|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 04:57 PM
|
| |
What I find interesting about that is that the K-5 has often been hailed as having better high ISO RAW performance than the K-3... but it's been shown by members here that noise reduction started earlier on the K-5 than with the K-3. Yet we still have people who prefer the K-5's high ISO output. I'm not trying to make any point here, other than this has been going on for some time in one form or another...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 04:42 PM
|
| |
I'm sure it'll take some time to find a way to process K-1II images across a range of subjects and ISO levels to consistently get the best results - just as it does with any camera (the original K-1 included). Sadly, I don't have time to go through the test images for every ISO on both the K-1 and K-1II, but the take-away for me - from processing that one isolated image - is that the optimal post-processing approach is almost certainly slightly different for each camera. Comparing output without taking into account their differences in post-processing doesn't do either of them justice, IMHO.
Agreed. But during processing I noticed that the K-1II files had more head-room for further colour and luminance noise reduction without losing colour reproduction and detail. Lose on one hand, gain on the other. There are undoubtedly benefits to the K-1II's RAW image processing, but there's a small price to pay for those too. The question each photographer will have to ask themselves is whether the benefits outweigh the cost, and that's going to be highly subjective...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 03:16 PM
|
| |
Very useful!
I notice there are Windows and Mac versions, but not Linux... I wonder if it'll run under WINE? Well, I guess there's only one way to find out :p
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 11:17 AM
|
| |
We were :p The point I was making is, while @MJKoski and I might disagree over the extent of any IQ issue caused by the accelerator, I agree with him that the effects can be seen in certain circumstances. But my view is, there are more positives than negatives from the accelerator's processing (see his recent long exposure post for an example of the positives).
Yes, I've noticed that too. In the "magenta coat" example I posted earlier in this thread, after my detail recovery post-processing on the K-1II file, the K-1 still looked just a tiny bit better in places, while the K-1II looked better in others.
As you say, we're mostly discussing subtleties here that really have no significance for the vast majority of photographers.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 09:44 AM
|
| |
Thanks for this :) I've kept meaning to try RAW-Digger in the past, but the learning curve has always put me off. I guess I should download it and give it a go.
I can certainly believe there's something going on... whether it's sharpening, an increase in clarity, or something else, I don't know... but I can see what you were getting at.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 09:38 AM
|
| |
In fairness, I can see evidence of the minor detail "loss" he describes. I say "loss" in quotes because, having played with the studio test shot files in Darktable (and as I showed further up in this never-ending thread), I believe it's mostly recoverable in post-processing if required :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 08:59 AM
|
| |
@MJKoski clearly thought it did, and I'll admit that when looking at RAW files in Darktable, it seems like there may be very subtle sharpening applied. But I've heard (though not verified) that Lenstip's review says otherwise. Frankly, I don't know who's correct and who isn't...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 08:42 AM
|
| |
There's no doubt that the accelerator works differently than Lightroom's default processing in terms of detail - including noise reduction, resultant softening, and sharpening. Whether that can be considered "damage" or not depends on the individual photographer's priorities.
I'm surprised that Lightroom's demosaicing doesn't show up in the flat TIFF and RAW-Digger comparison... or does it?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 04:09 AM
|
| |
And I yours :)
Then my post was very poorly worded :o
I certainly didn't mean to imply that people enjoy complaining for the sake of it, nor that there's never cause for complaint. What I meant was, some people are extremely critical about IQ (and other) issues that have little to no real-world impact on their shooting, and will always find something they are unhappy with as they're looking for absolute perfection when it doesn't exist. My point is, the complaints of many are way out of proportion to the extent of the issue(s). There are, of course, some highly-demanding photographers for whom such issues can and do make a genuine difference beyond test charts, and they've every reason to complain if that's the case.
Regarding Sony's lossy compression, I was one of the "complainers" (albeit a silent one). It impacted several of my photos - primarily those that were heavily cropped - and there's no way around it in terms of shooting or post-processing technique (at least, none that retains sufficient sharpness and detail). It's a consideration when I'm shooting my Hasselblad HV, as there's no firmware update to address it. However, I updated my A7 MkII with the lossless uncompressed RAW capability, and that's the file type I choose to shoot with on that camera. But if you read through the various Sony forums, it's interesting to see that some users who were rather vocal on the issue reverted to lossy compressed RAW because of the smaller file sizes, or simply shifted their complaints to the size of lossless uncompressed files. When file size is deemed more important than image quality, I question how much of a priority IQ really was to those particular users in the first place. Their complaints were out of proportion to the extent of the issue, at least with regard to their own shooting.
With the K-1II's mandatory noise reduction, I expect there will be some people who don't care so long as their images look good. Then, there'll be some who object (in some cases, strongly and continually) to the noise reduction, but it won't actually impact their photos unless they sit 30cm from the screen and view at 100% reproduction. Finally, there will be a very small few for whom it really could impact their work in some isolated situations. Even within that final group, I'd suggest a portion of those users will be able to reduce the impact through post-processing techniques to the point where it's quite insignificant. That said, I still believe the noise reduction should be selectable, and I hope Ricoh considers this in future models.
Hopefully I did a better job of explaining myself this time! :o
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-07-2018, 03:40 AM
|
| |
It's reasonable that DPR uses Lightroom for testing and comparisons, since it's the most popular RAW development tool. Most people probably don't want to see what a file looks like in Darktable with all tone and detail-related processing switched off. It simply won't mean anything to them, and would be terrifying for some as the files look extremely flat, noisy and soft. Lightroom, with its default processing, at least shows something that looks like a real photograph. The problem is, it doesn't truly represent the output from the camera, and a lot of folks don't understand that...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-06-2018, 11:58 AM
|
| |
A similar thing happened in the Sony user community. For the longest time, people complained profusely about the lossy compression in RAW files which causes high contrast edge artefacts that can be seen when pixel-peeping. Then, when Sony finally offered lossless uncompressed RAW capability via a firmware update, everyone installed it and realised the file sizes were much, much bigger. That was enough to convince most users to go back to shooting lossy compressed RAW... and gave the complainers something else to moan about :o
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-04-2018, 01:07 PM
|
| |
I agree, and I'd typically defend Ricoh / Pentax in marketing at whatever level it deems appropriate to achieve the required business goals (as opposed to what we think it should do)... But this is one situation that could certainly have been managed better. Having a representative available for in-store demos and questions isn't the same as professionally co-ordinated pre- and post-release marketing communications and reviewer resources via multiple delivery channels.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 02:28 PM
|
| |
I hope you're wrong, but I've a suspicion you may be right.
I'm rarely quite this negative, but I feel that both Ricoh themselves and DPR have a lot to answer for with respect to the (potential) damage done. I'm hoping that over time, as K-1II owners post their photos, people will realise just how good it is and get over the almost-non-issue of so-called "loss of detail". I believe it's so minor as to be inconsequential in most applications, and more than offset by the improved noise levels - especially if users spend a little time to learn how to get the best from the RAW files (it took me just one morning to achieve a huge and repeatable improvement in detail).
I especially hope this doesn't put a dent in Ricoh's sales forecasts and subsequent profit expectations for the Imaging division, as that could have wider-ranging impact. In all honesty, that's my biggest concern.
On a selfish level, if the damage really has been done and the K-1II truly is doomed, once the resulting discounts kick in this might be my route into Pentax full-frame... I would be delighted to own and use the K-1II. But, while that might be to my personal short-term benefit, I genuinely hope that's not where we're headed. This has been blown out of all proportion... I think the K-1II is capable of great things, and I'd like to believe people will begin to realise that as they see users' photos.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 09:32 AM
|
| |
I'd have to agree, although I think it should have been managed globally rather than with a focus on the USA.
As it is, there's been quite a lot of negativity surrounding the K-1II, and the sad part if that it's largely unwarranted. There's much to like and recommend about the camera... but it'll forever be defined by the DPR review, and that's a real shame.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-03-2018, 03:17 AM
|
| |
Based on my post-processing experiments, I'd summarise as follows:
- The K-1 offers the best detail of the two, but does so with a certain amount of chroma and luminance noise which can be intrusive at higher ISO levels
- The K-1II offers the best noise profile, and provides more headroom for further colour noise reduction in post-processing - but does so at the expense of some very fine detail
- Getting the best from both cameras requires a different approach to post-processing - for the K-1, it's all about noise reduction; for the K-1II, it's bringing out hidden detail
- With post-processing, it's possible to bring the output from both cameras to a very similar level... but the K-1 still has a slight detail advantage, while the K-1II still has a noise advantage
In terms of "class leading IQ", that's subjective and depends on the photographer's priorities - detail, noise, dynamic range, colour depth, ISO invariance, RAW artefacts, sensor artefacts, etc. It seems there's not a single DSLR or mirrorless camera that's class-leading in every one of those areas. For those who prioritise dynamic range and high(er) ISO noise performance, the K-1II probably is class-leading - but it's not the best in every area, and neither are any of its competitors.
The lens issue has been resolved (so far as it can be) for K-1 vs K-1II comparisons, I think, but not with respect to other brand offerings. I can't see how that can be addressed, though, as you'd need to use the exact same model of lens on every camera body. Even if you could find such a lens produced in (or adaptable for) every mount, there's still copy variation to take into account.
The capabilities of the RAW development software and the person using it will have a very significant impact on the final result. It's reasonable that DPReview uses Lightroom, since that's the most popular tool... but it's not necessarily the best tool for every camera's output, nor in every situation...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 01:55 PM
|
| |
Hey, that's a thought... Maybe Ricoh could offer a board upgrade for the K-1II that adds more noise :lol:
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 01:28 PM
|
| |
Indeed. And by the time you add just enough NR to the K-1 files to get a similar noise profile to the K-1II, the detail loss is - if not exactly the same - very similar. For those who value lower noise right out of the camera, the K-1II looks like a great choice. It's all about individual priorities.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 12:57 PM
|
| |
I'm glad it's of interest, Chris. Many thanks for the kind words :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 12:52 PM
|
| |
Understood. Just bear in mind that if you want to recover the loss of detail people are talking about in the K-1II files, you'll still need to perform chroma noise reduction as I demonstrated above, or apply some other technique.
In fact, I like the output from both the K-1 and K-1II for slightly different reasons. Initially, I was convinced by the K-1II, but my first processing attempts on the K-1 files were giving me better results, so I switched to a slight preference for that model. However, now that I'm getting to grips with processing of K-1II files, I'd be equally happy with either camera. The differences are tiny, though there are very slight advantages and disadvantages to both in terms of IQ, IMHO. But the K-1II also has improved AF (from what I've read) and hand-held pixel shift, which is pretty neat - and I rather like the noise reduction, though I'd prefer if it was possible to switch it off if desired.
This is all pretty academic for me, as I won't be moving to Pentax for my full-frame needs in the foreseeable future - but I'm sure I'll make the jump one day :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 08:46 AM
|
| |
Comparing between the two demosaicing algorithms in Darktable, they brought out equal amounts of detail on this test shot.
Generally, I prefer VNG4 because it produces less obvious artefacts. AMaZE can result in a slight "digital grain" to solid colour and grey areas, so whilst it may resolve details slightly better in some circumstances, there's a trade-off.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 08:43 AM
|
| |
But that's the case with any image file, whether it comes from the K-1, K-1II or any other camera. By applying this processing as a preset (or, as I implied, a series of ISO-specific presets), you're just getting the image(s) to a good starting point.
You could choose not to apply default presets to any image batches, in which case those from the K-1 will have a tiny bit more detail but more chroma and luminance noise. Conversely, those from the K-1II will have a tiny bit less detail, and less noise...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 07:53 AM
|
| |
Switching off *all* processing in Darktable except for white balance (so not even loading a base curve) results in the following histograms - first the K-1, followed by the K-1II... there are indeed minor differences.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 06:30 AM
|
| |
You're welcome :)
And now, here's the good news. I've been working with the ISO 6400 K-1II image in Darktable for a couple of hours, and it seems to respond rather well to additional processing, such that detail can actually be recovered (or, more accurately, emphasised - as it doesn't seem to have been lost in the first place).
Here's a crop of the K-1II image with no processing options applied except for VNG4 demosaicing, base curve and white balance:
Note how the magenta coat looks smudged and lacking in detail.
Here's the same file but with chroma noise reduction and edge boosting using Darktable's "Equalizer" module, plus a little extra sharpening at low radius:
Notice how the magenta coat now shows considerably more detail and less smudging than in the first crop? Believe it or not, it's chroma noise reduction that is primarily responsible for bringing out that detail. The extra sharpening just gives it a final lift.
For comparison, here's the original K-1 image, with chroma and luminance noise reduction added to approximately match the K-1II's out-of-camera noise levels:
I'd still say there is just the tiniest bit of extra detail in the original K-1's file, but it's inconsequential IMHO.
Now, as I mentioned, this processing was carried out in Darktable. I'm not sure what other RAW development tools are capable of, and I no longer have Windows 10 and Lightroom installed, so I can't test that. But at least we can say that with appropriate RAW development software, it seems there's more detail in the K-1II's images than is apparent in DPR's test shots :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 01:47 AM
|
| |
Yes, that's where it's most noticeable. But I'd also mention that I had to look over the test scene shots in detail to find just one or two isolated areas where the NR has had any negative impact - and this is at pixel-peeping levels.
If you look at my comparison using Darktable, though, you might feel that the K-1II image looks slightly more detailed than in DPR's comparison tool. It's still not quite as good as the K-1, but the detail loss isn't as pronounced. I suspect that's a result of software-specific demosaicing and default processing. It's very clear that Lightroom applies some degree of noise reduction (both colour and luminance) even if you set those sliders to zero in the Develop module. Darktable doesn't do that - or, if it does, it's less heavy-handed about it. The downside is that images look much noisier when they're imported, but the user has more control to apply the most appropriate noise reduction and other "base processing" techniques...
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
06-02-2018, 12:31 AM
|
| |
Norm, did you see my slightly earlier message?
DPR's K1ii Re-shoot is up: Score now 80% - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com
That was a comparison between the raw K-1II image with no additional NR, and the raw K-1 image processed to approximately the same level of luminance and colour noise. To my eyes, the processed K-1 looks slightly more detailed in the magenta and red areas. The software I used was Darktable, set to VNG4 demosaicing (it looks very similar using AMaZE). I can go through the processing options applied if you like.
I'm not trying to make the K-1II out as "the bad guy"... Based on the test shots I've scene, the image quality is excellent. All I'm saying is that in examining higher-ISO captures of that test scene, the K-1II loses a tiny amount of detail in isolated areas due to in-camera noise reduction, and that the equivalent K-1 files can be cleaned up in post to a slightly higher standard.
If you want me to try any other post processing and post further crops, I'd be happy to. Let me know what you'd like to see :)
|
