Proving The Theory

This is the theory that has developed so far - I accept that there is natural, inherant added sharpness and detail to the K5IIs images at capture point, by design. But I have seen that right at the beginning of the processing chain (camera JPEGs, or basic RAW conversion with simple 'capture sharpening') that the blurred input of the K5II is easily, in some cases automatically, corrected with the result that the images are made equal.

I have also seen how the shots respond to my own personal workflow for highly detailed images intended for large scale printing. The K5II image has reached a quality limit that makes the choice clear - I would need to use the K5IIs shot at my intended print size.

It seems reasonable then to assume that at lower levels of detailing in processing that images from both cameras will simply 'sharpen up' at a fairly level rate - that at any given point you could just stop, crank up the K5II amounts a bit and equalise the shots.

I want to confirm the theory with a few quick tests at the lower levels, trying out some other common techniques.

D) A few Comparisons with simple Photoshop Sharpening

So, back to Adobe Camera Raw. Previously with this converter I was just checking on its output with default settings, and I discovered that it doesn't read the metatdata in the same way as PDCU. This time I am aiming for a good looking photo, a proper workflow, so I'll make some basic adjustments to each shot.

First up is the K5II DNG. I settle on the following ACR settings :

Exposure - +0.10
Recovery - 15
Fill light - 0
Blacks - 5 (I'm keeping the original slight black clipping)
Brightness - +70
Contrast - +33
Clarity - +40
Sharpness - 50 with Radius 0.7

Converted into PS Elements I save it as a 16bit .psd file. I carry out the same ACR conversion with identical settings on the K5IIs DNG and open both images side by side in Elements.

With the K5II image active I now open the Sharpness Dialogue - maintaining the radius of 0.7 (carrying on from the ACR setting), 'more refined' ticked (I mean, I want to be more refined, right?) and Preview ticked, I can quickly see the effect of my percentage movements on detail in the K5II image at 104% magnification - the K5IIs image sits right next to it with the exact same view.

The figure of 23% produces an identical result on both shots. K5II 23% = K5IIs 0%

I try out the same setting on the K5IIs shot, and it jumps ahead again, maintaining the differential. I crank it up to 40% and the fine edge sharpness firms up noticably.

Back on the K5II image I use 'Undo' and return it to its opening state. I now try to match it up again with the 's' shot beside it.

This time the K5II shot equalises at 60% - K5II 60% = K5IIs 40%
I increase the value on the K5IIs shot to 80%. This looks good, but seems to be about the limit of what I can expect to get out of this particular sharpening tool. Much further and I'm seeing roughness appear on the smooth textures, and fine edges (like the edges on the gold lettering 'Baileys') are starting to become slightly jagged. Still at 104 % view though. Further out and the image looks good.

This time the numbers start to race away - K5II 140% = K5IIs 80%.
I go for a 154% view - this gives me that blue watch in the lower right corner filling the whole image window, looking at them side by side. I am surprised to find that, once again, there's nothing in it! The K5II image has held up, with no visable artifacts reducing its quality, at the 140% setting.

Ok, one more - I've already got this image as far as I feel it can go with this fairly simple sharpening process. Lets crank it up one more time. I 'Undo' both images to keep this non-destructive.
This time I find I can take the K5IIs shot to 200%, and its still holding up. There's only a tiny increase in edge 'jaggedness', and a little more surface disruption, not much, only really visable over 100% view level.
But now I'm really stretching the K5II image. To match up and equalise the amount of edge detail and clarity on fine objects I have to take it to 300%! K5II 300% = K5IIs 200%.

This time I have reached the limit again. The 's' image is acceptable - an increasing presence of surface roughness is creeping in and further signs of jagged lines. But the K5IIs image has gone beyond what I would accept - certainly for any large printing. I see higher levels of surface textures breaking down. For example on the face of the woman there is now much higher graininess on the K5II shot - the 's' shot has smoother tone here, and this pattern repeats across most of the single texture areas, like the colour charts for example.

I'm nearly finished with the comparisons over on the other thread - there should be some firm conclusions over there in the next day or two.

Just to tie up the loose end on this printing question, I wanted to clarify things and see others views on the 'resolution' issue. Ever since the 's' model was announced there was talk of the extra 'resolution' it would offer. I was a bit confused by this, as I was thinking of resolution purely in pixels per inch terms (eg 240ppi, or 300ppi), and when multiplied by the pixel dimensions this would give you the total amount of pixel data.

It is these deimension and ppi figures which are exactly the same for both cameras (they have the same sensor). So I have avoided referring to the effect of less blurring on the 's' image as 'higher resolution', as I feel this confuses it. Keeping the termonolgies distict (resolution & blurring) means I do not think of the 's' image as having a higher 'resolution' - I don't see that it does.

As print output is determined by resolution and dimensions, this means that the potential printed output max size is the same for both cameras.

I am not comparing that as there is no comaparsion as I see it. Nothing I have done in adjusting the shots has altered the dimensions or ppi density.

The question is about how much work is needed on any particular image, depending on content, to make it look 'sharp enough' at your chosen size before any negative results or srtifacts are made big enough to detract from the the overall quality.

Rob, I'd like to ask specifically what you mean by 'expand to print resolution and then also view at this size...' - if I can do this more exactly it may help me.

This K5IIs vs another brands 'FF' thing is one of these typical comparison situations (like the 's' or 'not s' one.) There's an obvious technology difference which, by logic, must offer something 'better' over the other - thats clear.

It is deciding what that particular 'better' means to each individual, whether that 'better' is relevent to that person and their photogrphy, and what pitfalls there might be.

Big prints have been mentioned here as 'looking much better'. So does that mean if you don't do big prints a 'FF' is wasted?

Pitfalls? FF alters your lens choices (if not forcing you to buy all your lenses again!), but I have read that FF can be rather unforgiving of any lens quirks or weaknesses. For example, I have a 'FullFrame' 14mm lens, which if I put it on a FF camera would be truely spectacularly wide - but, could I tolerate the extra levels of edge distortion that will be revealed which are currently cropped out ?

Yes, that's my point I am not trying to dismiss the importance of resizing - I understand it can be necessary for certain print requirements. But like Pentaxophile, it is never an issue when I send shots 'to the printers' - ie: uploaded to a commercial website printer. It seems that so long as there is enough pixel data, it is their own processes that will produce the right fit for the chosen print size. They just offer some guidance to the likely quality - such as 'optimum', 'good', 'fair'.

As my example in the opening post suggested, the concern I have in comparing the 'content' of the K5II & 's' versions, is at what size will any artifacts caused by the extra detailing / sharpening etc needed on the K5II image become a distraction and deter from the perception of 'high quality'.

This point is determined by the following variables - how big the print -how far away will it be viewed from - and elements within the image content. So it is a decision to be made individually for each shot.

You got me there !! I've lived around here for 2 years, and that name always seem to elude me. Must remember, 2 e's

There's certainly many pretty spots to explore nearby - and all right on the border of Croydon & Surrey, travelcard zone 6!

The K7 & K5 series do have this, a mini HDMI socket, and you have to buy a cable to connect to the TV.

I haven't bothered myself, as with the 'smart' TV I've got USB ports on the back, so I just copy photos over to that and you can run a 'slideshow'. But I process my shots on computer and output JPEGs, which the TV can display.

With the camera, even if you shoot RAW, the cable will display the same JPEG preview as on the LCD screen on the TV. The same would apply for video files, so you'd see your footage with any custom adjustments you had made.

I guess its down to cost and size of the body? Also differentiating between the top and lower range models and what they offer as a choice.

Continuation of the Testing

I last left off with both shots getting an equal shot with Sagelight's 'definition' slider. I reported -

'I can more easily and consistently clearly see better definition in the 's' image. It seems as though the additional and more aggressive 'definition' processing is pulling out something more from the 's' shot than the standard one'


B) Adding further high detail with Topaz Detail PS Plugin

The images I've got so far look very crisp on screen and have a nice 'presence', and they will certainly look very good to average printed sizes. But I know from experience of preparing my shots using the same workflow steps, that if I got them printed to very large (possibly A3 or bigger), I would not see the same crisp 'presense' in the print as on screen - there would be flatter areas and larger areas of the same surface would take on a slight OOF effect. To correct this for these big prints I need to extract even more edge definition at both the medium and fine radius levels.

Topaz Detail plugin provides an easy way to achieve this, with both 'boost' and 'strength' sliders in three groups - working on 'large', 'medium' and 'small' detail levels. This operation will produce an exggerated effect for screen and web use, but should be just right for really big printed output - such as my favourite 70cm / 100cm poster prints.

First up is the K5II shot. For those who know the plugin, you can do some serious damage with it, but I'm taking a very subtle approach. After some experimenting I settle on the quite minute settings of :

Small Detail - 0.08
Small Boost - 0.06
Medium - 0.05
Boost - 0.04
Blur Size - 0.03

Saved out to a new version of the TIFF and viewed fullscreen this image is really sizzling now! The surface of the objects has a presence that almost looks like you're looking at the real object. But I think I've reached the limits to which I can push this process. On the smooth surfaces there is now a boosted texture that pushed any further might start to look exaggerated.

I carry out the same operation on the K5IIs shot and open them up side by side.

This time I am not seeing any further separation between the two. The very small difference previously noticed at the last stage has been maintained. There is not enough exaggerated texture to cause problems on very large prints I think. So I would be happy to send either of these to the printer for very large output. I am confident that the K5IIs version has a small amount of added visable detail.


C) Trying to extract even more from the K5II image to equalise it

But, I will carry out one more test in the workflow - lets see if I can push the K5II image just a bit further in Topaz to check if I can equalise the detail without overcooking any textural roughness. I'm reloading the original version from the stage before Topaz, just after the Sagelight definition was added, and I'm going to apply higher values and see how far it can go.
I start out by doubling the values from the sliders set before, but this causes highlight microcontrast to look 'blown', starting to look speckly. So I step back and settle on :

Small Detail - 0.10
Small Boost - 0.10
Medium - 0.10
Boost - 0.08
Blur Size - 0.03 (unchanged)

Opening the result in Fullscreen Photo Viewer, I am just astonished at the level of detail now being seen. The objects have a more solid feel with textures that I imagine I could sense through feel. There is slightly less deep tone contrast, but I suppose I could replace this if I wanted to.

First I compare at fullscreen the previous version of this shot (with the original Topaz settings) against the new one. I would probably now choose the earlier version for screen use now, and the latest (with the extra Topaz work) for the printer.

Now the real test. How does the earlier version of the K5IIs image stack up against the latest K5II image with the extra enhancements?

This time I go for the side by side magnified views again. I can clearly see now, on the highly detailed and intricate objects, that there is the same level of clarity, & edge crispness on both shots. But, in the K5II image, on smoother textures and in shadow areas, I now see some negative affects of this processing. Smoth areas have an added texture, a kind of roughness, that is exaggerated, and shadow areas have lost contrast, appearing a bit hazy.

It seems that this instensive detailed work is starting to break up the integrity of the image data, at least in smoother areas. I do not see these negative effects on the same parts of the K5IIs shot, so this appears able to absorb more and hold up under this intense processing. If I had to choose at this point and send one for printing at a large size , it would now 100% be the 's' version. This is the first point in my testing that I have reached a clear deliniation mark in this decision.

Exactly, thanks! That's why I moved it over to here to be discussed independently, because on the K5II comparison thread I didn't want people to think I am worrying about printing quality matters in relation to the resolution of the image that is 'sent to the printer'. My comparison thread is not about that at all - there's no comparison there because the pixel dimensions and ppi resolution is exactly the same for each pair of images being compared.

I am not adjusting the image resolutions or dimensions - I find them perfectly OK as they are at 4928x3264, 300x300dpi, Bit Depth 48, Uncompressed, File Size 92.1mb.

I don't think printers will have too much trouble with that, even with max quality JPEGs (mine are 17mb). We have high quality images 'out the can' with these cameras, so talk of extrapolating and upscaling really is over-complicating it.

I guess there's some similarities there to how I'm judging the shots, but of course the point is that on the other thread the actual image content is being adjusted to try and reach limits and make judgments depending on what's seen.

Only if you're not thinking about the 'quality' of the content. That is really what this is all about, and indeed any content 'optimization' differences required by the different cameras depending on how much of the detail any specific size reveals to the eye.