1. Reminder: Please use our affiliate links for holiday shopping!

G5 RAW sharpness

Discussion in 'Panasonic Cameras' started by Superstriker#8, Jun 24, 2013.

  1. Superstriker#8

    Superstriker#8 Mu-43 Regular

    194
    Jun 24, 2013
    I just got a G5:smile:, and yesterday I tested the RAW output, I was very disappointed by the results: they were all pixelized! I don't know if that means my G5 is messed up, or if that's normal. I used the silkypix developer, BTW.
    I'd appreciate any help, thanks.
     
  2. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    just avoid using the silkypix program, from my experience, hope that helps.
     
  3. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    Silkypix is terrible, I don't know why they bundle it with their cameras.

    Why don't you post an example so we know what you're talking about?
     
  4. Wasabi Bob

    Wasabi Bob Mu-43 Top Veteran

    Even raw has limitations, maybe you are trying to set something too high? Once you save to JPG, you will introduce compression. While I agree that Silky Pix is not the easiest program, I've seen some nice results.
     
  5. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    I understand the problem with silkypix quite well, people may occasionally get good results from the program but that probably means the results could've been even better if LR is used. The default sharpening from silkypix must be the reason to the effect OP mentioned, and unlike Olympus Viewer software, as a bundled software provided with the camera Silkypix doesn't seem like providing an optimised processing for Panasonic cameras, the only reason for its existense is that it's free of charge
     
  6. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
  7. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    Hi Tom that's a good one, I also have a Panasonic camera, could you share some PP experience? Panasonic RAW format always shows red towards magenta so I've only figured out in LR that I can make a +25 shift in the red channel to seemingly fix it. But seeing your red makes me think if I can make things right in Silkypix?
     
  8. mnhoj

    mnhoj There and back again

    Dec 3, 2011
    Los Angeles
    John M
    Here's a Silky conversion with default settings(avg. contrast, nat. sharp). My camera settings were STD and 0.

    Next is my LR file. Huelight profile. Default otherwise.

    I don't think Silky does a bad job.
    9135804212_7cbb6dfd81_c.jpg
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Wasabi Bob

    Wasabi Bob Mu-43 Top Veteran

    In moderation

    Allow me to elaborate a bit. With any RAW processing, you cannot assume that sharpness (or any adjustment) can be adjusted to excess without some image degradation. The temptation is to produce razor sharp images (from images that may not have that degree of sharpness) can result in undesirable visible artifacts. You cannot produce detail that simply does not exist. Even too much noise reduction can result in pasty looking photos. I once read that post processing is like cooking and spices. They can enhance, but in excess, they can destroy the dish.
     
  10. spatulaboy

    spatulaboy I'm not really here

    Jul 13, 2011
    North Carolina
    Vin
    I guess I should elaborate on my comment, I meant Silkypix is terrible to use. It's clunky and not very user friendly. The software itself is powerful enough.

    Carry on. :tongue:
     
  11. entropicremnants

    entropicremnants Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 16, 2012
    John Griggs
    I use Lightroom and I have no problems with my G5. If there are sharpness problems its usually ME and what I did during the capture, lol.

    I never have used SilkyPix or even installed it and have no intention of doing so.

    By the way, the term "RAW sharpness" is really a misnomer. The RAW file is as sharp as your technique and lens can make it. It's the CONVERSION process from RAW where things can get lost.
     
  12. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    I disagree. The RAW file sharpness is dictated by those two things PLUS the strength of the anti-alias filter in front of the sensor.

    GH3 files are noticeably sharper straight out of camera and I'm assuming that is down to the AA filter being different.

    GH3:

    centre-over-A-200.jpg

    same lens on a G5:

    centre-over-B-200.jpg

    The GH3 is consistently sharper than the G5 with raw files straight from camera. With the same lens
     
  13. jyc860923

    jyc860923 Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Feb 28, 2012
    Shenyang, China
    贾一川
    take a close look at silkypix output, it's easy to find over sharpened pixelised colour grain

    Sent from my M040 using Tapatalk 2
     
  14. Superstriker#8

    Superstriker#8 Mu-43 Regular

    194
    Jun 24, 2013
    Thanks for all the help! I'll try to post some examples, but it might take a while (don't know how yet). I guess I'll stick with jpeg untill I get a different raw proccessor.
     
  15. entropicremnants

    entropicremnants Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 16, 2012
    John Griggs
    No, the SENSOR may be different, but the FILE doesn't change and the thrust of the discussion was what was gotten with different RAW file conversion methods.

    And really the differences you show are pretty trivial and wouldn't add up to a hill of beans on a large print. You can only see them at 100% -- gosh is that how photographs are viewed? Only by senseless pixel peeping. How do we know you actually did a good job capturing both those images? For all we know you skewed the test to make a point -- one that isn't very helpful.

    Had an E-M5 (same lack of heavy AA) and a G5 (with light AA) and I still prefer the G5. And printing -- which is what photographers generally do if they are artists and not technicians -- does not show these "vast" differences.

    My point still stands and this is another pointless discussion where the actual results you get aren't any different if you know post processing.

    This discussion belongs on DPReview where arguing over 100% details takes precedence over actual photography.

    I stick out my tongue at this whole discussion, lol.
     
  16. tdekany

    tdekany Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 8, 2011
    Oregon
    I am sorry, I can't help you. I sold the G3 a long time ago and I can't remember what I did in Silky Pix when I used it.
     
  17. arad85

    arad85 Mu-43 Veteran

    477
    Aug 16, 2012
    ??? What ??? You said that the only thing influencing the sharpness was only "technique and lens". I posted to show that the sensor makes a difference too. Nothing more, nothing less...

    They look sharper in moderate sized versions of the image too. There is a cleanness about the GH3 that is lacking on the G5.

    This is an example. The results are consistent.

    I'm far more interested in the technical side of photography than the art side - and I'm not afraid to say that either. :wink: That does not make my view any the less relevant. :thumbup:

    You're doing a great job of contradicting yourself here :2thumbs:
     
  18. Ulfric M Douglas

    Ulfric M Douglas Mu-43 Hall of Famer

    Mar 6, 2010
    Northumberland
    Way out of order! ;
    :mad:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. arbutusq

    arbutusq Mu-43 Regular

    34
    Aug 10, 2011
    What a light or non existent A A filter gives you is acutance, not sharpness. There is no more detail in the GH3 shot than the G5 shot posted above.

    In my experience shooting with the Nikon D70 (weak AA) and Pentax K100d (stronger AA) with same sensor the Nikon files needed slightly less sharpening and local area contrast than the Pentax ones but at the end of the day I could get both cameras' files to look identical with very little effort. I imagine you could get similar results with any 16 mp m4/3 camera with a bit of experimentation.