Skip to main content

⚠ī¸ Please note that this topic or post has been archived. The information contained here may no longer be accurate or up-to-date. ⚠ī¸

Pentax Kx is absent from the list of cameras in support case

deejjjaaaa
Once in a lifetime (I hate doing this) I tried to create a support case only to discover that Pentax Kx is not listed under Pentax cameras in a dialog box even it is listed as a supported camera for 5.0.1

http://img704.imageshack.us/img704/4885/p1support.jpg

The problem is very simple.

With .PEF raw files from for example Pentax K20D or Pentax *istDL I can see that certain correction options in "Lens Correction" tools are availble - for example "Purple Fringing"... however this is not the case with .PEF raw files from Pentax Kx... and the camera is listed as supported... Lens says "unsupported file" like w/ .DNG files.

The question is :

1) is it a bug ?

or

2) this is done on purpose (I guess I missed something then - like some announcement that P1 will be disabling that in future releases for not P1 cameras/backs/lenses)

or

3) support for Pentax Kx while announced is not full and final and that will be corrected (generic lens corrections like purple fringing and chromatic aberration analysis/correction) in 5.0.2 or next

or

4) Pentax, being ready to finally put 645D on the market and considering P1 a direct competition now, decided to make life for C1 users with Pentax cameras miserable (so it is not actually P1's fault) - ... now I like all those conspiracy theories !

any comments anybody ???????????????????????????
0

Comments

12 comments

Date Votes
  • deejjjaaaa
    5.0.2 and still the same situation ? is Pentax Kx really supported and profiled ?

    1) Pentax Kx is absent in the list of cameras when you try to create a support case on line.

    2) .PEF files from Pentax Kx are shown as "unrecognized" in Lens Correction tool - unlike .PEF files from all previous Pentax cameras.

    3) White Balance tool has only 2 choices listed for Pentax Kx = "custom" and "shot", this is another sign of unsupported camera, .PEF files from all previous Pentax cameras have the usual list of options for WB.

    yet P1 lists Kx as a supported camera ?
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    I am happy (or rather unhappy) to report that I finally nailed a raw file from Pentax Kx that C1 can't render at all and uploaded it to P1, and got a confirmation from P1 support that C1 has issues w/ that... Hopefully that will make P1 to do something to support Kx as the rest of Pentax cameras, it is about time !

    Here is the link to the file for the curious people (sorry for the content though 😄, if you will open it in another raw converter):

    http://www.box.net/shared/jul5yql123

    C1 fails to render it properly on Win & Mac platform.

    So far it is verified that file can be rendered normally by Adobe Camera Raw and SilkyPix, I 'd appreciate if somebody will check it in other raw convertetrs that have Pentax Kx as a supported camera.
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    deejjjaaaa,
    The link you provided shows a Pentax Kx file at ISO 12800. That ISO is not supported as it is not a true ISO, it is an extended ISO. These "extended" ISO's are actually just files which are shot at the closest "true" ISO in the camera and then the Dynamic Range is adjusted to create a more even exposure. Please see if the issues you experienced persist at the supported true ISO's for the Pentax Kx (200-6400). If you shoot at ISO 6400 and then adjust the exposure in Capture One you will get better results (more control) then if you allow the camera to do this for you.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Drew " wrote:
    deejjjaaaa,
    The link you provided shows a Pentax Kx file at ISO 12800. That ISO is not supported as it is not a true ISO, it is an extended ISO. These "extended" ISO's are actually just files which are shot at the closest "true" ISO in the camera and then the Dynamic Range is adjusted to create a more even exposure. Please see if the issues you experienced persist at the supported true ISO's for the Pentax Kx (200-6400). If you shoot at ISO 6400 and then adjust the exposure in Capture One you will get better results (more control) then if you allow the camera to do this for you.


    Drew,

    but look - here is a camera, camera produces a raw file, every other damn raw converter claiming that camera is supported can render it and C1 can't... how do firmware tricks in the camera extending the 200-6400 range to 100-12800 prevent C1 from working properly w/ raw files (note - only some of them) @ ISO12800 ? I have other images @ ISO12800 that C1 can render when I was testing it yesterday ? It is just some (so far I managed to find out 2 files) of the raw files shot @ ISO12800 that C1 can't ? how so ? I looks like it is a perfectly fixable problem for P1... I am not arguing about the merits of using ISO12800 in camera vs ISO6400 + adjustments in C1... I mean what is the big difference in the raw data itself that cause C1 to render the image like it is a worst case of sensor banding ever ? and how about my questions above that ? why Kx raw files (regardless of the ISO) are listed as unsupported in "Lens Correction" tool ? will that be fixed at all ?
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    deejjjaaaa,
    I understand what you are saying "RAW is RAW so what makes this different"? The answer is A LOT.

    Capture One supports the RAW file from the camera. An extended ISO is an edited RAW file, edited from it's original form in the camera. Because of this there are unaccountable adjustments in the image which can cause errors in reading/processing the images. Capture One quality is quite good and the reason for this is precision. When the camera makes changes to the format Capture One is expecting, that precision is thrown out the window and as such these changes are not supported. The examples you have that work, perhaps didn't need to be "pushed" to an extreme, while the problem files are at the proverbial end of the spectrum. The differences in these files alone should stand as an example of how complicated this "extended" ISO business actually is, so a quick fix is obviously not in the cards.
    If these extended ISO's can be supported, then they will be. But if they continue to not be supported, you can venture to guess there is a good reason why. Again, if you shoot at ISO 6400 and push the exposure in Capture One you will achieve the same result, in all likely-hood a better result.

    In regard to the Lens Correction. This tool was never listed as fully supporting every RAW file. For those formats it can support it works, for those that we cannot (are have not yet) it lists "Unsupported File". As the Kx has only seen support for 2 months its likely that not everything has been addressed and plans are on the horizon for improvement. I'll look into any future improvement to this format but cannot promise anything beyond what is already present.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Drew " wrote:

    Capture One supports the RAW file from the camera. An extended ISO is an edited RAW file, edited from it's original form in the camera.


    wait a moment - both ISO6400 and ISO12800 raw files are created by the same hardware and same firmware in the camera... if the Pentax firmware does something extra to the ISO12800 raw file, it does not make it less original raw file from the user stand point... there is NR (the one that you can't switch off) applied to the raw data (not to JPG mind you) in camera for certain ISOs above ISO3200 (if I am not mistaken about Kx) by Pentax... does it make those hi ISO raw files also edited RAW files ? probably so - but does it mean that they should not be supported somehow ? Anyways - it is just sad to see other converters to score a point against C1 ! P1 should not lose the ground like that... square inch here, square inch there... ☚ī¸



    [quote="Drew " wrote:

    In regard to the Lens Correction. This tool was never listed as fully supporting every RAW file. For those formats it can support it works, for those that we cannot (are have not yet) it lists "Unsupported File". As the Kx has only seen support for 2 months its likely that not everything has been addressed and plans are on the horizon for improvement. I'll look into any future improvement to this format but cannot promise anything beyond what is already present.


    yes, please - because, look, you (P1 I mean) say the camera is supported... now when some person is comparing what was supported for all previous cameras from the *istD days (I mean the level of support right now, at this moment, in the current release) is quite shocking to see that a hell lot thing taken for granted are suddenly not... suddenly missing w/o any explanation from the latest release... [color=#BFBFBF:1kfwkvbb] it is like i said, like Pentax thinking about putting 645D on the market after so many years decided to do something about a competition (P1 I mean)... may be not giving some things that P1 wants to know about the raw files ? [/color:1kfwkvbb]
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    [quote="Drew " wrote:
    The differences in these files alone should stand as an example of how complicated this "extended" ISO business actually is, so a quick fix is obviously not in the cards.
    If these extended ISO's can be supported, then they will be. But if they continue to not be supported, you can venture to guess there is a good reason why.


    Canon users have been wondering the same thing as you for a long time, and trust me when I say there is a good reason why support is not provided.

    http://xchange.phaseone.com/content/sup ... nguageid=1
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    [quote="Drew " wrote:
    [quote="Drew " wrote:
    The differences in these files alone should stand as an example of how complicated this "extended" ISO business actually is, so a quick fix is obviously not in the cards.
    If these extended ISO's can be supported, then they will be. But if they continue to not be supported, you can venture to guess there is a good reason why.


    Canon users have been wondering the same thing as you for a long time, and trust me when I say there is a good reason why support is not provided.

    http://xchange.phaseone.com/content/sup ... nguageid=1


    I have seen that of course, but you know - your own shirt (gear) is kind of closer... and look, between (1) supporting ISO 6400 perfectly and ISO12800 somehow just to have that and (2) supporting ISO 6400 perfectly and not supporting ISO12800 at all I guess the option (1) will still be the better way, or at least it should be noted in the release notes like Pentax Kx* (* ISO100, ISO12800 raw files are not supported or supported conditionally or whatever)... and certainly C1 should produce (don't you think so ?) some kind of a warning message for the user when he tries to open a particular (or any) ISO12800 file that it (C1) can't render, for now it behaves exactly like there is some error in the code... and I guess if there is no way to render ISO12800 "perfectly" there is still a way to render it nevertheless, something is better then nothing... well, don't waste your time on this topic today anyways, I heard the answer(s)... may be 5.1 will be better (I read on getdpi forum today that 5.1 is behind the corner).
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    Something is not always better than nothing. Please trust that we want to keep our reputation of providing quality images over providing a wider variety of mediocre results. Again, if we can improve it we certainly will and if nothing else we will mark the release notes or make a KB bringing attention to the issue. A software "prompt" is not a possibility.
    Thank you for your patience and we will notify you through your support case of any change in information we gain.
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    well, Drew, it looks it has nothing to do w/ ISO12800 in fact.

    here is ISO640 raw file that has the same bug...

    http://www.box.net/shared/znao0z686s

    and ISO200 raw file on top of that (that is a native ISO)

    http://www.box.net/shared/6na3nkn305

    I hope that developers fixed the reason ? I created case id# 69034 after our first exchange here and was told that something was found... do you mind to pass the raw files to developers to test ?!
    0
  • deejjjaaaa
    I was offered to download and test C1 v5.x (x>0) Beta 2.

    The bug with odd color stripes in Pentax Kx .PEF raw files was fixed (apparently) - at least 4 of my raw files in question are now being rendered correctly.

    The rest of the issues (White Balance tool and Lens Correction too) are not fixed (yet) however.
    0
  • Drew Altdo
    deejjjaaaa,
    If you have reported the issues you found with the Beta through the program itself that is all that need be discussed.
    0

Post is closed for comments.