanding that there are many factors in play, it really does look like you can get near equal or better outcome with the K1-II. In your above post, I'm finding the detail differences so close as to be negligible, and to me, the colors more pleasing on the k1-II (that would be the "better than" result). I'm sure some will say that the difference in color I'm seeing is due to other factors that can be replicated on the K1, but I think the more important thing is you've shown that the "lost" detail really isn't what it first appears. I think the "risk" of upgrading a K1 to a K1-II is not looking nearly as great with what you've shown. Nice work - thanks!

Last edited by clickclick; 06-02-2018 at 03:07 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!
brand, camera, contrast, dslr, field, full frame, full-frame, image, images, k-1, k1, k1ii re-shoot, megapixels, mkii, noise, objects, pentax, pentax k-1, people, score, sensor, studio, test, view
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Hot off the presses: DPR to re-shoot its K1mkII test. texandrews Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 107 06-02-2018 06:00 AM
Is K1ii better than K1 for capturing moving subjects? Billk Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 12 06-01-2018 11:34 AM
Dpreview admitted they screwed up the K1ii review... Cambo Pentax DSLR Discussion 25 05-19-2018 03:19 AM
Will my K1ii ship on the 11th of April or ???? jtstgeorge Pentax Full Frame 11 04-02-2018 07:57 PM
K1ii's "Dynamic Pixel Shift" Will Put A Premium On Small High-Quality Lenses Fenwoodian Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 36 03-06-2018 01:39 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:51 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