Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-19-2006, 02:08 PM   #1
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,363
K10D Edge sharpness

Ok, first, I don't dare post this over at DPR in fear of my life. I'm not trying start anything here, I just think people are really over emphasizing this deal.

Let me first say I really like the way this camera images a scene,whether in RAW or Jpeg. With all the cr*p flying about soft jpegs, something I read kept tickling the back of my mind. That this is precisely how the camera is suppose to be.

I recall reading somewhere that Pentax's market research indicated that the target customer for the K10D prefered to do at least some post processing on their images, so they designed the images to respond well to PP.

This is an excerpt from one of the interviews, I'll post a link after.

"Q
Relative to image rendering, default setting is now “natural”, nevertheless, overall image/colour rendering now appears to be more straightforward. What has changed?

A
Basic concept never changed since *istD. However, the performance of image processing engine has been improved and the higher degree of edge compensation for example has become possible. In edge processing, it does not appear too thick (rather fine) which might be making images look more refined. By using new processing engine, different image processing from before became possible, hence easier tuning."

Now, I read this as they designed edge sharpness to be responsive to USM in PP. Am I right, or all wet?

Here is the link to the interview.
TatamiyaInterview

12-19-2006, 05:04 PM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 642
people that shoot jpegs dont really want to be doing post processing.. people that shoot raw are into that.. there really is no logic in there for soft jpegs..

there is also a plus minus setting for choosing your sharpness level.. plus lots of other levels.. the saturation settings on the k100 were picked up as being wrong.. the sharpness levels on the k10 were picked up as being wrong..

it seems for some the sharpness settings isnt sharp enough on the k10.. they do seem to have fixed the saturations settings thow.. the k10 dosnt blow the reds like the k100 does..

now if they had it correct.. soft would be soft.. nornal would be normal.. sharp would be sharp.. lets the user choose..

trog
12-19-2006, 05:24 PM   #3
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 26,205
Edge Sharpness

QuoteOriginally posted by roscot Quote
I just think people are really over emphasizing this deal.
I agree.

Those that review complex and subjective things like the "image quality" produced by digital cameras face the challenge of quantifying the unquantifiable. Consequently, in order to "rate" a product, they pick something that may contribute to (but does not come close to constituting) such an undefinable concept, something that can be easily, reproducibly and inexpensively measured. That "something" becomes a surrogate for the thing that's too subtle to quantify. In his reviews of digital cameras, Askey has picked in-camera JPEG edge sharpness as his surrogate for "image quality".

Surrogates are harmless and even occasionally useful for evaluating a product if their limits are clearly understood. The problem occurs when readers (and particularly reviewers) expand the importance of surrogates beyond the narrow scope in which they have real meaning. In his review of the K10D, Askey points out that his image quality surrogate, JPEG edge sharpness, has no meaning whatsoever for those that shoot RAW and little (if any) meaning for those that don't print beyond A3 (although he doesn't exactly say it this way). It's importance to others is up to them; ultimately, the contribution or detraction of edge sharpness to or from the "image quality" of a K10D's JPEG output is - literally - in the eye of the beholder.

Jerry
12-19-2006, 05:47 PM   #4
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Kaunas
Posts: 1,458
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
people that shoot jpegs dont really want to be doing post processing.. people that shoot raw are into that.. there really is no logic in there for soft jpegs..

[...]
now if they had it correct.. soft would be soft.. nornal would be normal.. sharp would be sharp.. lets the user choose..
Whole this JPEG edge sharpness issue was discovered looking at 100% crops on computer monitors. Does anyone look at pictures in such way?

Assume that casual guy doesn't want to do any post processing. What does he do with his JPEGs? He either (1) views them in monitor, resized to fit into monitor or (2) prints them in photolab or on his printer.

In first case edge sharpness at 100% isn't important at all because by resizing original picture you loose that edge sharpness anyway and need to apply sharpening on resized image. Resize JPEGs from any of cameras presented in that infamous K10D review to 1024pixels on longest edge and you won't see any difference in sharpness.

In second case... Well, we need to print out those JPEGs on some reasonable size (let's say A4) and compare then. As I understand, nobody cared about comparing actual prints they just pixel peeped those 100% crops. Anyone care to download sample photos used in dpreview comparison, print them out?

Phil also admits that unless you print on A3 size paper edge softness is not an issue. Well, when is it the issue then? When you pixel peep 100% crops? But then just measurbators care.

12-19-2006, 05:55 PM   #5
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,308
QuoteOriginally posted by trog100 Quote
now if they had it correct.. soft would be soft.. nornal would be normal.. sharp would be sharp.. lets the user choose..
I agree that would be the IDEAL situation and for the sake of a good review from Phil maybe they should have done that..

But really I also think the issue is getting blown way out of proportion.. Most JPEG only shooters don't print over A3 (hell most RAW shooters don't print over that size) . But Touching up your photo a bit in PP (including a bit of USM) if you are going to print that big is pretty much expected anyway...
12-19-2006, 05:59 PM   #6
Veteran Member
joele's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,308
QuoteOriginally posted by Edvinas Quote
In second case... Well, we need to print out those JPEGs on some reasonable size (let's say A4) and compare then. As I understand, nobody cared about comparing actual prints they just pixel peeped those 100% crops. Anyone care to download sample photos used in dpreview comparison, print them out?
I did that for the DS when they highlighted its JPEG 'problem', which I think was actually slightly different and worse than the K10d one.. Still I couldn't tell the difference between the RAW (ACR) and in camera JPEG from my A4 prints.. Which except for one picture, is the biggest I have every printed (and that pic is a panorama anyway so each image is not bigger than A4)..
12-19-2006, 07:21 PM   #7
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,363
Original Poster
Joele & Edvinas,
I think that is the entire point, and the reason Pentax designed the algorithims this way.

My K10 images both Jpeg and RAW are much more tolerant to USM without producing artifacts, then my DS images.

I prefer prints to viewing on a monitor. The largest I've printed since I got my first DS is 8.5 x 11 (A4), and I've printed enough that I've gone through 2 print heads for my Canon S820. The prints from the K10 are just outstanding.

It seems we have a new bunch of measurebaters instead of photographers.

Cheers
-Alan

12-19-2006, 07:24 PM   #8
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 642
phil picks some competitors.. he then makes simple comparisons.. the k10 flunked the jpeg test.. the real reason he panned it image wise is cos the k100 at six mega pixels produces jpegs pretty near as good as the k10 does at ten mega pixels..

he is knocking the mega pixel race in some ways.. the jpegs out of the k10 are plenty good enough.. just not quite as good as the jpegs from the competition..

in truth the whole bunch of em (including the k100) produce plenty good enough jpegs..

i have upsized and compared k10 and k100 images so far i cant see any gain from the extra four mega pixels.. if someone can show me otherwise i will alter my opinion..

okay mega pixels sell cameras even semi pro cameras.. the k100 is now the baby brother consumer camera but not because of its image quality just because it has less mega pixels.. even thow from what i see the extra ones dont appear to do much..

and if a bunch of would be k10 buyers choose to buy another camera it will probably be the k100.. not some canon or nikon..

trog

ps.. i view my images at 1680 x 1050.. resized and resampled fullscreen by irfanview on the fly.. or i pixel peep em fullsize.. a click of a mouse button gives me eiither..

Last edited by trog100; 12-19-2006 at 07:31 PM.
12-19-2006, 07:25 PM   #9
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Virginia Beach VA USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,363
Original Poster
I think his technical review was fine. But you are right in that is numerical rating is subjective, there is no scoring that adds to the totals. If you look beyond his conclusions, you see a very different view of the camera.

In the end, it's just one man's opinion. It isn't worth all the fuss.

Cheers
-Alan
12-19-2006, 07:41 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Sailor's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Coastal Texas
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 26,205
Thanks, Alan

QuoteOriginally posted by roscot Quote
Joele & Edvinas,

My K10 images both Jpeg and RAW are much more tolerant to USM without producing artifacts, then my DS images.

-Alan
Gee, I noticed the same thing (compared with my DS2) with RAW shots converted to TIFF (8 bit) and sharpened in PSPX - I thought I was imagining it.

Jer
12-19-2006, 08:02 PM   #11
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 642
before phils review someone posted some 100% comparison crops tween the k10 and one of the earlier pentax cameras..

it was a gee look how good the new k10 is sort of thread.. the crops from the ds or whatever it was looked absymal.. so bad i questioned the veracity of the test.. from what i have read since i think it was genuine.. they were "relatively" abysmal..

trog
12-19-2006, 08:05 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 1,934
The main (killing) problem that Phil Askey points out in his review is that tune up the sharpness setting in jpeg modes do NOT help to improve/increase edge sharpness and he really doubts about why the setting won't effect.

I concur with Phil Askey and indeed find this to be very strange..

Also, I always wonder why people emphasize (too much) on the importance of post processing possiblity for those (K10D or *ist D) "soft" jpeg, which indeed doesn't make any sense to me at all. That is, WHY people need to post process a 8-bit compressed JPEG instead of shooting RAW and convert if PP is so important to them?
12-19-2006, 08:48 PM   #13
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
QuoteOriginally posted by RiceHigh Quote
The main (killing) problem that Phil Askey points out in his review is that tune up the sharpness setting in jpeg modes do NOT help to improve/increase edge sharpness and he really doubts about why the setting won't effect.

I concur with Phil Askey and indeed find this to be very strange..
So you own a K10D now? Yes, it's always best to use your own data.......
12-19-2006, 09:29 PM   #14
Senior Member
peted's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Canberra, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 133
QuoteOriginally posted by roscot Quote
Ok, first, I don't dare post this over at DPR in fear of my life. I'm not trying start anything here, I just think people are really over emphasizing this deal.

Let me first say I really like the way this camera images a scene,whether in RAW or Jpeg. With all the cr*p flying about soft jpegs, something I read kept tickling the back of my mind. That this is precisely how the camera is suppose to be.

I recall reading somewhere that Pentax's market research indicated that the target customer for the K10D prefered to do at least some post processing on their images, so they designed the images to respond well to PP.

This is an excerpt from one of the interviews, I'll post a link after.

"Q
Relative to image rendering, default setting is now “natural”, nevertheless, overall image/colour rendering now appears to be more straightforward. What has changed?

A
Basic concept never changed since *istD. However, the performance of image processing engine has been improved and the higher degree of edge compensation for example has become possible. In edge processing, it does not appear too thick (rather fine) which might be making images look more refined. By using new processing engine, different image processing from before became possible, hence easier tuning."

Now, I read this as they designed edge sharpness to be responsive to USM in PP. Am I right, or all wet?

Here is the link to the interview.
TatamiyaInterview
If that was the case then where is my copy of PP that Pentax is providing so I can use PP USM? AUD$1,295 package here is Australia so my guess would be you are wrong.
12-19-2006, 09:44 PM   #15
Veteran Member
jeffkrol's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wisconsin USA
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 8,434
I think you can PP (post-process) a lot cheaper than that. Possibly even free..
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!
camera, dslr, edge, engine, image, images, k10d, link, photography, post, pp
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Sharpness VS Fine-Sharpness in k20d wasim_altaf Pentax DSLR Discussion 8 10-12-2009 11:41 AM
Judging sharpness on the K10D LCD JamieP Pentax DSLR Discussion 13 12-11-2008 06:14 AM
K10D and sharpness ?? Neisey Pentax DSLR Discussion 15 08-13-2008 06:45 PM
Setting Sharpness on K10D ? Confused Pentax DSLR Discussion 5 07-25-2007 06:33 PM
Edge sharpness with DSLR Finn Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-23-2007 03:50 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:34 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