Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-19-2018, 10:28 AM   #16
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Classic CC is the right one. Restart the cloud application if it does not see the upgrade. If that does not help, restarting whole system usually fixes the problem with Windows PC.

07-19-2018, 10:55 AM - 1 Like   #17
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,698
I have to thank you very much for this effort. This is pretty much what I have been looking for. And, thanks for including some foreground in the frame. That will help me quite a bit on the noise aspect at the lower ISO values. So, the question to me is which door?
  • Door #1 - go with the upgrade to the mkII. So far, I have from reading the various posts, pretty much discounted this - since I really want to shoot at ISO 800 or below - even for astro, and the mkII would provide little apparent benefits. These images will help...
  • Door #2 - use the funds for the D FA 28-105, which would fill in the AF walk around lens, which would pretty much move me off the K5
  • Door #3 - $500 translates into about 3,600 miles of gas for an epic road trip around Arizona. Arizona Highways published an article on the ultimate 2k mile trip around the state last month.
  • Door #4 - upgrade utilities. I need to move off ICE for stitching, and finally decide to go for Adobe CC for PS mainly for compositing. Also, perhaps consider Camera 1 for initial raw processing as that appears to handle the white dot issue the best.

07-19-2018, 11:17 AM   #18
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: May 2016
Location: East Coast
Posts: 2,903
QuoteOriginally posted by SteveinSLC Quote
Hmm. I have LR Classic CC. Which I do pay for via subscription, but apparently may not be as up to date as LR CC. Mine only shows v7.1.
I'm using the last standalone version 6.14 of Lr, so I'm not hands-on with your version. That out of the way though, and not knowing if you have control over the upgrades, I believe you could use Adobe Camera Raw and DNG converter for an initial processing that would let you then bring the files into your version of Lr. Some links:

Overview:

Adobe Camera Raw

and the download link I can never find easily:

Adobe - Adobe Camera Raw and DNG Converter : For Windows : Adobe DNG Converter 10.4

Also, I believe I've read some discussion regarding the changes in profiles between Lr 7.3 and 7.4 with many folks preferring the 7.3 version. Again, I'm not a hands-on user of the newer 7.x versions, just repeating what I recall reading, so if I'm mistaken, please straighten me out.

Last edited by clickclick; 07-19-2018 at 12:19 PM.
07-19-2018, 11:41 AM   #19
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote
I have to thank you very much for this effort. This is pretty much what I have been looking for. And, thanks for including some foreground in the frame. That will help me quite a bit on the noise aspect at the lower ISO values. So, the question to me is which door?
  • Door #4 - upgrade utilities. I need to move off ICE for stitching, and finally decide to go for Adobe CC for PS mainly for compositing. Also, perhaps consider Camera 1 for initial raw processing as that appears to handle the white dot issue the best.

ICE is great! I have had panoramas that LR could not do that I was able to do in ICE. Especially a multi-row one.

Now maybe moving to PTGUI. I know that one is supposed to be even better.

07-19-2018, 01:07 PM   #20
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2017
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 568
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Classic CC is the right one. Restart the cloud application if it does not see the upgrade. If that does not help, restarting whole system usually fixes the problem with Windows PC.
Thanks. Multiple restarts got it updated, and I got the Mk2 files loaded.
I've been most interested in whether or not the Mk2 would let me shoot single shots at higher ISO rather than having to bother with tracking or stacking. So I fairly quickly compared the differences at 1600, 3200, 6400 and 12800.
General thoughts:
1. I see no evidence of any star-eater behavior in a quick look.
2. The Mk2 files are darker/underexposed at the same settings. This can be seen both visually and in the histogram. It's not too obvious at 12800, but at 3200 and 1600, it's pretty apparent. This is in looking at the straight raw files without any adjustment in LR.
3. Without adjusting, at 1600, 3200, and 6400, the K-1 files look better to me. At 12800, it's a wash. Not sure how much of this difference is due to my perception of the exposure difference versus actual detail differences.

Based solely on these photos and that quick comparison, not worth the upgrade to me.
Thanks Tom for taking the time do this for us!
07-19-2018, 01:34 PM   #21
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 416
Original Poster
My next test will be to be in a dark sky area and create a DNG and PEF file and compare. There was some article that claimed the PEF had 2 extra stops of Dynamic Range.

Nobody believed it, but it should be tested. Maybe I will shoot this weekend and take a crappy picture of my backyard at night, since that doesn't require me to be in the boonies.
07-19-2018, 02:44 PM   #22
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,698
QuoteOriginally posted by SirTomster Quote
ICE is great! I have had panoramas that LR could not do that I was able to do in ICE. Especially a multi-row one.

Now maybe moving to PTGUI. I know that one is supposed to be even better.
I've been threatening for years to decide between PTgui and Autopano and get one or the other. ICE is really good most of the time, well until it isn't. I'm finding some problems with stitching astrolandscapes - but then it surprises me. Linear panos - especially old row houses in Boston, ICE and every other utility (trials) has just blown up on me, and melted down.

QuoteOriginally posted by SirTomster Quote
My next test will be to be in a dark sky area and create a DNG and PEF file and compare. There was some article that claimed the PEF had 2 extra stops of Dynamic Range.

Nobody believed it, but it should be tested. Maybe I will shoot this weekend and take a crappy picture of my backyard at night, since that doesn't require me to be in the boonies.
I remember reading that a while back. That would be really interesting, and pretty difficult to explain if there was indeed any significant difference.

Also, if I could toss in a suggestion - some 1 minute dark landscapes across the ISO range would be helpful to me.




Last edited by interested_observer; 07-20-2018 at 08:43 AM. Reason: grammer
07-20-2018, 06:44 AM   #23
sbh
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
sbh's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 847
Thanks for making this test. I always wondered how DCU would render the PEFs, so I gave it a try.

However, both the ISO 100 and 400 are pushed beyond sanity. They are both 100% black sooc.




07-20-2018, 07:17 AM   #24
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote

Also, if I could toss in a suggestion - some 1 minute dark landscapes across the ISO range would be helpful to me.

Are you ok with some ugly backyard shots? My next dark sky trip is not until next month. But I could do some shots at the house. More light pollution because of the location.

---------- Post added 07-20-18 at 08:48 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by sbh Quote
Thanks for making this test. I always wondered how DCU would render the PEFs, so I gave it a try.

However, both the ISO 100 and 400 are pushed beyond sanity. They are both 100% black sooc.

Well the data is there. So you can push it if needed. I would never shoot this type of shot at ISO100 but I want to pixel peep and see which ISO is best noise wise for this type of photography. I have always been trained to go high, but now looking to go lower and just push the exposur. If the data and details are there.

Also, I see that in DCU, the magenta cast for the Mark II is there as well. So again, not a profile issue with Lightroom.

I still need to change the EXIF to say it is a K-1 and not the Mark II and see if that changes anything. I do not see why it should but somebody claims it does.
07-20-2018, 08:40 AM   #25
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,698
QuoteOriginally posted by SirTomster Quote
Are you ok with some ugly backyard shots? My next dark sky trip is not until next month. But I could do some shots at the house. More light pollution because of the location.
Ugly backyard shots are absolutely wonderful!!! I'm just interested in the noise at the lower ISO levels in a good level of darkness.

07-20-2018, 03:22 PM   #26
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,990
QuoteOriginally posted by SirTomster Quote
I still need to change the EXIF to say it is a K-1 and not the Mark II and see if that changes anything. I do not see why it should but somebody claims it does.
On another post about the K-1 II, there was a suggestion to shoot in DNG and it might avoid any K-1 II profile requirement. I came here to download your RAW files to test that, but discovered you used PEFs.
07-20-2018, 03:52 PM   #27
Veteran Member




Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 416
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by leekil Quote
On another post about the K-1 II, there was a suggestion to shoot in DNG and it might avoid any K-1 II profile requirement. I came here to download your RAW files to test that, but discovered you used PEFs.
I think for the Lonely Speck testing they had to do DNG because at the time LR did not support PEF. So for the Magenta coloring at ISO 100, it was happening on the DNG as well.

But I can verify. I was planning on doing some more tests this weekend. 1) Long exposure shots at different ISO's. 2) Same image as PNG and DNG to check something. So I can do some ISO 100 DNG and PEF shots as well. The images will just not be as nice as the originals.
07-21-2018, 01:50 PM   #28
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
This is rather serious issue and should be solved quickly. It is standard practice to avoid blowing highlights and push the shadows a bit to compensate. I shall try to expose some junk long exposures for sharing purposes next week. My guess is that this is behavior is triggered when exposing long enough and has something to do with the image accelerator which seems to smooth out super long exposures very well. Another guess goes as follows: every RAW converter is currently doing the conversion wrong at the moment when dealing with ISO100 long exposures.
07-21-2018, 03:55 PM   #29
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2014
Photos: Albums
Posts: 501
QuoteOriginally posted by SirTomster Quote
Are you ok with some ugly backyard shots? My next dark sky trip is not until next month. But I could do some shots at the house. More light pollution because of the location.

---------- Post added 07-20-18 at 08:48 AM ----------




...
Thanks for the effort
07-21-2018, 04:41 PM   #30
maw
Pentaxian
maw's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Sassari (Italy)
Posts: 1,118
QuoteOriginally posted by sbh Quote
However, both the ISO 100 and 400 are pushed beyond sanity. They are both 100% black sooc.

100 +5 EV, fully agrees with mental health,

I read this a week ago, and does a thorough analysis of the merits is flaws between PEF and DNG, very instructive.
It 's in Italian needs the translator, not traumatic. What is the DNG format
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!
data, dcu, dslr, files, flickr, full frame, full-frame, ii, iso, k-1, k1, mark, pentax, pentax k-1, reduction, shots, type
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Travel K-1 Mark II High-ISO Raw vs JPEG Adam Post Your Photos! 6 08-18-2018 07:40 PM
Abstract K-1 Mark II vs K-1: high ISO comparison shots colodion Post Your Photos! 10 07-02-2018 02:53 PM
K-1 Mark II files in DCU 5.7.2 and RT 5.3 sauli42 Pentax K-1 & K-1 II 8 04-13-2018 08:47 PM
K-5 vs MZ-S vs LX vs PZ-1p vs ist*D vs K10D vs K20D vs K-7 vs....... Steelski Pentax K-5 & K-5 II 2 06-28-2017 04:59 PM
Camera comparison: One X vs Galaxy S II vs Nexus vs N8 vs iPhone 4S jogiba Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands 3 04-12-2012 07:41 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:37 AM. | 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