If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp ... as would be expected simply due to its weaker anti-aliasing filter. David |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
On Oct 24, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" -
this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp .. as would be expected simply due to its weaker anti-aliasing filter. David That's what the site speculated caused it. Good thing is, of the shots someone will take, it is likely few will be effected by a slight increase in moire, but all will benefit from an increase in resolution and sharpness. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D
RichA wrote:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp With this quote: "There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts)." This is true to a degree - if you study the 40D and K10D results, the 40D is at least a decent smooth raw conversion, the K10D is ragged as hell and actually has less detail than the 40D, just higher contrast and some aggressive sharpening. The Sony A100 beats the K10D for raw extract detail. The only reason the statement above is true is a subtle - the camera 'gains so much' because its JPEGs are awful - very flat and soft. The A100 can not be said to gain quite as much because the JPEGs are not such a contrast to raw conversions. I doubt the abilities present at dPreview if the analysis of the examples shown is that the Pentax beats the Canon. Even the very first pair of images show that the Canon has finer, smoother, more accurately drawn detail. If I got raw conversions like those shown for the Pentax I would upset - any further sharpening or interpolating etc would be impossible with such crude detail. David |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
RichA wrote:
On Oct 24, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" - this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp .. as would be expected simply due to its weaker anti-aliasing filter. David That's what the site speculated caused it. Good thing is, of the shots someone will take, it is likely few will be effected by a slight increase in moire, but all will benefit from an increase in resolution and sharpness. No, it's false sharpness. Once the higher spatial frequencies have been aliased down to lower, more visible frequencies, no amount of post-processing will remove the damage done without causing serious degradation of the image. It can also be one of those subtle effects where you look at an image, and know something is wrong with it, but can't quite put your finger on it. Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters! David |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D
On Oct 24, 1:03 pm, David Kilpatrick wrote:
RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp With this quote: "There isn't a single camera on the market which gains so much by shooting RAW and using Adobe Camera RAW to convert its images than the K10D. The difference is night and day and indeed the K10D in this comparison trumps the EOS 40D for detail which hints perhaps that Pentax are using a sensor with a lighter anti-alias filter (although if you look at some of the crops you can see some demosaicing artifacts)." This is true to a degree - if you study the 40D and K10D results, the 40D is at least a decent smooth raw conversion, the K10D is ragged as hell and actually has less detail than the 40D, just higher contrast and some aggressive sharpening. The Sony A100 beats the K10D for raw extract detail. The only reason the statement above is true is a subtle - the camera 'gains so much' because its JPEGs are awful - very flat and soft. The A100 can not be said to gain quite as much because the JPEGs are not such a contrast to raw conversions. I doubt the abilities present at dPreview if the analysis of the examples shown is that the Pentax beats the Canon. Even the very first pair of images show that the Canon has finer, smoother, more accurately drawn detail. If I got raw conversions like those shown for the Pentax I would upset - any further sharpening or interpolating etc would be impossible with such crude detail. David But, the K10D also has at least 10% higher resolution than the Canon as well, which means (in effect) it is operating like a camera with a higher megapixel count. The Sony is also good because it doesn't forgo detail in order to control noise. I don't know why they talk about bad JPEGS contrasting with raw, resolution is resolution and it has nothing to do with "perception." |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
On Oct 24, 1:37 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: On Oct 24, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" - this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp .. as would be expected simply due to its weaker anti-aliasing filter. David That's what the site speculated caused it. Good thing is, of the shots someone will take, it is likely few will be effected by a slight increase in moire, but all will benefit from an increase in resolution and sharpness. No, it's false sharpness. Once the higher spatial frequencies have been aliased down to lower, more visible frequencies, no amount of post-processing will remove the damage done without causing serious degradation of the image. It can also be one of those subtle effects where you look at an image, and know something is wrong with it, but can't quite put your finger on it. Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters! David How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher resolution. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
RichA wrote:
On Oct 24, 1:37 pm, "David J Taylor" -this- bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: On Oct 24, 11:33 am, "David J Taylor" - this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: RichA wrote: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos40d/page26.asp .. as would be expected simply due to its weaker anti-aliasing filter. David That's what the site speculated caused it. Good thing is, of the shots someone will take, it is likely few will be effected by a slight increase in moire, but all will benefit from an increase in resolution and sharpness. No, it's false sharpness. Once the higher spatial frequencies have been aliased down to lower, more visible frequencies, no amount of post-processing will remove the damage done without causing serious degradation of the image. It can also be one of those subtle effects where you look at an image, and know something is wrong with it, but can't quite put your finger on it. Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters! David How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher resolution. If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias filter - it's false. The effect will be that the higher spatial frequencies are aliased down to the lower ones, and this is most easily visible on patterned objects, as you know, creating rather nasty artefacts in the image. Sharp edges (perhaps what you are describing as detail) will be aliased in exactly the same way, creating an artificial, rather unpleasant sharpness to the image. Something your eyes and brain may tell you isn't right. If you like that effect, so be it. Optical anti-alias filters, unlike those in the audio world, are not near-perfect, so you need to decide for yourself what is "good enough". Cheers, David |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
On Wed, 24 Oct 2007 19:44:25 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote: RichA wrote: On Oct 24, 1:37 pm, "David J Taylor" Just say "no" to poor anti-alias filters! How do you know the sharpness is "false?" If more real detail is visible, it isn't just a ragged contrast effect, it is higher resolution. Harry Nyquist will be spinning in his grave... If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias filter - it's false. Don't waste your energy trying to explain facts to the troll David. -- John Bean |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Pentax K10D beats (sharpness, detail) Canon 40D?
On Oct 24, 3:44 pm, "David J Taylor" -this-
bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk wrote: If the sharpness is achieved through having too weak an anti-alias filter - it's false. The effect will be that the higher spatial frequencies are aliased down to the lower ones, and this is most easily visible on patterned objects, as you know, creating rather nasty artefacts in the image. You mean like this one? http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/Ca...eos40d-004.jpg Notice how the lines criss-cross. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Pentax K10D | Tyler Heibeck | Digital SLR Cameras | 31 | October 2nd 07 01:15 PM |
Pentax K10D or Canon 30D | GS[_2_] | Digital SLR Cameras | 19 | June 16th 07 10:49 PM |
Pentax K10d | frederick | Digital SLR Cameras | 44 | September 17th 06 09:25 PM |
Pentax K10D now on Pentax site | Pete D | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | September 14th 06 01:13 AM |
Canon Kit Lens beats Nikon in every test. | Steve Franklin | Digital SLR Cameras | 17 | August 19th 05 10:31 PM |