Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-15-2012, 07:34 PM   #31
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tumbleweed, Arizona
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 5,107
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
... I'm sure someone will correct me, but I've read a lot of discussions and everyone has an opinion... so I'll just say in advance here, I'd like to hear from someone who printed say a 60" wide (or any size ) print from a 16 MP file and found it to be unacceptable. For myself I've already gone way past what I was led to believe would be good from APS-c. Forgive me if I'm a little sceptical when people tell me I can't get it done with a 16 MP file. If I had listened to those folks, it would have cost me money. I just took the files I though would look good large and blew them up without regard to "what's possible." And some of those images sold. HIghest possible resolution and sharpness is only necessary for an artistic style I would call "super realism." Very few photographers (or artists) actually work in that style.
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
It isn't that I want to print larger, but I want my large prints to look better -- the 24x36s or even bigger. They look ok now, but I wouldn't mind some more detail. $100 bucks extra for a camera I'm going to use for a few years (and that will remain more valuable than its counterpart come time to sell it) -- I don't see that as a big deal at all. If it was $500 more I'd probably skip it, but for $100 sure why not. I'm not actually in the market, so by the time I am the difference may be less and overall price lower...
On the topic of printing. With my K5 and the DA 12-24 @ 24mm, ISO 400, and hand held, I shot the following image. I was 199 feet from the stern of the USS Constitution (measured it via Google Earth). I printed it at Costco, 20" x 30" (the largest they offered) for $9.00 (I am a big spender). I wanted to see how it would turn out, and what Costco's print quality actually was like, and I could not beat the price. I also printed from a TIFF file.


I just went back into the room and looked at it very close. Even took a magnifying glass with me. The little shot above does not do justice to the full size print.....
  • The individual lines in the rigging are perfect and viewable.
  • The individual links in the anchor chain on the stern are there.
  • Details in the foreground cobblestone are there.
  • The individual slate roof tiles are able to be made out in the roof on the right.
  • Details in the individual boards on the camels floating astern and to the left of the wharf are very viewable.
  • I could go on, but you get the idea.... The detail is there....
Bottom line is, there is a tremendous amount of detail there (way beyond my expectations), that I feel confident that this easily could go to 30" x 45" and possibly even to 40" x 60" (although I have never tried it, and that would be a 4x enlargement - good distance viewing, but would probably have some problems with very close viewing). Now, I had an occasion to return several weeks later, so I took my Zeiss 25/f2.5 Distagon with me. I wanted to repeat the shot on a tripod at ISO 80. The lens has a higher resolution than the 12-24. Alas, the Navy took the ship out into the harbor (actually sailed it for the first time in something like 8 years) to turn it around, and thus had closed off the wharf and parked a 200 foot tall crane next to it (to lift off the sails for winter storage), so I could not get the shot. I wanted to see if I could increase the captured resolution and actually get a better image - although I am VERY happy with this one. As a test (inquiring minds and all of that), I put it up on our 52" flat panel TV, it looked just as great. I did not see any noticeable problems - but I don't know how the monitor rendered images. I think you could go to 40" x 60" using some care and a good printer who knows what they are doing.

I am very impressed with the K5, even with not using my best glass. I don't know what the printing limits are on this 16MP APS-C sensor, but its larger than what I have printed.

The one question I have, in particular for the IIs is, how much additional resolution with out the AA filter is possible? 5%? would be my guess. 10% may be a real stretch.

Also, on the topic of an additional $100 for the IIs over the II. I think that it can probably be justified, however I would like to see some tests between the two. Given that the D800e is something like $300 over the standard model.




Last edited by interested_observer; 10-15-2012 at 08:58 PM.
10-15-2012, 08:45 PM   #32
Pentaxian
cali92rs's Avatar

Join Date: May 2011
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 3,346
QuoteOriginally posted by interested_observer Quote

Also, on the topic of an additional $100 for the IIs over the II. I think that it can probably be justified, however I would like to see some tests between the two. Given that the D800e is something like $300 over the standard model.

That is true...only way to tell for sure is to wait and see.
I know it isn't an apples to apples comparison due to their sensor size, but from the samples I have seen, yes there are some subtle differences that you can see at 100%, but that is like looking at a print with your nose touching the canvas.
It's up to the consumer ultimately to decide if it's worth it.
10-15-2012, 08:55 PM   #33
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 5,803
When the Fuji X-Pro 1 was introduced Fuji Printed A3+ images shot with both the Canon 5DII and the Fuji XP1 and put them on display. Now maybe Fuji fudged the prints as part of marketing, but pretty much everyone at the announcement commented that the Fuji XP-1 prints looked sharper and had more detail. A3+ is not a big print, but the differences where noticeable. I think if Pentax has done it right, then the K-5II Super will be well worth the $100.00.
10-16-2012, 03:23 AM - 1 Like   #34
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
It isn't that I want to print larger, but I want my large prints to look better -- the 24x36s or even bigger.
Since most minilab printing is done at 300dpi, anything from the K-5 past about A3 will need upscaling at some stage. To get more detail you need a higher sensor resolution.

Of course, stitching multiple shots can give you as much detail as you want. Easy to do with the right software :




Humble 18-55mm kit lens on a K-7 at 18mm, f/5.6, 8648 × 6098 pixel panorama.


Last edited by kh1234567890; 10-16-2012 at 03:28 AM.
10-16-2012, 11:32 AM   #35
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
Since most minilab printing is done at 300dpi, anything from the K-5 past about A3 will need upscaling at some stage. To get more detail you need a higher sensor resolution.
But you do get SOME more detail without the AA filter. The AA filter prevents us from getting the full resolution that the sensor is capable of. In fact that is rather the point of it -- it reduces resolution in order to prevent artifacts. So removing it is in some sense like enlarging the sensor -- we get the full resolution possible but with the possibility of artifacts.
10-16-2012, 12:33 PM   #36
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
QuoteOriginally posted by vonBaloney Quote
But you do get SOME more detail without the AA filter. The AA filter prevents us from getting the full resolution that the sensor is capable of. In fact that is rather the point of it -- it reduces resolution in order to prevent artifacts. So removing it is in some sense like enlarging the sensor -- we get the full resolution possible but with the possibility of artifacts.
You wish

That's not how the physics of Bayer sensors works, unfortunately - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/198506-k-5-iis-same-mark-2-but...ml#post2121207
10-16-2012, 12:42 PM   #37
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
You wish

That's not how the physics of Bayer sensors works, unfortunately - https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/pentax-k-5/198506-k-5-iis-same-mark-2-but...ml#post2121207
I'm not sure what your point is -- are you saying there is NO difference between having an AA filter and not? If I put two prints side-by-side with all else being equal except with AA filter and without AA, both post-sharpened as needed to look their best, and printed big enough that the difference would come into play, you are saying that I would not be able to detect increased detail? They'd look exactly the same? Pentax's own engineers said they were surprised by the amount of increased detail...
10-16-2012, 12:53 PM   #38
Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 27,483
QuoteOriginally posted by kh1234567890 Quote
It will sell. And the clueless buyers who can't focus or post-process their shots will convince themselves that their jpegs are much sharper than before and will argue so on many a thread
No way! Those clueless ones will argue convincingly that their cameras are defective.


Steve

10-16-2012, 01:00 PM   #39
Pentaxian
kh1234567890's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Manchester, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,406
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
No way! Those clueless ones will argue convincingly that their cameras are defective.


One thing that will be interesting to see will be whether there is any difference as far as purple fringing susceptibility goes.
10-17-2012, 04:52 AM   #40
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by hansenn Quote
Would pentax/ricoh take the risk making a useless camera?
In a recent Pentax interview from Japan (don't remember exactly), Pentax said that removing the Bayer-AA filter has become an option after there have been much less than anticipated complaints about color moiré and false colors. Both for the 645D and (reportedly) the Nikon D800E.

So, it is a common industry trend now to offer models w/o Bayer-AA filter. To reduce the support load, it will be for a few limited models only though.

It certainly makes sense for the D800E which delivers an image quality formerly only seen from an MF camera. For a 16MP camera? Not so much.

I do get color moiré from my D800E. In about 1-5% of cases where the subject allows for it (texture etc.). It doesn't bother me but it may bother others.

Last edited by falconeye; 10-23-2012 at 04:25 AM. Reason: deleted sample
10-17-2012, 05:29 AM   #41
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 9,201
QuoteOriginally posted by falconeye Quote
It certainly makes sense for the D800E which delivers an image quality formerly only seen from an MF camera. For a 16MP camera? Not so much.
But if it makes sense for a 36MP FF camera, it should make the same sense for a 16MP APS-C camera?!

The pixel pitch is the same, hence moiré will occur under the same circumstances. The higher enlargement factor required for an APS-C camera will make moiré slight more visible but often the moirč structures are so large that this factor does not make the crucial difference.

Personally, I think that 36MP (FF) are not enough yet to forgo the use of birefringent plates. As you know, the latter are a necessary part for any Bayer matrix sensor (until lenses become the resolution bottleneck, which they aren't yet).

Is it not adequate to regard the birefringent plates as the equivalent of a beam splitter in 3 sensor cameras? Any additional detail in an image from a K-5 IIs (vs K-5 II) could be argued to be figments of imagination by the demosaicing algorithm. Theoretically, there is real recoverable resolution (because unlike 3-sensor cameras with a beam splitter, the Bayer matrix sensels are spatially offset against each other), but how much of the created details is due to original subject detail vs invalidly "re-constructed" detail (c.f., artefacts from demosaicing algorithms) is an open question to me.

Is it not inadequate to use B&W resolution patterns to measure sensor resolution as if sensors did not have to resolve colour images in practice?

Is it not true that any loss in local contrast (there shouldn't be real resolution loss in colour images, if the birefringent plates aren't too strong in their effect) can be counteracted by capture sharpening?

Increasing noise with capture sharpening at the same time as one increases micro-contrast is a problem, but a) masking techniques can help with this (-> unsharp mask), and b) I'd rather deal with this then have some images affected by moiré. The latter kind of damage always requires dedicated manual repair and is often more challenging than applying capture sharpening.
10-17-2012, 07:34 AM   #42
Veteran Member
traderdrew's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Florida
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 570
QuoteOriginally posted by slip Quote
The small amount of sharpness over the stand model, can't you sharpen in K5II in PS or lightroom and get the same results?

of course it is all opinions, but all are welcomed!

randy
I have never used a camera without an AA filter. In my experience sharpening photos brings out the minor highlights in an image. You will also sharpen noise in a photo and that is why I denoise a photo first and sharpen it later but I am not always able to denoise all noise without losing detail.
10-17-2012, 08:28 AM   #43
Veteran Member
falconeye's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Munich, Alps, Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 6,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
But if it makes sense for a 36MP FF camera, it should make the same sense for a 16MP APS-C camera?!

The pixel pitch is the same ...

Personally, I think that 36MP (FF) are not enough yet to forgo the use of birefringent plates. ...

...

Is it not inadequate to use B&W resolution patterns to measure sensor resolution as if sensors did not have to resolve colour images in practice?
Class A, all you say is correct. But ...

wrt pixel pitch:

Pixel pitch isn't the crucial variable if it comes to equivalent cameras. It is MP really. You are right that the same lens on a K-5IIs and D800E would create the same moiré. But with the larger sensor, you can stop it down more and would have used another focal length in the first place. Video cameras with their 2MP have AA problems all the time while the D800E only has it occasionally. #MP really is what makes a diference here.

Personally, I consider a sub-100MP camera w/o Bayer-AA filter technically flawed which is and must be sold with a disclaimer.

The ommission of the Bayer-AA slightly improves many images and massively deteriorates a few. The exact balance depends on the #MP.


wrt B&W:

I think the way resolution of Bayer sensors is measured is accurate.

There is resolution in the luminance and the chrominance channels. The standard B&W resolution tests measure resolution in the luminance channel only (although not just B&W). Resolution in the chrominance channels should be measured but isn't. It would be much lower.

Still, the claims that Foveon or monochrome sensors w/o the Bayer filter have better resolution is a false one. Why? Because the human eye has a poor resolution in the chrominance channels too, i.e., it wouldn't be able to actually see if the resolution in the chrominance channels improved while the resolution in the luminance channel does not.

Accidentically, the Bayer sensor is a perfect match to the human eye.


wrt sharpening:

you are right and this is why a Bayer-AA filter is no issue in the studio. But if an image has been blurred already (btw much more likely with high MP), e.g., defocus, shake, motion, aberration, noise, then a Bayer-AA filter can remove image information which cannot be recovered via sharpening.
10-17-2012, 09:28 AM   #44
Veteran Member
froeschle's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Germany
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 552
QuoteQuote:
Pentax is first to leave the Bayer-AA out in a sub-20MP camera
Leica M9?
10-17-2012, 09:32 AM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by froeschle Quote
Leica M9?
The Q doesn't have one, right?
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, lightroom, model, photography, pp
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K5IIs sample? pinholecam Pentax News and Rumors 349 12-20-2012 12:00 PM
Official K5II and K5IIs sample is out with DA * lens PentaxSX Pentax News and Rumors 187 11-21-2012 07:03 PM
K5II and K5IIs samples scunning14 Pentax K-5 5 10-02-2012 03:42 PM
10 things to know about the K5II/K5IIs jpzk Pentax K-5 16 09-24-2012 05:33 AM
Would you risk buying a brand new K5 without warranty? vinceloc Pentax K-5 17 08-15-2012 03:14 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:12 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