The Silkypix product is well respected - I've seen a number of favourable writeups. Our own MattMatic has provided a guide to using it on this forum for some time now.

It is tempting to assume that when they wrote the English version they might have used a fairly cheap dictionary - anyone ever heard of 'Marginal Luminance Correction?' (its vignetting!). I've actually adopted the term 'development' though, to refer to RAW conversion - I like the comparison to the 'development' of film, which makes some sense.

But the confusion about the Pentax Digital Camera Utility & its relationship to Silkypix seems to rage on. From what I can deduce from using them both, PDCU is primarily designed to provide software implementation of most of the 'on-camera' settings (like the Custom Image settings & shadow corrections). To achieve this the makers seem to have transferred related editing tools and controls over from Silkypix - some are very similar such as the Colour Fine Tune and Highlight Adjustment panels. But others just duplicate the on-camera controls.

This has lead to user bewilderment it seems - the layout is not like any other RAW software. I use it in much the same manner as if I were setting up my camera before the shot - this order of doing things works well.

OK, not quite the Croydon shots you might expect, but these are all taken at the southern reaches of the Borough.

I was let out late a couple of weeks ago, and the long fine evenings allowed me to catch these scenes before heading back to the car.


First one taken in Happy Valley (from a series of shots as the sun went down), this is probably my favourite. Some others were seen on an earlier thread. K7, Samyang 14mm f2.8, shot at f11, tripod, remote control & mirror lock up.













And then on another night, spotted as I headed back to car parked at Riddlesdown. K7, DA 18-55 WRII at f8.0

Of course, that's your shooting style, and I would advise anyone to take their personal style into account as well as their processing workflow. It seems clear enough, and I hope supported by what I was seeing in the comparisons, that the significance and full benefit of a camera without AA filter will be seen to a greater extent only on certain types of images.

For example, its hard for me to imagine a huge advantage to your street portrait shots - close ups of a person, shot at f1.4 with a very OOF background - this type of image is not going to benefit from a lot of very fine microcontrast enhancement I would think.

But someone elses super sharp landscapes, or commercial product shots say, probably would, and so the 's' version would seem to offer extra latitude for a more intense process there. These are the sort of considerations I think everyone should be pondering - not really worrying about resolution issues.

As far as Pentax specifically is concerned, I'd be interested in more info on the sort of issue I have been encountering in the K5II testing. Here it was clear enough that 2 different converters (Pentax DCU & Adobe Camera RAW) were not reading or applying the file default profile in exactly the same way.

This obviously complicates things for comparison purposes, but it would be helpful to know more about, for example, what camera setting specifically we can expect to have some actual affect when opening a RAW file from our Pentax cameras in different converters.

There was a project called OpenRaw which was about all this, but these default settings are a bit of a trade secret it seems, and manufactuers are not inclined to reveal the inner details of their particular format.

There was evidence to me in the recent testing that ACR was not applying certain camera settings that were recorded in the DNG files, but PDCU was. There are often questions asked here about activating camera settings (like highlight reduction, NR etc). Well, seems to me there's not much point if your RAW program doesn't even recognise that metadata from the camera. I think we need more information about what particular programs offer in this respect.

No problem, just keep something aside for some new wideangle glass

Not sure about LR vs Elements ..... but, there was another idea .... Smeggy, have you got any links to shots taken using a range of different viewfinder covers in extreme backlit conditions ::

I'm not sure there's much point in 'testing' differences between these two software products. If its features we need to know about, then a good product description on the Adobe website, or better still a pdf manual, would be the way to go.

In terms of what they can actually do to a photo, there will be many similarities - surely a lot of the processing 'mechanics' will be shared between Adobe products. But the specific tools and controls to carry out operations will vary, as will the way to control selections and carry out work on isolated areas on a photo (such as layers, adjustment brushes, masking etc)

Bear in mind that Elements is basically a scaled-down version of full Photoshop, collecting together the most useful functions specifically for photography, and minus some features more relevant to commercial publishing and printing.

LR is a newer product, but more tailored to the needs of photographers of all levels including Pros - that is why it includes features to streamline heavy workflows such as batch parametric edits.

Good point, I think I can understand what you mean .... so it may make better economic sense to buy in the ipads/tablets/x-box's etc straight away, rather than upgrade to a very expensive other camera system.

So we bring this gadget-using stage forward, stop them running around now - keep them sitting glued to the devices - then I can keep the K7, shoot at low ISOs, and finally be able to freeze all the action in a wide range of lighting conditions !

Thanks for your input on this. The reason I decided to carry out this 'controlled' testing is because I have seen how other comparisons or users feedback can make it difficult for others to appreciate when there are questions always over the starting points and specific processing that may or may not have been used. As I have shown, even the same files opened in different RAW converters can have different 'starting points'.

I think this is a practical difficulty most will face (having access to the different cameras for long enough without actually buying them). So I have tried to interpret what happened during the processing, and place it in other contexts, or at least invite others to think of the significance of what I reported in relation to their personal style and workflow.

I agree we need to develop this finer sense, but I suspect that there will be plenty of others who would respond that if eyesight development were needed to tell the difference between the two, then we really are splitting hairs ! The tests have not shown that of course, not in all situations .

You're referring to batch processing using parametric edits. LR would record the settings as metadata and store them in the database, to be applied to the shots as required when they came to be output. The catalogue thumbnails would update to reflect the changes I'm guessing ??

No, Elements would not offer this, at least not my slightly older version. AFAIK in Elements, whilst you can have open multiple images in the workspace, only one is active at any one time, so any edits are only applied to that one active image.

Multiple images selected in the 'organiser' are simply opened into the editor 'project bin', but I don't believe this offers any batch processing features.

CONCLUSIONS - MY 'NEW TAKE' & A PERSONAL CHOICE

OK - its taken a while, and just on a single sample scene! I don't usually bother getting so close up & personal to the image. But I have enjoyed the effort and have learned more about how shots respond to these sharpening & detailing processes - all good learning to help with my own PP in future.

What am I Considering?

1) The Resolution & Print Size Issue

The question has been raised about possible print sizes - 'do you think you could print up to ......' ? My answer is not going to be straight. This is because I don't see this specific question as at all significant, or not exactly relevant to this particular comparison.

This question arises when thinking about a camera's 'resolution' - pixel dimensions and ppi figure. We make an assessment of the maximum print possible at a pre-determined ideal resolution figure (often 240ppi or 300ppi for print).

Both these cameras shoot photos at exactly the same technical resolution in these terms. The pixel figures and file sizes are identical. It struck me that discussions on quality as it related to perceptions of 'resolution' have not been reaching firm conclusions. That is why I started this - a new way to compare and assess the potential output, starting from the one true technical difference between the images - the blur or lack of blur at capture.

2) Image Content, Photo 'Genre' & Personal Workflow

The workflow tests and considerations of personal style and editing preferences then places this starting capture point in an individual context. In these conclusions I consider the likely effects of these personal choices based on what I've seen happen to the shots during the testing. What is really significant is the actual content of the image - the subject type, nature of the textures and density of the finer details. It is the question of how much enhancement this content can take to allow largescale output before any degradations resulting from this processing will become obvious at larger scales.

Also, photo genre will influence how you interpret the results of the tests here - the test image was basically a highly detailed still-life. The significance of what was seen under the testing and the procesess applied will be different if you are thinking about your landscapes, portraits, sports shots, news reportage or macro work. For example, in the test image I saw the start of surface breakdown on smooth, plain textures.

For me, the equivalent textures in my landscapes would be skys and clouds, so I need to think about how I would keep control of that, and whether it would detract from the overall perception of quality as it did in the end on the test image.

This is my 'New Take' - a new way to think about the significance of the AA filter and how you can assess the impact of that on your work along the line to final output, whether thats a huge print or a high quality compressed JPEG for the web.

3) The Cost Difference & Moire

Its hard not to factor these matters in to any equation, and again this will be a personal judgement. My own assessments will make the following assumptions -

For now the cost difference is significant. If the testing has indicated no likely technical benefit under any specific conditions, then I will factor in the cost issue as 'not worth the extra'. You may feel differently.

Balanced against any positive results is the risk of moire defects. I was genuinely surprised to see the effects of this on a fairly common type of ribbed surface in the test shot. Also I've seen it on a bird in a shot posted on the forum recently. I don't currently have any software to remove this problem, and it will be another concern during processing. So for me the moire issue is a risk, and I will not discount it when making my choice. You may feel differently.

Finally, from now on I will stop referring to a 'K5II', of either version. This is because I will be using these conclusions in my future purchaing choice, which hopefully will be a new generation top-of-range Pentax DSLR, also offering the 'aa or no aa' options.


What My Tests Indicate to Me

1) The JPEG Preview

These embedded images were examined in PDCU's preview windows. They had been processed in the camera at capture point with the camera-set adjustments applied, which were identical apart from a single unit WB setting.

Viewed at 100% I was unable to distinquish anything between them. It is apparent that there is additional in-camera sharpening applied through the default camera algorithms on the K5II images. This has the effect of equalising the shots in this respect. I don't shoot camera JPEGs, so there's no personal significance to this....

1) Conclusion - based on this testing approach, if you shoot JPEGs and do not carry out extra PP work including sharpening or other detailing enhancement, you will not see any benefit to the 's' camera
- Choose AA filter model


2) Basic RAW conversion and Capture Sharpening adjustment in PDCU

With this process, all software settings were neutralised. However, by default, the K5II image very nearly equalised the 's' shot. This is apparently due to the camera profiles being interperted by PDCU and additional default sharpening being applied when the file was opened. A +1 user adjustment to the K5II shot made them almost identical.

2) Conclusion - for me this is significant. I do my RAW conversion in PDCU, I save out with a good bit of capture sharpening (+2 or +3 for most shots). I then carry on the workflow in other software, including significant detail enhancements for highly intricate scenes. For shots that do not require this extra work, (eg shots of the family) then the Capture Sharpening is as much as I often need.

So, if you do not need to (or don't like to) apply significant amounts of detail, fine micro-contrast and other sharpening-type enhancements to your images, you will not see significant benefit with the 's' model
- choose AA Filter model


3) Additional Definition & Detailing Enhancements - to larger output sizes

If following RAW conversion, including Capture Sharpening, you need to carry out further sharpening, definintion or other type of clarity enhancements in PP, and these enhancements are applied to a wide range of texural surfaces and differing ranges of pixel radius, then there comes a point when the K5II image will let you down before the 's' version, particularly on smoother textures and larger areas of single tone. Also deep shadow areas will lose their depth more quickly.

3) Conclusion - If your shots demand these more intense processes, and large prints risk revealing these defects
- choose non AA filter ('s') model



4) Basic Photoshop-Style Sharpening

Finally I subjected the shots to progressivly higher amounts of fine edge sharpening (radius 0.7). Up to a very high level (K5IIs 200% - K5II 300%) each shot maintained quality acceptably. After this threshold the K5II image started to break down in smoother textural areas, flatter surfaces becoming grainy and rough.

Now, if your Photoshop-Style sharpening is limited to this approach (ie at a single radius setting), you are going to be hitting this limit with the K5II for your very detailed and intricate shots, unless you don't like them sharp. The only other choice would be to use a layers and masking-type approach to apply differing degrees of sharpening to different radius settings, thereby deliberately reducing the sharpening given to those more delicate softer areas. But this is a lot more work.

4) Conclusion - if your PS-style sharpening is applied globally to a single radius setting, and you need to apply high amounts to very detailed, inticate subjects
- choose non AA Filter 's' model

If you like to (or choose to) work more intricately and isolate different parts of your shots, reducing the intensity of sharpening on softer textures by use of layers and masking etc,
- choose AA filter model



Finally - What Will I Choose?

Clearly, I have to make a balanced judgement call. My requirements fall within options 2) 3) & 4), depending on the type of image I've got.
My most critical shots are my landscapes, usually a mixture of dense and detailed ground and foliage textures, with smooth skys and clouds. Here I apply selections or masking when boosting sharpness and detail, so I'm not really worried about messing up my skys.

The same applies to people shots, where I will isolate the skin textures, only applying fine detail enhancements to other parts of the shot. So the issue of smooth textures degrading under more intense sharpening techniques is not a worry for me.

Moire is a concern however. I do not currently have software to remove it, so it would need extra thought and effort. I would prefer not to have it as an extra concern.

Cost is hard to predict, as who know's how much the difference between the options will be in the future. But I'm not going to want to pay much more if I can't identify a clear and consistent advantage to me personally.

So the choice for me is clear. Weighting up all this, as a result of this testing, for me the best choice will be the camera that continues to include the AA filter.


Thats it! I love doing this sort of thing, and I hope the thinking and considerations behind it are informative and add to the range of opinions and experiences we can all draw on in making this new kind of technology choice.
Please keep the comments and feedback coming. I would be very glad to hear any thought about the tests or the conclusions! Or better still, alternative ways to test or think about it.


Both now done