A good question Philip, and a correct assumption! After this processing neutralising these tiny differences are only visable at magnified views. Flicking between the shots in my viewer, I can't tell them apart fullscreen.

That is why I can now conclude that if your processing intentions were limited to this stage only (ie basic RAW conversion plus capture sharpening) or you only shot camera JPEGs, then there are not going to be any benefits to using the K5IIs.

If you're going further along the processing chain (as I am in testing now - looking at creating an image with enhanced clarity, definition and detailing that will output to large sizes without quality loss) - well, thats yet to been seen ......

Testing Continuation

So far, with default RAW conversion - Comparing the K5IIs outputs side by side (ie one from PDCU & one from ACR) showed no noticable differences in definition.

Comparing the standard K5II shots side by side (ie one from PDCU & one from ACR) shows consistently a noticable higher definition to the image processed in PDCU. This supports my theory that it is only PDCU that is reading hidden metadata and applying additional compensatory sharpening to the standard model shots.

DeBlurring Methods & Comparisons - through to Output Sharpening

The idea behing all this is that it could form the basis for informed decision making based on an individuals output needs. For this reason it is now time to do the heavy lifting - ie put the test images through a normal workflow and compare the results. Also I will try and achieve an equal appearance of definition and clarity in each shot in order to compare side by side for quality differences.

First I will run through a typical workflow for myself. I will not be adjusting colours, but as well as definition and detailing I may have to tweak contrast and brightness to extract the best I can out of each file.

A Typical Workflow for me

First I'm going back to PDCU. Capture Sharpening does not have to be a default or minimal amount - it makes sense to add a certain amount of extra sharpening at RAW conversion point as this is the point where you may have your best stab at extracting all the quality you can from your image - you're at full bit depth, and working non-destructively. So this is the time to get a good sharp starting file, but leaving latitute to work selectively and more intensly on certain details later (output sharpening).

I start by opening the K5II image in PDCU, and I make the following adjustments to improve the image, considering the aim to output to a high quality and / or big enlargement at a later stage :

Exposure Value + 0.5 stop
Highlight Adjustment DR Expansion + 0.5 unit (to recover some areas of clipped white resulting from the EV increase)
Contrast +1
Low Tone Contrast -3 (Pulling black down)
Sharpness +3

The sharpness setting is not something that can be easily evaluated in PDCU - it has to be treated as a kind of default based on the type of scene and experience with it. In this case its a crisp, sharp shot of hard objects, so I think + 3 will be about right.

I save out a TIFF and open it in my viewer. Now we're cooking! This version has a real sizzle, a presense that was lacking in the default setting versions up to now.

I repeat the rendering with the exact same settings on the K5IIs file.

First Comparisons following RAW conversion as above

The level of clarity at 100% loupe view on both shots is a bit better, not much, but a clearly noticable amount. These versions could both be printed at average sizes and look fine at any normal distance.

Now I can say for sure that there is a more consistent, slight, higher level of definition on objects in the K5IIs shot - very slight, but it is there on more objects.

Now I can say for sure that the inherant extra clarity at capture on the K5IIs has been revealed more clearly through a combination of better editing (the contrast and exposure enhancements) plus the additional level of sharpening applied to this output.

Now I want to see if the K5II shot can be made equal through the same processes simply by extra sharpning. I re-run the rendering, this time with +4 (the max) for sharpness, save out and compare side by side with the earlier K5IIs shot (which had +3 sharpness).

I have evened the gap now for sure - there remains a touch of extra bite to objects on the K5IIs image (with +3 sharpness) than those on the K5II shot (+4 sharpness) - a very tiny difference. There are no apparent negative effects on the K5II shot due to the extra sharpness applied.

Thanks very much - thats definately of interest. As far as the testing goes, I'm at the stage of working through my standard workflow, then I'll try out other common sharpening techniques. It would be good if some other members would detail their basic process so I can test it. I want to work through to firm conclusions using the methodology I've set up for now, but let's look at other approaches as well later.

As well as 'getting a K5II image to look like a K5IIs', we also have to consider if the processing involved takes a price in quality terms.....

The problem is its got way beyond the point where any individuals experiences are relevant - the numbers just don't add up. 100 million licenses sold but nearly 300 million PCs in the same time.

I read in a recent 'MicroMart' also that the business community show no signs of coming on board, and in the gaming community it is being slated for hardware and performance issues.

So Microsoft now are forced to play catch-up and reinstate the GUI elements that users didn't want to lose in the first place.

They'll all look great printed up on glossy paper! The effect on No 4 is really unique and, well, effective!

Only if activated on the camera at the time of shooting, and then they are 'burned in' to the embedded JPEG for the preview, and / or to the output camera JPEG. In our cases here these settings were not active, and all other RAW conversion parameters that could affect 'sharpness' have been neutralized and made equal between the cameras for the testing.

Re-Running the DNGs through ACR

So, to further confirm my suspicion I'm running the two DNGs through Adobe Camera RAW and will use PS Elements to save out new TIFFs and check if the same metadata fields have recorded. This would confirm that there are differences buried inside the default profiles. I'll list the camera RAW opening defaults :

Exp / Recovery / Fill All 0
Blacks 5
Brightness +50
Contrast +25
Clarity / Vibrance / Saturation - All 0
All Sharpening & Noise Reduction settings are 0
There are differences in the Temp & Tint settings : K5II - Temp - 4450 / Tint - +32. K5IIs - Temp 4200 / Tint +31. Both shots were taken with a manual white balance reading, but clearly both were not exactly the same. This difference also confirms that this camera recorded data (WB) is being read and acted on in this different RAW converter.

However, the sharpness setting is 0 in ACR, but in the files the camera settings were +1 for sharpness, so ACR has not acted on this user set parameter. This shows how difficult it is to judge how the same file will be dealt with on default opening in different RAW converters. My guess is that ACR does not map the camera custom image settings sharpness field to its own equivalent parameter.

I launched the files on conversion into PS Elements and saved out TIFFs. These files show some dimension differences (4928x3264 - 240dpi) & the file size is similar at 92mb. But, this time, strangely, both the Windows Properties 'Contrast' and 'Sharpness' fields show 'Hard' for both files. Not very helpful, as it doesn't really confirm my theory. We may never know exactly how these fields are applied in the different programs nor how they are copied over to Windows Properties ??

I saved out full quality JPEGs from PS Elements also and did the close up comparisons. This time I am more confident that with the 100% loupe tool I was seeing, with consistency, a very small, but just noticable, finer detailing in objects in the K5IIs shot.

Could this be caused by the ACR converter not applying additional sharpening to the K5II image that was applied by PDCU - could this be due the two programs reading and interpreting default profile data buried deeply somewhere in the files?

But, this doesn't change the conclusions for now - people shooting JPEGs are not then going to run their shots through ACR, I would presume, so as from the first testing stage I can still say that for that use solely, with no further processing planned, there is no apparent advantage to the 's' version.

Checking the File Data - A Shock Discovery

We would all expect, logically, that the 's' version of this shot would show more definition (less blur) 'out the can'. This should be inherent by design. There is no AA filter over the sensor of the 's' camera creating deliberate blur. The files I have created so far represent an equalising of this 'out the can' stage - DNGs with any variables nuetralised through identical RAW conversion, with a default level of Capture Sharpening - or do they ??

Here is the file data. Both shots have precisely the same figures :

4928x3264, 300x300dpi, Bit Depth 48, Uncompressed, File Size 92.1mb
This info is contained within the Windows file properties box.

But suddenly, I was shocked to find a real surprise - there is some 'advanced' metadata recorded by Windows further down. I was just routinely scanning when suddenly I noticed a discrepancy - there are two fields, 'Contrast' & 'Sharpness'. On the K5IIs image these two fields show 'Normal'. But on the K5II image these fields show 'Hard'. You can change this data with three options - 'Normal, Soft, Hard'. But considering the meticulous neutralising process I went through, how could these fields have recorded differently when all settings on these files were identical?

I straight away checked the JPEG versions also. And again, exactly the same - K5II version records 'Hard' and K5IIs 'Normal'. This raises the obvious immediate question - is there some mysterious, hidden metadata value buried deep within these files, and being acted upon by PDCU to affect the default opening sharpening state, a hidden process to us, not controllable by the user, not seen in the program, unrelated to the user adjustable parameters, but picked up and mapped to the Windows standard properties fields?

I am aware that individual camera models have specific default profiles for RAW development - is it possible that the standard K5II model has a higher amount of default contrast and sharpening built into its default profile, in order to compensate for the blurring effect of the AA filter - and that the 's' model has a significantly lower amount of this contrast and sharpening?

Could this in fact be the reason that both the camera-generated JPEG preview, and the the PDCU rendered files, do not actually display any obvious differences in sharpness or resolution?
All of this mysterious default profile stuff is well beyond my knowledge, so I appeal here for any other views and experience of this.

This is the next stage. For now I have established a method for ensuring the starting point for comparisons is equal - that is , ensuring that the files at the input and Capture Sharpening stages of a workflow have had any variables removed.

My conclusions are that if you shoot camera JPEGs, so that is actually the end of your processing chain, then I cannot identify any significant difference at this output level.

Now, if you're continuing on a workflow, that is, using the 16bit TIFF for further work in other programmes, or you wish to apply higher levels of capture sharpening in RAW conversion, that is the next thing to test.

The DPreview K5II & K5IIs Test Shots 1 - First Views & Capture Sharpening Stage

OK, I've got the RAW files from the DPreview website. I'm not yet sure if I am allowed to reproduce them on our forum, so for now if you want to see them use this link ... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/studio-compare#baseDir=%2Freviews_data&cameraDataSubdir=boxshot&indexFileName=boxshotindex.xml&presetsFileName=boxshotpresets.xml&showDescriptions=false&headerTitle=Studio%20scene&headerSubTitle=Standard%20studio%20scene%20comparison&masterCamera=pentax_k5ii&masterSample=imgp0008&slotsCount=4&slot0Camera=pentax_k5ii&slot0Sample=imgp0008&slot0DisableCameraSelection=true&slot0DisableSampleSelection=true&slot0LinkWithMaster=true&slot1Camera=pentax_k5iis&slot1Sample=imgp0096&slot2Camera=nikon_d4&slot2Sample=dsc_4681&slot3Camera=pentax_k5&slot3Sample=pentaxk5_nrauto_iso%20100&x=0.263532527604426&y=-0.7092937806016141&extraCameraCount=0

I'm looking at the shot that includes a lot of bright and detailed items, like the Martini and Baileys bottles, Micky Mouse, Queen of Hearts card, blue watch etc etc. So, to follow my methodology I first need to create a level playing field to eliminate any differences created by default camera settings or different RAW conversion software acting on any of these settings. Then I can render the files using the exact same process for both - this gets me to the 'Capture Sharpening stage', but with any processing variables eliminated.

The DNG & Metadata Problem
These files are DNGs. This format can record a great deal of exif and camera propriatory metadata, and Adobe software can read most of this data. Where the fields for this data match up with Adobes own exif or other settings fields there is the potential for the Adobe Camera Raw plugin to act on this data upon opening the file and add these adjustment actions to its default profile when the file is opened.

The problem when making comparisons or considering what images look like to different people is that we don't have a way of knowing exactly whether these extra processing settings are being applied or not. This is further complicated if people are using different RAW converters. So the level playing field can be hard to establish.

I will deal with this issue by using Pentax Digital Camera Utility (which can read all the camera-set settings & adjust them), leveling them, then rendering the files both to JPEGs and then 16bit TIFF with the same sharpening settings. They can then be examined closely in viewing software.


Camera Generated JPEG Previews
I have now opened both files in PDCU, displaying their preview windows side by side. This window shows the image on the left, and on the top right all the camera shooting metadata with a histogram at the bottom. The image I see here has not been rendered on my computer - it is a small jpeg rendered by the camera at point of capture, processed with all the camera-set parameters applied, then embeded in the DNG file.

This is the same image that is displayed on the camera LCD screen just after shooting. As it is edited to reflect all the settings applied on the camera (eg shadow / highlight corrections, contrast, sharpness & fine sharpness) it is important if making comparisons on the camera (like in a shop), or intending on shooting JPEGs, to be absolutely sure all these settings are equal over both cameras. This embedded JPEGs are also important here as they represent (in compressed form) each individual cameras JPEG output.

The Metadata
Here is the metadata that is relevent to this testing. If I do not list any particular parameter, then it is set to its O position :
The following data is recorded identically in both shots : Both cameras are on firmware version 1.00

Lens - D FA Macro 50mmf2.8
Shutter - 1/20 sec
Aperture - f8.0
Mode - Manual Exposure
White Balance - Manual
ISO - 100
Colourspace - sRGB
Custom Preset - Bright
Contrast - +1
Sharpness - +1 (Fine Sharpness is 0)
Drive Mode - Self Timer 2sec
Flash - Off
Shake Reduction - Off

The following parameters are recorded with different settings between the two :
White balance fine tune on the K5II is set to Green +1, but on the 's' it is 0.
Metering mode on the K5II is Centre-Weighted, on the 's' it is Matrix Mode.

Finally, 'Spurious Colour Signal Reduction' was activated with a value of 80, the same for both shots.

There is a noticable green cast across neutral tones on the K5II image, so I assume the WB fine tune setting was a mistake, or not noticed. Possibly the metering mode difference also was not noticed, but there is no significant effect on the exposure between the two.

Visual Impressions

The test images are well focussed, bright and colourful. In the PDCU preview window I am able to go fullscreen and zoom to 100%, which I did do and examined numerous objects comparitively. There is a small amount of depth of field variation within the scene between the items. This has the effect when studying the shots up close of making some items appear fractionally more defined than in the opposing shot, but there is no obvious pattern to how these DOF variations have recorded between the two. But manual focussing was used, which could explain it.

The histograms are virtually identical, with a tiny amount of black clipping and the white point set at about 93% across the scale. The 's' image gives the impression of being fractionally higher in contrast, but this is not supported by the histogram.

Colours on the K5II image are fractionally more vibrant, which is interesting considering the comment about contrast on the 's' I made just above.

It should be clear by now that there's really not much between them by any measure. Of course, we are not talking about rendered RAW files yet - these are the camera processed JPEG previews. As far as these JPEGs are concerned, I cannot see any consistent difference in 'sharpness' between the two.

Preparing for Rendering
Now I will open each file in PDCU's main editing window. This changes the operations - now PDCU carries out 'on the fly' rendering as adjustments are made, although it only generates a preview with low resolution. This allows adjustments to be displayed accurately as you go, but PDCU can only operate on one file at once, so side by side comparisons will not now be possible until final rendering at full resolution and the new JPEGs or TIFFs are opened in another programme.

I opened both files one by one, and restored the contrast and sharpness settings to 0, and ran through all the other settings to be sure they were the same, including the WB fine tune. I deactivated 'Spurious Colour Signal Reduction' as it seemed to have no effect - but who knows what it would do if the file was opened in ACR or something else?

This all gives me confidence that there will be no differing processing affecting the shots caused by any unknown matadata field. It would be more dfficult to have this confidence in another RAW converter, as the metadata fields in the file may not all match up to the programme parameters.

I then examined the shots closely again, although only individually.
First The K5IIs image shows the same slight variation in DOF throughout scene. There is nothing new to report in this respect. There is one object, a white rectangular thing at the left base of the Baileys bottle. This has a fine ribbed texture. The surface of this object is pretty much wiped out with arrow shaped green bands - I can only assume this is a moire defect.

Then the K5II shot. I of course immediatly zoomed in to the 'moired' object, and , guess what, there is no arrow shaped green banding on the surface. So there's a clear difference with that. Scanning around I cannot see anything further to report - both images appear the same at this stage as their JPEG previews previously.

I saved out (rendered) 3 versions of each - 16it TIFF, '4-star' JPEG and '2-star' JPEG.


The Rendered Files - Capture Sharpening Stage Comparisons

Please bear in mind that these initial comparisons are on equal, processing neutralised images at the first stages - this is the 'Capture Sharpening' stage. This does not yet answer what the final output potentials are of either file.

However, I believe that these inital comparisons to be accurately representative of the JPEG output from these cameras. This is based on the fact that the rendering and metadata were neutralised in PDCU, and the output shows no significant difference to what the first camera-generated embedded JPEGs looked like.

I nnow have 6 files to look at. First I chose the maximum quality JPEGs and opened them in my favourite image viewer - Fullscreen Image Viewer.

This displayed them fullscreen and both shots looks beautifully presented, clear and detailed. There was no discernable difference (apart from the moire) when flicking between them at fullscreen size
The in my imatch program I opened them in the 'side by side' window. Here I have full zoom and scrolling control and both images move together, so I am looking at exactly the same items at the same time at the same size.

Also there is a 'loupe' tool for instant 100% zooms on a small spot.
I explored the images extensively using these viewing methods. I also opened the 16bit TIFFs and carried out the same exploration.

I could sense at times some slight difference at certain spots, but there was no conistency to this. In total, on balance, I can honestly report that I was unable to identify any discernable difference between these files, either in their TIFF or JPEG versions.

For that reason I believe I can fairly argue at this point in the process, that if you only wish to shoot 'in-camera' JPEGs, then there is no benefit whatsover to the K5IIs model.

So thats that! The fun will really begin when we start to explore the effect of the next stage in the processing chain - output sharpening.