Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
07-08-2014, 06:39 PM   #31
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,828
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
the "unique thing" Pentax is going to introduce with it's FF
But Sony is already doing it on FF with the A7r. And Pentax are already doing it on the 645Z. I don't think it is news or a big deal.

Unless I am reading the benefits of this technology entirely wrong, diffraction compensation might be buried somewhere as dot-point number 17 on a Pentax marketing brochure for FF, but won't be the sort of thing to sway buyers: 'Gee, the Pentax K-1 has diffraction compensation for selected lenses! I'm not going to buy a Nikon D610 now - I'll buy the Pentax!'.

07-08-2014, 07:31 PM   #32
Pentaxian
normhead's Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Near Algonquin Park
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 25,824
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
But Sony is already doing it on FF with the A7r. And Pentax are already doing it on the 645Z. I don't think it is news or a big deal.

Unless I am reading the benefits of this technology entirely wrong, diffraction compensation might be buried somewhere as dot-point number 17 on a Pentax marketing brochure for FF, but won't be the sort of thing to sway buyers: 'Gee, the Pentax K-1 has diffraction compensation for selected lenses! I'm not going to buy a Nikon D610 now - I'll buy the Pentax!'.
If it's simply sharpening yes, if it actually better defines diffraction softened objects, it could be major.
07-09-2014, 09:22 PM   #33
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
Its conclusive, Pentax diffraction compensation is as I suggested, simply sharpening the image using a well know and used algorithm such as unsharp mask.


Quote -


The main new feature introduced via this firmware update (for k3) is Diffraction Correction, an addition to the K-3's existing suite of Lens Correction options. This feature was originally introduced in the Pentax 645Z. Diffraction correction attempts to compensate for the degradation in image quality that occurs at small aperture settings, such as F11 or F16. Like the other Lens Correction settings, diffraction correction only applies to JPEG files and it is only available with Pentax DA, DA L, D-FA, and FA Limited lenses.
Note that on the Pentax K-3, the diffraction correction option is only accessible via the first tab of the main menu; it is not being added to the "control panel" quick-access screen as on the 645Z.
After performing some quick image tests, we discovered that the effect of this new feature is essentially an unsharp mask (a sharpening algorithm).
07-09-2014, 09:53 PM   #34
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,828
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
Its conclusive, Pentax diffraction compensation is as I suggested, simply sharpening the image using a well know and used algorithm such as unsharp mask.
Maybe. But one should be able to test 'simple' USM vs deconvolution sharpening, to see what is at work with the Pentax solution.

Could be done by shooting in RAW+ at f16-f22 eg a newpaper page or another suitable subject, then processing the RAW using (a) normal USM sharpening, as seen in Lightroom or DxO; and (b) a deconvolution tool like Focus Magic or Topaz InFocus or AstraImage, and then comparing (a) and (b) with what the in-camera JPG looks like when diffraction compensation is turned on ... Maybe when I have the time I'll do some comparisons like that.


Last edited by rawr; 07-09-2014 at 10:45 PM.
07-10-2014, 12:37 AM   #35
Pentaxian
Digitalis's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Adelaide.
Posts: 8,795
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
Its conclusive, Pentax diffraction compensation is as I suggested, simply sharpening the image using a well know and used algorithm such as unsharp mask.
I f*cking said so. The sad part is that it is also affecting RAW files as well.
07-10-2014, 01:24 AM   #36
Pentaxian




Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: GMT +10
Photos: Albums
Posts: 10,828
QuoteOriginally posted by Digitalis Quote
The sad part is that it is also affecting RAW files as well.
Perhaps not. As I understand them, the PDF notes issued with the firmware update, seem to relate mainly to the in-camera processing of images. They say:

'Diffraction Correction is not on RAW Development items.
(Setting is reflected when shooting image but it cannot be changed)'

which I take to mean that diffraction correction is both (1) not available on the in-camera RAW development menu options, and (2) diffraction correction shows up on the review screen when shooting an image because the image displayed is the JPG preview baked into all RAW's, not the state of the actual RAW.

The fact that the notes also say that the corrections don't apply if the lenses aren't Pentax, or if a teleconverter is used, also strongly suggests to me that diffraction correction isn't applied to RAW's automatically, but is only an option.

It will be interesting to see what new fields show up in the K-3 EXIF that relate to this function once EXIFTOOL has been updated.
07-10-2014, 01:44 PM   #37
Site Supporter
Stone G.'s Avatar

Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: North Zealand, Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,516
Original Poster
Some First Examples

I won't discuss the value, if any, of this upgrade. Just curious to see the effect of this "compensation-on-demand". As others have pointed out, this doesn't change the raw files; it only works in-camera and only for Pentax lenses that the camera will reckognize.

Here's my test target: A folding curtain some 3 meters away. AA-filter simulation was turned off with these images (in fact, I don't think I ever have it on):


Test Target (Downsized DA 18-135 @ 135mm full image)

Then some 100% non-resized comparisons with Compensation off to the left and on to the right. First my DA*200 lens:


Pentax-DA* @ f/22

Not much of a difference to my old eyes and no need to show comparisons at larger apertures. Quite different with the DA 18-135 lens:


Pentax-DA 18-135 lens@ 135mm and f/5.6


Pentax-DA 18-135 lens@ 135mm and f/11


Pentax-DA 18-135 lens@ 135mm and f/22


Pentax-DA 18-135 lens@ 135mm and f/32

You may judge for yourself, but there is an effect and it does somehow seem to differentiate between different lenses at sam f-number.
07-10-2014, 02:31 PM   #38
Pentaxian
Na Horuk's Avatar

Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Slovenia, probably
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 10,863
QuoteOriginally posted by Stone G. Quote
You may judge for yourself, but there is an effect and it does somehow seem to differentiate between different lenses at sam f-number.
Yeah, its not super advanced deconvolution, but it is lens-specific sharpening profiles, which is still better than a one-size-fits-all sharpening solution. I didn't notice and odd artefacts caused by this feature, so its probably ok for the jpeg-shooters.

07-12-2014, 09:31 AM   #39
Veteran Member
Imageman's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2013
Photos: Albums
Posts: 461
The fact is its an unsharp mask however you slice it.


Manufacturers are businessmen and they are not in the business of pushing boundries unless theres a lot of profit in it. This was never going to be anything other than a simple cheap sharpening which any competent photographer who can sharpen in post processing can do already and doesn't need.


Its for jpeg shooters who never sharpen or do anything, its for holiday snaps, and its a marketing exercise so as not to miss out on the latest wrinkle that the competitors offer.


Its about looking good in the shop so the salesmen have something else to show customers and its about keeping market share at zero or little cost to the manufacturer.


Don't assume Pentax want to push boundaries in research and development. make no mistake, if Pentax could make more money selling 6 megapixel point and shoots instead of dSLRs with all their associated tooling and research plus lens design plus accessories, they would drop dSLR production faster that a dog drops a bone.


Profit and cheap production is all that matters.


Ive said as much all along.
07-12-2014, 09:51 AM   #40
Site Supporter




Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Michigan
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,180
QuoteOriginally posted by Imageman Quote
The fact is its an unsharp mask however you slice it.
But what else could it be?
07-14-2014, 12:39 AM   #41
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: Pasadena, CA
Photos: Albums
Posts: 1,117
I wonder if they might be limited by processing power on board of a camera. The idea of using deconvolution for sharpening is simple and is used by many camera manufacturers - at least those that also produce microscopes.
07-18-2014, 01:54 PM   #42
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
For this diffraction thing, if it is possible at high computationnal cost to do a good algorithm, well it might be far easier than you think to do. Provided the model work, the embedded camera engines use specialized hardware, they can work like a grapphic card, doing thousand of operation in parallel and being very specialized. So more or less for a specialized task they can do it far faster than a full PC... And a specialized hardware is not that costly once you produce it in large quantity and have you R&D done. I mean this would not cost more than today specialized chips.

The question is for now, is it worth it? No we agree, this is just a sharpening mask. After all, if you know you gear you avoid shooting past f/11 most of the time anyway.


But the day we start to have 50-100MP APSC sensors where the diffraction will be visible at f/5.6 or even f/4, this might be worth to do it... And this will also be bundled in raw processing software like DxO or Lightroom.
07-18-2014, 06:15 PM   #43
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2011
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,735
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote
But the day we start to have 50-100MP APSC sensors where the diffraction will be visible at f/5.6 or even f/4, this might be worth to do it.
Pentax is already there with the Q!
07-18-2014, 06:20 PM   #44
Pentaxian




Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Savannah, GA
Posts: 5,002
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Pentax is already there with the Q!
Yup...
07-23-2014, 12:22 AM   #45
Pentaxian




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,703
QuoteOriginally posted by lytrytyr Quote
Pentax is already there with the Q!

Yes with the Q you should shoot at f/4 max instead of f/11 max. I don't know if all Q lens can do that with optimal quality but the crop factor allow this f/4 to have a good enough deph of field. The problem is more on the opposite.... Where are the f/1 lenses? and f/0.7 lenses to get shallow deph of field?
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!
645z, apertures, automated, camera, compensation, diffraction, diffraction compensation, dollars, dslr, focus, image, images, olympus, pentax, photography, technology
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rumoured K-3 f/w update: diffraction correction and mirror flap improvement JPT Pentax K-3 42 07-11-2014 10:34 AM
Flash Compensation, Overall Compensation and Ambient Lights Rashedul Flashes, Lighting, and Studio 3 01-11-2013 04:19 PM
Diffraction and our Q hnikesch Pentax Q 17 12-05-2012 10:59 PM
Hyperfocus and diffraction help. ladybug Troubleshooting and Beginner Help 14 05-13-2012 05:05 PM
Exposure compensation..umm what? Raptorman Pentax DSLR Discussion 14 01-18-2010 12:33 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:04 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