K-m Olive: Sharp JPEG, Soft RAW(PPL/SilkyPix)!

The pixel peeping continues! This time is for the in-camera JPEG against RAW with the K-m Olive.

First, here is the image directly out of the camera, in the finest quality JPEG (File at around 3MB), shot in the RAW+JPEG mode (PEF):-


(Downsized only, all EXIF data preserved)

And then, the directly ("automatically") converted image from RAW using the original Pentax Photo Laboratory (Version 3.60) software, saved as the highest quality (File at around 8MB):-


(Downsized only, all EXIF data preserved)

Now, the pixel peeping begins! Here is the 200% view crop from the in-camera JPEG:-


(Click to view in full: 100% crop, simple resizing to 200% (no re-sampling), saved as 100% Jpeg with IrfanView, for easy but accurate viewing here.)

And then the 200% view crop from the PPL (with SilkyPix image engine) RAW converted JPEG:-


(Click to view in full: 100% crop, simple resizing to 200% (no re-sampling), saved as 100% Jpeg with IrfanView.)

As it can be easily seen, the in-camera JPEG is obviously sharper, with higher resolution and contains more details. It wins hands down against the RAW converted image, which is also much larger in file size.

Just for more information, the original image was taken in Natural Custom Image mode in Saturation -1, Hue 0, Contrast +1, Fine Sharpness -1. The same settings have been automatically carried forward to the PPL by default. In order to confirm it is not a difference in the level of *sharpening* (generally called "Sharpness" for DSLRs' setting). I have tried to convert the same PEF RAW file using the maximum "Sharpness" setting, i.e., +4, to see if it could help. Here is the 200% view crop:-



Well, as it has been well expected, it doesn't help.

So, the SilkyPix RAW conversion engine of the latest PPL is really poor. It provides poor per pixel sharpness which the camera has already captured. It's just a waste of resolution and image details with such RAW conversion. I think other 3rd party RAW conversion software should be used if anyone is intended to shoot RAW with Pentax DSLRs. The bundled RAW conversion software just produced JUNK!

But then the problems with those 3rd party RAW converters are that:
1. They need extra bucks;
2. Many times and many of them are not as colour correct and the reproduced colours are not as faithful;
3. The compatibility is not as good!

It is sad and ridiculous as the bundled RAW software should produce better pictures, like what the Canon DPP can do, unfortunately, the PPL doesn't. But yet fortunately, the in-camera JPEG engine of the Olive K-m is very good. And actually, it is excellent, I would say. So, I just wonder, why Pentax did not use their own RAW conversion algorithms used in the Olive K-m to do the RAW conversion, even for the PPL?

More unfortunately, the same Soft JPEGs are yet found in the two K-7 production units I tested before. So, many times I just wonder what Pentax people are doing actually? I hope that they are not really like too much those Soft JPEGs, no matter in-camera or RAW converted (and the algorithms)!

Those Softy things are really rather unfortunate for all Pentax users and actually for Pentax themselves. Overall, it is just a very disappointing thing! :-(

Last but not least, the SilkyPix is infamous to produce low resolution and per pixel sharpness actually, which was what Klaus of the PhotoZone found about when he tested different RAW converters quite sometimes ago (now, I'm afraid that Klaus has deleted the review as I am unable to find it at the PZ):-

http://www.photozone.de/7Digital/rawindex.htm

He tested different Spatial Freqency Response of the RAW converted by different RAW converters using the Imatest.

But the evidence for its existence before:-
http://photo.net/digital-darkroom-forum/00Kwvi

Update (7-30) - Raw Therapee 2.4 Shootout Added:


(Click to view in full: 100% crop, simple resizing to 200% (no re-sampling), saved as 100% Jpeg with IrfanView.)

As seen in the above, the resolution and details are now obviously better than what the PPL 3.6 would deliver but still it is not as good as the in-camera JPEG owing to the more serious pixelisation resulted.

Also, the colour rendition and white balance are somewhat different than what in-camera JPEG and the PPL produces (more yellowish), as I have mentioned last time, the colour reproduction by third party RAW converters will not be as Faithful and would be less accurate.

Moreover, the RT Release Version 2.4 has compatibility issue or bug with K-m's RAW files. The program will crash each time when the RAW files are read in thumbnails. So, thanks to the hint by one of the above Blog pal who replied, I downloaded and tried the RC2 of the Version 2.4 instead and everything works fine. The interface of the RT is not so straightforward and direct for some of the key operations but the most serious problem of it I think is that it is very slow - both the DPP and PPL surely runs faster on the same PC machines that I use. It is an usable piece of software, though, and it is the only Free Standalone RAW converter that supports the Pentax DSLRs outthere (almost, AFAIK)!

In fact, the older versions of the Pentax Photo Lab (2.X etc.) were sharper, I just wonder why what is going on by now, actually?

Also, there is a little update regarding PhotoZone's RAW comparison links and report (which were changed), here they are:-

http://www.photozone.de/conclusion-on-going

http://www.photozone.de/Imaging