[normhead]

John, I'm seeing in yours are jaggies caused by at least 200% magnification. Now you're dealing with enlarging algorithms that have little to do with the original image.

[mikeodial]

I assume from all the discussion here it is still not clear that the final output from the PS will have the option of being a file type (or files) other than jpg? Ideally a RAW or DNG would be good for me.

[JohnBee]

John, I'm seeing in yours are jaggies caused by at least 200% magnification. Now you're dealing with enlarging algorithms that have little to do with the original image.

No sure I follow. Though I'd add that the halo's are typical of sharpening. Which is/was likely applied in part of OOC JPG processing. That said, it may be quite possible to turn this feature off with in camera controls or settings. However, the possibility that this may be the result of the image stacking function remains. Of which we'll find out soon enough, if the system can generate RAW images. - Looking forward to more info.

---------- Post added 04-26-15 at 11:32 AM ----------

Answered my own question:



From the flower photo. I would suggest that the artifact is not evidence of any attempt to overstate the capabilities of the PS system. Bring on the TIFFs


Steve

Looks like classic sharpening artifacts to me.
-

[johnmflores]

You would think that by now Ricoh Pentax would know that samples released into the wild will be ruthlessly examined by folks here and elsewhere on the Internets.

[normhead]

I have been continuously amazed when going back and reverting to originals how often what are assumed to be artifacts of PP are actually present in the raw image. At times they are even lighting effects. But as a general rule of thumb, you can clearly see 100 dpi, so if you have to amplify artifacts to see them, I don't worry about them much. If there's one thing I've noticed over time, people who see halos and artifacts everywhere aren't to be trusted. They can cost you a lot of time, trying to get rid of "artifacts" that are either lighting effects, or lens/sensor artifacts. I've encountered so many "halos" that are just there in the raw, that I've even started picking them out when shooting. Not every halo is an artifact. I've actually been standing on a beach taking sunset images with Tess and turned to her and said "look at that halo, the critics are going to claim that's an artifact."

[JohnBee]

I have been continuously amazed ... as a general rule of thumb... people who see halos and artifacts everywhere aren't to be trusted.

I prefer to steer clear of such generalizations myself. ie, in cases where people inevitably take part in post processing large prints(such as indicated in my initial post), the identification of post processing artifacts become rather commonplace. And so, with this in mind, I'd add that the image characteristics produced by this technology will no doubt appeal to particular markets.

That said, I'd also remind you that this wouldn't likely affect anyone making use of perceptual viewing and/or printing as the need for clean images remains quite specific. - tolerance

PS. I sense a measure of protective resentment toward this as few(including yourself) seem interested in acknowledging the initial context from which the criticism was presented in. Though it remains that there are plenty of people who are qualified to justify the use of clean images without such sensitivities. Which is a fact that remains irregardless of branding or camera model. - However, in spite of this, my own interests are specific to Richo's new FF system and the type of image it could produce using this tech. Of which, could prove to be quite valuable in my own case as it could eliminate the need for software solutions and the time and efforts required to use them.


-

[audiobomber]

The file shows in-camera conversion with sharpness set to +1. If there are halos, the added sharpening would seem to be the obvious cause. Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn about halos visible at 200%, the images look glorious.

[stevebrot]

I assume from all the discussion here it is still not clear that the final output from the PS will have the option of being a file type (or files) other than jpg? Ideally a RAW or DNG would be good for me.

The documentation on the Web site indicates in-camera conversion from RAW.


Steve

[JohnBee]

i just thought about the 645Z, if they couple these tech with the 50mp...

The would likely produce some "good god" type output

The documentation on the Web site indicates in-camera conversion from RAW.Steve

Excellent observation. Now even more excitement, waiting for RAW samples!

-

[mikeodial]

The documentation on the Web site indicates in-camera conversion from RAW.


Steve

Yes, I got that part, but my question will be is it a RAW file we get to edit after it's been processed in camera.

[monochrome]

The electromagnetic pulses from IBIS on a cropped 645 sensor could take down the global communication system.

[Weevil]

Wondering if pixel shifting would be really useful in wildlife photography... birds are seldom static...

[JohnBee]

Wondering if pixel shifting would be really useful in wildlife photography... birds are seldom static...

Speaking from software experience, I'd add that it has not proven useful in this way for me. ie, the limitations seem to revolve around motion between frames. Such as when taking landscape images, if the range of motion between frames is too large(ex; grass or tree branches in the wind), the software will drop the interpolation in favour of the sharpest sample(chosen). And so, in many cases, the final image will exhibit areas or sections that are made-up of of native resolutions as a result of this.

That said, I'd also add that if and when the software can hit home, that the results are nothing short of spectacular. And so I'd say there's that to consider also.

In my own experience, I've made good use of this tech. with people portraits, still life photography, macro and landscapes. Of which has been in part of my own efforts to curb the MF urge that I've been fighting over the years.

[stevebrot]

Which is/was likely applied in part of OOC JPG processing.

John...are you saying that Ricoh is lying? The documentation says in-camera. The non-pixel shifted images show similar artifact, and a comment above indicates similar artifact from a user's K-3. Given the general quality of in-camera conversion, I find that entirely plausible.

John, I'm seeing in yours are jaggies caused by at least 200% magnification.

I don't give a damn about halos visible at 200%, the images look glorious.

John's example is at least 800% enlargement.

I sense a measure of protective resentment...

Do tell. I sensed no such resentment except for a few statements dismissing the halos as inconsequential. As for myself, I have no skin in the game.

Though it remains that there are plenty of people who are qualified to justify the use of clean images without such sensitivities.

I am not sure that I follow you here. "Clean" images are hard to come by for RAW captures. My take on the use of in-camera JPEG is the intent to show the level of default (worst case) performance without user-mediated PP. In other words, these are the kind of results a reasonably careful noob can expect.

I would expect that there will be plenty of review once the camera actually ships where DNG will be available for download. At that time I am confident that there will be many "qualified" people evaluating "clean" images and also many competent evaluations of the feature.


Steve

[kadajawi]

Guys, my point was that there is definitely some sharpening going on, which may explain why it looks that sharp. I want to see the actual resolution that PS brings, if possible compared to a normal photo. You can always make it look sharper in post, but how much detail is REALLY captured? For that a completely sharpening free photo would be beneficial. That is all.

The amount of sharpening added by the camera seems reasonable to me, I might do the same. But yeah, how sharp is the actual photo? It looks sharp, but I'd expect a non PS photo with a bit of sharpening applied to look similarly sharp.

Oh yeah, and I saw the halos at 1:1 in my browser on my screen. Not sure how they can be missed...