Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
12-11-2007, 11:05 AM   #1
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Another K10D Jpeg vs Raw Test

But also first test of the SMC-DA 40mm f/2.8 Limited lens I received today. (I just wish I had an actual person to test it on and not a camera). Exposure was 1/125th, f/7.1 at ISO 100.

I originally decided to test, cuz it seems like that shooting Raw+ that the jpeg is always pretty soft out of the camera, even with the sharpness jacked up, but the raw shines pretty well.

Raw File: PEF, Processed in Capture One Pro 3.77, Converted to 8bit Tiff and sized in photoshop, some white balance and level adjustment was made in C1P.

Jpg File: In camera set to 10 megapixel, "3 star" quality (out of 3), normal image tone, with sharpness +2, Contrast +1, some levels and color tweaked in PS

Neither image had sharpening applied in photoshop, the raw convertor has its own sharpening, but considering the camera tried to sharpen the jpeg, I consider this fair game, since the raw processor is taking over for the in-camera processor.

The Image.


Raw Crop (Click for Full Rez)


Jpeg Crop (Click for Full Rez)


So even after +2 on the sharpness setting in the camera, the jpg still seems to come out softer than the raw, but only by so much.


and some eye candy for some of the pentax lovers.


12-11-2007, 11:29 AM   #2
Veteran Member




Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote
Neither image had sharpening applied in photoshop, the raw convertor has its own sharpening, but considering the camera tried to sharpen the jpeg, I consider this fair game, since the raw processor is taking over for the in-camera processor.
I wonder what assumptions the camera makes about the target display size for which it applies its in-built sharpening.

For unsharp mask, for instance, the bigger the display size, the higher the USM settings need to be, and even then it's quite subjective.

I have no idea what the sharpening algorithm in the K10D is, but given that the vast majority of people do not make prints up to anything approaching full size, I'd guess it's optimised for something smaller, and therefore applies less sharpening than you'd need to if you were going to work on sharpening a 100% crop, as you've effectively done with your RAW-derived picture here.

So it never surprises me when people find that in-camera sharpening produces a softer result than they can achieve starting from RAW, and optimising for whatever size they want.
12-11-2007, 11:46 AM   #3
Veteran Member
Duck Dodgers's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: in the 24½th Century!
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 439
Nice Vitessa. Yours?
12-11-2007, 11:55 AM   #4
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by ChrisA Quote
I wonder what assumptions the camera makes about the target display size for which it applies its in-built sharpening.

For unsharp mask, for instance, the bigger the display size, the higher the USM settings need to be, and even then it's quite subjective.

I have no idea what the sharpening algorithm in the K10D is, but given that the vast majority of people do not make prints up to anything approaching full size, I'd guess it's optimised for something smaller, and therefore applies less sharpening than you'd need to if you were going to work on sharpening a 100% crop, as you've effectively done with your RAW-derived picture here.

So it never surprises me when people find that in-camera sharpening produces a softer result than they can achieve starting from RAW, and optimising for whatever size they want.

Thing is though, I've shot Canon for years, and the results from the Jpeg, sharpness wise has been pretty close to what you'd get out of the default processing with raw. And I didn't sharpen anything past the default convertor's preference. By comparison, no matter how much you jack up the sharpness on the K10D, the jpeg seems to be softer than any other camera I've shot, even +2 is softer than default of most other cameras. But I mind not, since I shoot raw anyways, I just wanted to test because I thought I was confusing myself.

It's even said on dpreview that the in-camera jpeg are softer than the competition and that increasing sharpness setting does nothing.

12-11-2007, 11:56 AM   #5
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Duck Dodgers Quote
Nice Vitessa. Yours?

Not mine, its an item for sale in the store. As is the Pentax 67.
12-11-2007, 01:06 PM   #6
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 239
kb244, thanks for the test... Was good to look at it... And special thanks for Vitessa, really looks nice. A've made my own test also... I actually find JPEG sharpness more then acceptable. Actually even much better then Nikon's D200 ones (my friend has the Nikon). So I made a test and posted the results in my blog here: http://pentadslr.blogspot.com/2007/12/k10d-gx-10-jpeg-quality.html

Actually I've made a better image in ACR, then in-camera JPEG, but that was mainly due to noise reduction did some job, not due to shapening...
12-11-2007, 01:19 PM   #7
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
Nice test but....

The sharpness if you use "bright" mode is considerably higher. Bright mode sharpening defaults to around +2 compared to "normal".

In your example the level of actual detail is exactly the same, plus there are very few artifacts in the JPEG. You have plenty of scope to optimise sharpening for printing or web publishing with the JPEG and less so with the RAW in this case.

Canon JPEG files show a lot of sharpening artifacts IMO. They dont take too kindly to the kind of brutal low radius enhancements that prints require, but they do look OK on screen.

Pentax just assumed that some of their customers would actually print their photos at some point.
12-11-2007, 02:00 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Nice test but....

The sharpness if you use "bright" mode is considerably higher. Bright mode sharpening defaults to around +2 compared to "normal".
First off, what is "bright" mode? I don't shoot in automatic modes when I'm shooting under strobes.

QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
In your example the level of actual detail is exactly the same, plus there are very few artifacts in the JPEG. You have plenty of scope to optimise sharpening for printing or web publishing with the JPEG and less so with the RAW in this case.
I would not call it exactly the same nor artifact, I guess its a matter of perspective. But Raw files are not processed yet, so you have a hell of a lot more leeway in editing/processing the raw before printing, so you got your information screwed up there.

QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Canon JPEG files show a lot of sharpening artifacts IMO. They dont take too kindly to the kind of brutal low radius enhancements that prints require, but they do look OK on screen.
I've found they print just fine. I used to be a Canon and Epson rep, so I've done printing quite a bit, and most of the time straight from jpg. Have you actually owned a Canon for a while?

QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Pentax just assumed that some of their customers would actually print their photos at some point.
By softening them?

To re-iterate:
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
You have plenty of scope to optimise sharpening for printing or web publishing with the JPEG and less so with the RAW in this case.
You're wrong about the benefit of printing from jpeg, least from the raw you can 'choose' the levels at your own personal preference before committing to a jpg or tiff from the conversion. Perhaps you don't understand what a raw file is and how it's useful. It's not linear data like a jpeg file is, and contains a lot of information not yet processed into a linear image. Thus giving you the ability to have way more 'scope' to optimize the image before outputting it to a linear data format.


Last edited by kb244; 12-11-2007 at 02:12 PM.
12-11-2007, 03:12 PM   #9
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,132
That you don't have any idea of what "Bright Mode" makes me wonder what you really know about this camera. That and the fact that your RAW conversion shows less detail in the areas where the light is reflected, ie near BLOWN, leaves me with questions in that area as well. No doubt about it, RAW should beat out jpg time after time, but your example doesn't show me that.
12-11-2007, 03:35 PM   #10
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
Canada_Rockies's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Sparwood, BC, Canada
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,665
QuoteOriginally posted by kb244 Quote

and some eye candy for some of the pentax lovers.
That is one beautiful creation. The last time I saw a 67 in use was at Pacific Rim National Park. This is on the West side of Vancouver Island on the West Coast of British Columbia, Canada. The gentleman was taking photos of some California sea lions, up there to escape the pollution and get some fresh air on a rock/island/islet off the beach. He had that big brute set up on a good wooden tripod with a huge lens on it (I think he had a 300 on there). Looking through that viewfinder was a real eye opener.
12-11-2007, 03:48 PM   #11
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jodokast96 Quote
That you don't have any idea of what "Bright Mode" makes me wonder what you really know about this camera. That and the fact that your RAW conversion shows less detail in the areas where the light is reflected, ie near BLOWN, leaves me with questions in that area as well. No doubt about it, RAW should beat out jpg time after time, but your example doesn't show me that.

Turns out the monitor at work is darkened quite a bit than the calibrated one at home. Also Theres nothing in the camera that says "Bright mode", if he's talking about Image tone, thats nothing more than curves (increased contrast and saturation appearance), not brightening or sharpening. And contrast increase can certainly be interpreted as increased sharpness since it creates a higher contrast between light and dark edges.

Perhaps calling it "bright mode" is easier to understand for people who don't know what the tone change is doing.

Last edited by kb244; 12-11-2007 at 03:55 PM.
12-11-2007, 04:04 PM   #12
Veteran Member
Jodokast96's Avatar

Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Erial, NJ USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 2,132
Yeah, forgive me, Bright Mode is a huge jump from Bright Tone. And no matter what it's actually doing, the bottom line is that users find sharper images using it.
12-11-2007, 04:19 PM   #13
Senior Member




Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Moscow, Russia
Posts: 239
Hmmm for an ordinary user, such as most of us are, does it REALLY matters what Bright tone is doing really? Personally I have no idea about it. All i can say it is definetely not a higher saturation as it probably should be. And i do know what exactly is saturation, contast, brightness and so on. Still i cannot say what exacly the image processor in the K10D doing to images in this mode. It gives me the images I really want to see in the end, and that's all that matters for me. So why not test in-camera JPEGs in that mode? And, in the end, why not use it?
12-11-2007, 04:25 PM   #14
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Jodokast96 Quote
Yeah, forgive me, Bright Mode is a huge jump from Bright Tone. And no matter what it's actually doing, the bottom line is that users find sharper images using it.
While it's pointless to quibble terminology, you go into the menu and you just see icons for tones. So cuse me if I don't know the terminology for it.
12-11-2007, 04:27 PM   #15
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
kb244's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 362
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by Snowcat Quote
Hmmm for an ordinary user, such as most of us are, does it REALLY matters what Bright tone is doing really? Personally I have no idea about it. All i can say it is definetely not a higher saturation as it probably should be. And i do know what exactly is saturation, contast, brightness and so on. Still i cannot say what exacly the image processor in the K10D doing to images in this mode. It gives me the images I really want to see in the end, and that's all that matters for me. So why not test in-camera JPEGs in that mode? And, in the end, why not use it?
I did a test, lets leave it at that. I'll shoot in raw regardless because theres much more control. Point is "bright tone" does not make it sharper, it increases the image curve (which you can do later easily) to somewhat of an S-Curve, what this does is increase the contrast, makes the highlights brighter and the shadows bolder.
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, click, dslr, image, jpeg, jpg, photography, photoshop, rez, sharpness, test
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[K10D RAW+]Exposure difference between RAW and JPEG sterretje Pentax DSLR Discussion 9 04-13-2010 02:06 AM
K10d - Aperture Number error- JPEG/RAW najo Pentax DSLR Discussion 2 03-27-2009 03:52 PM
Unprocessed RAW v JPEG print test Ashley Pentax DSLR Discussion 21 01-15-2009 02:56 PM
RAW + JPEG with JPEG on One Star quality laissezfaire Pentax DSLR Discussion 58 12-10-2008 02:42 PM
Pentax K10D - RAW or jpeg for maximum image quality? rrobinson54 Photographic Technique 31 09-09-2007 11:43 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:42 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