Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Showing results 1 to 25 of 55 Search: Liked Posts
Forum: Pentax K-1 05-13-2020, 11:43 AM  
Astronomik Clip-Filter for Pentax K-1
Posted By pcrichmond
Replies: 23
Views: 1,319
@MJKoski, curious what f-stop did you use?
I know some lenses produce hotspots differently at various aperture, not sure about sun flare.
Also, the whole point of the clip in filter is to eliminate color shifts on the side of UWA lenses.
35mm isn't really wide, so would be curious to see if this is a result of the lens, the aperture or if it is how this filter actually handles side light.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-12-2020, 06:56 AM  
PixelShift to DNG/LibRaw LLC
Posted By MJKoski
Replies: 82
Views: 2,769
Lightroom failed two times and got fixed two times. First fail happened at the release of K-1 MK1 and 2nd at the release of MK2.

Lightroom still cannot handle motion is PS image but othwerwise it is my primary PS processing platform. Sometimes I mask in extra details to non-PS image, sometimes if time allows I spend some more time with RT.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-11-2020, 11:08 PM  
PixelShift to DNG/LibRaw LLC
Posted By BruceBanner
Replies: 82
Views: 2,769
It's definitely doing something, and its definitely marketed towards Pentax users. If you cannot see the differences I speak of in the above examples I would suggest you do some more testing. The issue for me is two things;

1) Motion Correction. Relying on the cameras built in Motion Correction rather than using RawTherapee's better clean up job makes me feel the PS2DNG is only suitable for scenarios where movement has not come into play, such as still life work.

2) Is a PS2DNG any better or equal to using say silkypix or RawTherapee to process the Pixelshifted DNG file (regardless of motion)? I see some advantages in processing a pixelshift file as a DNG vs Tiff, but that might not be important to some.

Thus far I can absolutely confirm from ONE test that the 75mb PS2DNG file is superior to the single frame regular normal DNG file in terms of pixelshift advantages, but it might be a scale, and that DCU5/Silkypix/RT do it better.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 04-11-2020, 08:18 PM  
PixelShift to DNG/LibRaw LLC
Posted By BruceBanner
Replies: 82
Views: 2,769
This is where I get a bit confused because my head thinks of DNG as being RAW still.

In essence how is a program that is merging 4 DNG files together in pixelshift fashion to spitting out a DNG vs RT that takes 4 DNG files and merges to spitting out a Tiff any better? In this instance isn't it more of a case of different containers for the RAW data? Is there any such thing as a pixelshifted RAW file? It seems to get one to work with in the first place means having 4 RAW files, to combine the 4 RAW files (either in camera like Pentax does) or through a program like RT immediately moves away from 'RAW' in the purest sense as its a merge be it DNG output (PS2DNG) or Tiff.

Would it be better to think of Pixelshift as a bracketed shot. Pentax simply bundles the RAW files together to making one RAW file (which you can split in DCU5 I think and RT at least?), as long as you stitch the images together (like Super Resolution) you gain the benefits of the process but have now begun to move away from RAW by doing so (like a HDR Merge of bracketed shots...)?

Anyway...

Here's my preliminary findings anyway that I thought I would share;

A pixelshifted file, starting as 144mb and using PS2DNG (PixelShift to DNG) to generate a single 75mb DNG file


A secondary non related non pixelshifted shot taken at the same time with as close to exact settings used for the pixelshifted shot as possible (i.e. it is not just one of the frames from the pixelshifted shot above but an actual separate shot taken).


I don't expect you to see much difference here in forum so you should be able to click the files and zoom in a bit more.

For treatment in PP I Autosynced the files in LR and used Auto Settings to bring exposures to being more balanced (I learned later however that the Auto Settings in this instance gave the files slightly different values, more on this later). I then also increased Sharpening to both files to being;

Amount: 100 (default is 40)
Radius: 1.5
Detail: 30
Masking: 0

The reason I do this additional sharpening has been in due to past experience of seeing lower noise brought into the image when increasing sharpening vs doing the same with a non pixelshifted shot.

Here is a screenshot of the two files compared at 1:1 magnification, the pixelshifted shot from PS2DNG on the right (file has a '(1)' in brackets);



I've circled red some areas that I think show an improvement on the PS2DNG file vs native. I think the purple textured brick and the red musical note brick show increased clarity and sharpness, I'm also seeing less noise in the shadows.

You might be able to inspect a bit better from these shots;

PS2DNG version;


native version;


Once I realised that the native dng file was given slightly different Auto Settings to the PS2DNG file I went about changing those values to match the exact same values as seen in the PS2DNG file. I didn't notice a substantial difference to make things any different on the above scenarios.

I then decided to push shadows to the max and compare how they looked, here's a screen grab (again PS2DNG file on the right);


I circled red again on the area that I feel the PS2DNG was doing better. Not only was the shadow area cleaner in noise, it seemed to have more detail, less backs (could see more).

I inspected another area of the image, this time some different colours;



Again I was seeing an improvement in the shadows, the left native image showing deeper blacks vs the PS2DNG showing lighter brighter shadows with less noise, increased perceived sharpness and details. I was also noticed the oof areas seemed much cleaner and I think this is where pixelshift can really excel. It's one thing to push sharp things sharper and have some noise come into the image, but often noise in bokeh is quite unpleasant. It can be fine, if it's a high quality noise such as authentic grain or well handled PP grain added, but typically smooth noiseless bokeh is generally welcomed and it seems again the PS2DNG does a better job in this regard.

Apologies for not uploading those parts in higher res for inspecting closer.


Summary

At this point in time the PS2DNG is seemingly doing something better than the native file can, how much better I'm not really sure, and if it's better than using RT or dcraw to generate a Tiff to play with is still not known to me at this point in time.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 07-12-2019, 01:23 AM  
PENTAX KP IR online
Posted By Medex
Replies: 79
Views: 9,393
Today there are lot of possibilities to convert digital cameras to IR spectrum. I do not see any real problems to sell IR-dedicated cameras for customers. I have 2 converted Pentax DSLRs and use them quite often for landscapes and even portraiture. No real visibility of women's underwear :))))

P.S. This KP IR camera is not infrared only, according to description, it is Full spectrum. For IR spectrum you should use external filter. So, really, nothing special - hot mirror is replaced by clear glass filter (for refraction purposes).
Forum: Pentax K-1 03-10-2019, 01:18 AM  
Results from a really repeatable AF.C test (no Pentax inlcuded) as reference
Posted By beholder3
Replies: 14
Views: 1,997
This is just to re-add the images that had gone missing from the starting post.


The German photo magazine "C't Digitale Fotografie" in issue 02/2016 had the only autofocus test procedure I have ever (!) seen which is repeatable, well documented and to be taken seriously.
Quite a contrast to the clown show at dpreview.

I just provide the results here to provide some facts versus the fanboy claims of "brand x nails every shot" level.

The magazine spent two full pages to document their test setup and methodology and measuring, which I am far to lazy to repeat here.
The shot about 3,900 images in total!

Setup in short:
  • They set up a white beamer canvas against which a beamer projected images of a small flash program which displayed either a swallow or a female face and these were moving at a predefined speed across the image.

  • The camera was sideways to the canvas and shot the image from a 30 degree angle (the subject images were electronically distorted to provide a normal look from 30 degrees).

3 Test scenarios for all cameras:
  1. Tracking
    The camera on a tripod was zoomed to cover the whole image area with AF points. A bird (black and white with extra contrast marker) and also a face (much softer contrasts) image flew across the canvas from edge to edge (remember the edges are in different distances). The lens was manually set to middle distance at start.

  2. Follow focus center AF point
    Same bird, but now the camera was set on a swivel panoramic head and a user turned the camera to keep the subject under the AF point. So the camera just had to adjust z-axis

  3. Focus with obstacle
    A little real life plant was set in the middle between the canvas and the camera. A face moved from left to right over the screen (thus was hidden briefly by the plant), while the camera was panning, following the face. Just the type of scenario you set your Pentax AF hold parameter to "high" for.

"Sharpness" evaluation criteria:
They did not even rely on human arbitrary judgementto call an image "sharp", they used an automated analysis of the structured canvas and beamer signal creating moire where the focus area was sufficiently sharp (they looked at contrast curves. I can not really explain how they look, but it is extremely obvious where the focus was) . Their criteria were possible due to the fact that by using the angled canvas approach their target subject always showed some depth and it was not just a flat object which appeared sharp or not.

  • "sharp" = target subject fully in focus

  • "mediocre" at least half of the target subject in focus area (like the back wheel of a bicycle)

  • "unacceptable" = target out of focus



Results:



and



  1. Not one camera even came close to "nailed every shot". Let alone one brand.
    The authors declared Canon cameras to be in the lead by a small margin. They were completely disappointed from the Sony.

  2. Hugely lens dependant

  3. Practically nothing there where one can generalize from. Hugely dependent on exact camera/lens/scenario combination.

Anyone could redo the exact same test as it is well documented and the subjects are computer generated. You just need a flash program or a video of the target. I do consider the setup to be rather smart. You can redo that in your large garage.
Obviously the range difference obtainable is limited by the size of the canvas, so you can not simulate that fighter plane directly coming at you from infinity. But given the soso results this setup is interesting enough.

This is a test that comes close to scientific requirements and standards.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 01-31-2019, 11:02 AM  
Pixel shift and Lightroom CC
Posted By pschlute
Replies: 5
Views: 1,755
I was under the impression that camera raw supported pixel shift files for about two years now.

I don't believe that K-1 II Dynamic Pixel Shift files are supported by any converter apart from the Pentax software however.
Forum: Pentax K-1 01-21-2019, 06:30 AM  
Automated focus stacking
Posted By Doundounba
Replies: 24
Views: 4,393
Hmmm, no. In this case, focus bracketing is what the camera does. Focus stacking is what Zerene does. You can bracket other things than exposure! Some cameras can actually do the stacking in-camera. It's useful to distinguish between focus bracketing and focus stacking as two different capabilities of camera bodies. Just as you distinguish between exposure bracketing and HDR.
Forum: Pentax K-1 08-07-2018, 11:55 PM  
From a k-1 user real world impressions about the k-1 II
Posted By BillyCooper
Replies: 90
Views: 8,818
I'm probably going to get creamed for even thinking in these terms, but with so many vague conclusions I begin to wonder if allot of the objective thinking isn't rationally influenced under the color of subjectivism...

So much for vagaries.

As for my truth? I simply couldn't be happier with my mark ii, and that is a FACT.

Cheers
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-02-2019, 10:05 AM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By MMVIII
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
First, as has been told repeatedly, dpr's take on this case was flawed from the beginning and resulted now in a very defensive, not to say insecure agressive, reaction from their side, trying to put themselves in the victim role against a constructed mass. Nothing more to say here.

On the second topic discussed here: the point is, that the amount of alteration is completely misrepresented in comparison to the drama - which was ignited exactly by this flawed evaluation.

I'm in aerial photography and I'm used to play with various parameters if I have to achieve a certain level of detail of the final product I photograph from the air. The resolution on the ground level is given as the Ground Sampling Distance. If I need to recognise objects or features of a certain size the GSD has to be at an appropriate dimension. I would assume that the same could be applied to other objects, be it stars, or hair and fur etc. If the focal length, the distance to the object, the resolution of the sensor, the focal plane, the lenses resolving power, the position in the frame, the amount of available light, the motion blur, the raw convertor or the PP are not suitable for the task, there might be problems.
It seems almost impossible to get images in daily life which don't differ in more than one of these parameters. The studio scene might exclude some, but is still far from a consistent setup that would allow the evaluation of one single parameter. This is why noone complained about the IQ of the KP with the AC. A comparison amongst different systems shows the top notch quality that is achieved, and that is the sole point of the system as it was designed.

In case of the K1/II it was possible to do a closer comparison, due to their similarity in many parameters. But the initial assessment was flawed, and any differences where highly inflated.

The argument, that there might be a future development which might give you better results with your raw collection if it would not pass the AC is purely academic, and I consider it as a non issue in real photography. If you did not take your photos with the right parameters to achieve the desired results now, you have done something wrong and hoping for a future deus ex machina to save you would be not very sensical, IMHO.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-01-2019, 09:13 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By reh321
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
This technical detour began because of your unfamiliarity with the still-current terms 'signal' and 'pin-out', which someone familiar with modern electronics should understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinout

The shaky assumption is your belief that a 'simple' programming change would accomplish your goal. I have performed embedded programming, and I can tell you with certainty that embedded code is typically intricate and dense. Making a 'simple' change usually is not a simple task, hardly ever "a piece of cake".
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 01-01-2019, 05:35 AM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Ash
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
This, in my field, would be called out as being intellectual dishonesty. Yet despite this, the detail after Pixel Shifting is markedly better than the stiff competition's images that have been innately sharpened by LR.



Has there been any user here who has presented any of their night sky images showing evidence of image degradation compared to the K-1 or even the K-5/3?
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-31-2018, 08:05 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Class A
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
For instance by running a 2D Fourier analysis on images that only contain noise.
It is well understood how pure noise behaves. If you see any deviation from that behaviour, e.g., that the low frequency noise is higher than the high frequency noise (frequencies here referring to spatial frequencies as opposed to temporal frequencies) you receive hints in what ways noise has been shaped artificially.

If noise is shaped, image signal will be shaped as well, hence the resulting compromise (improving on noise but losing out on fine detail).

Bill Claff has produced such 2D Fourier analysis plots for the K-1 II and I've seen them somewhere in the past (perhaps in a DPReview forum discussion). I couldn't find them by quickly looking at his "Photons to Photons" website.

I realise how all of this may have the appearance of people splitting hairs, counting the number of angles dancing on a pin, and losing sight of the actual image quality as opposed to being obsessed with "obscure measurements". However, the truth of the matter is that the analysis I'm talking about is just a tool to objectively and quantitatively understand what is going on.

Believe me, if the K-1 II achieved an unparalleled noise performance without paying a price, I'd be the first to provide arguments as to why this is the case and I'd be busy convincing DPReview of the errors in their ways. However, technically DPReview's criticism is provably correct. I say "technically" because they made an Olympus Mons out of a molehill, which would only be acceptable if they grossly exaggerated independently of the brand they are discussing.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-31-2018, 02:34 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By reh321
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
The review by "Astrophotography Review" was positive {even after DPR apparently tried to put their thumb on the scale}
Pentax K-1 Mark II Astrophotography Review – Lonely Speck
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-30-2018, 08:04 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Class A
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
I believe it is clear that they would have panned the KP already but just did not notice that the clean images were the result of in-camera RAW processing.
I'm pretty sure that DPReview admitted to that in one comment as part of the extensive K-1 II discussion.


Well, a good review site wouldn't need a baseline to figure out that RAW data is being manipulated.
  1. One can run analyses like those performed by Bill Claff. RAW smoothing is detectable and has been shown for a ton of camera models (the difference being that it usually kicks in at much higher ISO levels).

  2. One can compare the results to other cameras using the same sensor or at least similar sensors with the same resolution.

DPReview may have aimed for accuracy and repeatability when Phil Askey was at the helm but the current staff don't seem to be able to run and interpret a 2D Fourier analysis and choose to use different lenses for their camera testing (and don't get me started on "repeatability" when it comes to their AF testing).

Imaging Resource used to use the Sigma 70/2.8 EX lens as a reference lens for all systems. This allowed cross-brand camera comparisons (modulo lens copy variations which one can control by carefully selecting copies). DPReview has argued against this approach and hence their camera comparison tool is mainly a lens comparison tool and as we know from recent events, DPReview don't even pick up on lens copies being decentred, thus making the "camera" comparison tool even less useful than it already is.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-30-2018, 07:51 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Class A
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
Note that you could just choose to shoot at ISO 400 and then push in post.
With a camera like the K-1 II that would avoid the mandatory denoising from kicking in and the results after pushing in post would be equivalent to "pushing in camera".

ISO settings on a modern sensor do not affect sensitivity, they simply control gain. Unless the camera uses a dual gain sensor or one of the (typically older) ones with analogue gain then there is no difference between pushing in-camera or in post in terms of IQ (this is often referred to as a sensor exposing "ISO invariance").

A downside of pushing in post is that previews on the back LCD of the camera will look too dark.

Fuji has a camera that forgoes any digital gain in the camera (IIRC after a certain ISO threshold) but compensates for that by boosting the image brightness both for previewing and with respect to RAW converters (which are instructed to pre-apply the boost). This is how all higher ISO settings should be handled. There is no advantage to digitally pushing the values in the camera already but actually a huge downside in that one may clip highlights that won't be recoverable.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-28-2018, 07:56 AM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Ash
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
Slow down there tiger. Let's not poke to provoke.
If we could keep the discussions civil and mild-mannered, we might be able to happily agree to disagree.
Thanks.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-27-2018, 04:55 AM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By kevinWE
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
IDK, I found the review plausible straight across the board. I do not think they were attacking Pentax, they were just offering an opinion on what Pentax has offered us. I hate to say it, but Pentax has fallen well behind in the game. It's not a secret. I still love my Pentax's but I'm a realist. Some of these new releases from Fujifilm and Sony are quite innovative and game changers.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-25-2018, 03:01 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By Kunzite
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
It's a little concerning that you felt the need to name calling.
It's a little concerning that you are disturbed by the defense, and not at all by the attacks which are the root cause.
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors 12-25-2018, 01:39 PM  
DP Review puts K-1 Mark II as second worst camera of 2018
Posted By tromboads
Replies: 996
Views: 67,560
It's a little concerning a lot here seem so insecure and defensive. Especially in something as frivolous as if your camera is "liked" by some entertainer (they are on youtube right?)

Rest easy everyone, Just, make, pictures :)
Forum: Pentax Camera and Field Accessories 10-14-2018, 01:49 PM  
Hähnel PROCUBE2 - 3D printed adapter for Pentax D-Li90
Posted By abruzzi
Replies: 18
Views: 2,059
I use the Watson Duo from B&H. You can get it with several dozen battery different adapters, it charges two batteries, and the adapters can be switched out individually, so you can charge two entirely different battery types at the same time, it has an LCD that shows the charging status of each battery, it powers over AC and it comes with a 12v cigarette lighter adapter, it includes a USB port for charging other things. However, to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t charge AA batteries. I’m not sure what features you were looking at, but the Watson does almost everything the Hähnel does.

BTW, the Watson Duo price depends on which battery adapters it is packaged with, however the battery adapters are $2. So rather than paying $80 for the model packaged with Pentax adapters, I bought one with some unknown adapters for $40 and paid $4 for a pair of Pentax adapters. The base unit is identical.
Forum: Digital Processing, Software, and Printing 12-15-2018, 09:12 AM  
What cataloguing software to use
Posted By runswithsizzers
Replies: 8
Views: 1,086
When asking for software recomendations, it's helpful to know whether for Mac or PC. The big developers, like Adobe, will offer both, but if you are looking at free / shareware those apps are often developed for only one or the other.

It is not at all free, but Lightroom provides excellent cataloging capabilities (and a whole lot more). Lightroom provides the capability to create Import presets and multiple kinds of tags - should easily be able to do what you want if you are willing to pay for it. Can't say Lightroom is really simple, but capable software always requires a certain amount of effort to learn how it works.

*Some* EXIF data can be edited in Lightroom, but not all. For example you could write free text in the Caption field "Shot with xyz lens" - but you can not edit the field for "Lens" from Lightroom.
Forum: Pentax K-1 11-24-2018, 04:59 PM  
Pentax 150-450mm + Pentax Convertor 1.4
Posted By WPRESTO
Replies: 17
Views: 1,762
I ran resolution chart experiments with the 1.4X + 150~450mm and posted them on PF years back. I found little difference in resolution between the lens @ 450mm without and with the 1.4X. In other words, if you crop an image taken @ 450mm without the TC & compare to one taken with the 1.4X, there is essentially no difference. So, if you like the idea of shooting @ about 600mm and don't mind losing an f-stop, the 1.4X will work fine. However, you can get essentially indistinguishable results by using the lens without TC, then cropping a bit more.
Forum: Pentax K-1 11-14-2018, 02:25 PM  
$7.81 Vertical Grip For Pentax K-1 Cameras
Posted By Docrwm
Replies: 4
Views: 1,532
Honestly, it looks good but I'm unsure of putting all that weight/torque on the hot shoe.
Forum: Pentax K-1 09-05-2018, 03:50 AM  
K1 Mk ii. Is Pentax marketing as dead as Tony Northrup says?
Posted By noelpolar
Replies: 148
Views: 13,201
Mmmm ...... 8 years retired for me this month..... marketing analysis, business development, endless debates over things, meeting after meeting....egos galore..... etc etc so miss it..... all dead to me now....

Search took 0.00 seconds | Showing results 1 to 25 of 55

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:22 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