Free Panasonic SilkyPix worth the trouble?

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Not sure if this will work. Should be able to view @ 100%

https://flic.kr/p/2nktwan

Click to expand...

I have no flickr account.

Please do the following

1. Processes the raw file in SILKY with the default settings (or with any you like, but you will need to specify the settings if they are different from the defaults). To compare with my results the exposure compensation should be -0.7.

2. Set in SILKY a highest crop at the banknot area (to compare with my results)

3. Export the result to 200% upscaled jpg

4. Show the result (crop) here

Click to expand...

You don't need a Flickr account. Click the Flickr link, click the down arrow on the bottom right of the photo, click the view all sizes, then click the original (5184x3888) Done. Unadulterated 100% view of the whole image. I'm not diving into 200% plus stupidity. Open whatever you have in another tab, and compare side by side.

Click to expand...

From your link I can get only strongly downsampled image far from 100% (nothing to discuss). Please follow my recommendations (they are very simple indeed), so everybody can see the discussion. Only this way you can see that it was nothing wrong in my post.

Click to expand...

Your "instructions" have nothing to do with any raw conversion. All you're looking at is some random upscaling to 200% What I posted is an uncompressed 100% view of the raw converted to jpeg in Silkypix

Click to expand...

There is no such concept as "random scaling". You have posted 100% jpg image, which is, of course, compressed (just info for you). SILKY has upscaling option, which works quite well, and there is nothing wrong in using it. It helps for people with hi-dpi monitors to follow our discussion and my arguments.

Anyway. I have succeeded in dowloading your 100% jpg from Flicker. Already at the beginning there is in important point to mention, which follows from EXIF file of your image: EXIF shows that you use not free version of SILKY, but Pro 10.

Let us look at the linearly 2X-upscaled crop from your image (#1). It shows the same problem I have pointed out in my post above. Even Pro 10 version, which is not free, shows the same demosaicing problem. It provides smudged image with an information I estimate at level of about 10 Mpx sensor, despite the image was subjected to sharpening (lack of details and sharpening artifacts well visible).

Image (#2) is the same iWE-processed RAW file, where LibRAW AHD demosaicing is used.

My conclusion: both free and Pro 10 versions of SILKY are not acceptable if you want maximum from your sensor.


#1 Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image from Gnine, which was processed using SILKYPIX Development studio Pro 10


#2. Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image processed using iWE RAW editor with LibRaw AHD demosaicing.

Gnine said:

Your conclusion is absolutely flawed. Otherwise, there would not be all the photo upsizing software on the market, for that particular task. If you want to view/print your images at 200-500% enlargement, use the proper tools for the job. As I wrote, operator error.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The first (#1) is your image! Both images are uspscaled using the same LINEAR interpolation. Are you saing that it is your (as operator) error?

Your must learn some basics...

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Not sure if this will work. Should be able to view @ 100%

https://flic.kr/p/2nktwan

Click to expand...

I have no flickr account.

Please do the following

1. Processes the raw file in SILKY with the default settings (or with any you like, but you will need to specify the settings if they are different from the defaults). To compare with my results the exposure compensation should be -0.7.

2. Set in SILKY a highest crop at the banknot area (to compare with my results)

3. Export the result to 200% upscaled jpg

4. Show the result (crop) here

Click to expand...

You don't need a Flickr account. Click the Flickr link, click the down arrow on the bottom right of the photo, click the view all sizes, then click the original (5184x3888) Done. Unadulterated 100% view of the whole image. I'm not diving into 200% plus stupidity. Open whatever you have in another tab, and compare side by side.

Click to expand...

From your link I can get only strongly downsampled image far from 100% (nothing to discuss). Please follow my recommendations (they are very simple indeed), so everybody can see the discussion. Only this way you can see that it was nothing wrong in my post.

Click to expand...

Your "instructions" have nothing to do with any raw conversion. All you're looking at is some random upscaling to 200% What I posted is an uncompressed 100% view of the raw converted to jpeg in Silkypix

Click to expand...

There is no such concept as "random scaling". You have posted 100% jpg image, which is, of course, compressed (just info for you). SILKY has upscaling option, which works quite well, and there is nothing wrong in using it. It helps for people with hi-dpi monitors to follow our discussion and my arguments.

Anyway. I have succeeded in dowloading your 100% jpg from Flicker. Already at the beginning there is in important point to mention, which follows from EXIF file of your image: EXIF shows that you use not free version of SILKY, but Pro 10.

Let us look at the linearly 2X-upscaled crop from your image (#1). It shows the same problem I have pointed out in my post above. Even Pro 10 version, which is not free, shows the same demosaicing problem. It provides smudged image with an information I estimate at level of about 10 Mpx sensor, despite the image was subjected to sharpening (lack of details and sharpening artifacts well visible).

Image (#2) is the same iWE-processed RAW file, where LibRAW AHD demosaicing is used.

My conclusion: both free and Pro 10 versions of SILKY are not acceptable if you want maximum from your sensor.


#1 Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image from Gnine, which was processed using SILKYPIX Development studio Pro 10


#2. Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image processed using iWE RAW editor with LibRaw AHD demosaicing.

Serguei Palto said:

Your conclusion is absolutely flawed. Otherwise, there would not be all the photo upsizing software on the market, for that particular task. If you want to view/print your images at 200-500% enlargement, use the proper tools for the job. As I wrote, operator error.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The first (#1) is your image! Both images are uspscaled using the same LINEAR interpolation. Are you saing that it is your (as operator) error?

Your must learn some basics...

Click to expand...

And you must learn some spelling basics. There's a tiny bit more detail & contrast in my raw conversion, to my eye. Look at the text & numbers in the top right & top left corners. Nothing in it really. Use whatever makes you happy. No one else would ever pick any difference in the real world. But one thing is for certain, I'm not seeing half the resolution that you're claiming. We get it, you don't like SP, so don't use it. Just don't go making stupid statements such as SP only producing half the resolution.

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Not sure if this will work. Should be able to view @ 100%

https://flic.kr/p/2nktwan

Click to expand...

I have no flickr account.

Please do the following

1. Processes the raw file in SILKY with the default settings (or with any you like, but you will need to specify the settings if they are different from the defaults). To compare with my results the exposure compensation should be -0.7.

2. Set in SILKY a highest crop at the banknot area (to compare with my results)

3. Export the result to 200% upscaled jpg

4. Show the result (crop) here

Click to expand...

You don't need a Flickr account. Click the Flickr link, click the down arrow on the bottom right of the photo, click the view all sizes, then click the original (5184x3888) Done. Unadulterated 100% view of the whole image. I'm not diving into 200% plus stupidity. Open whatever you have in another tab, and compare side by side.

Click to expand...

From your link I can get only strongly downsampled image far from 100% (nothing to discuss). Please follow my recommendations (they are very simple indeed), so everybody can see the discussion. Only this way you can see that it was nothing wrong in my post.

Click to expand...

Your "instructions" have nothing to do with any raw conversion. All you're looking at is some random upscaling to 200% What I posted is an uncompressed 100% view of the raw converted to jpeg in Silkypix

Click to expand...

There is no such concept as "random scaling". You have posted 100% jpg image, which is, of course, compressed (just info for you). SILKY has upscaling option, which works quite well, and there is nothing wrong in using it. It helps for people with hi-dpi monitors to follow our discussion and my arguments.

Anyway. I have succeeded in dowloading your 100% jpg from Flicker. Already at the beginning there is in important point to mention, which follows from EXIF file of your image: EXIF shows that you use not free version of SILKY, but Pro 10.

Let us look at the linearly 2X-upscaled crop from your image (#1). It shows the same problem I have pointed out in my post above. Even Pro 10 version, which is not free, shows the same demosaicing problem. It provides smudged image with an information I estimate at level of about 10 Mpx sensor, despite the image was subjected to sharpening (lack of details and sharpening artifacts well visible).

Image (#2) is the same iWE-processed RAW file, where LibRAW AHD demosaicing is used.

My conclusion: both free and Pro 10 versions of SILKY are not acceptable if you want maximum from your sensor.


#1 Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image from Gnine, which was processed using SILKYPIX Development studio Pro 10


#2. Crop of linearly 2X-upscaled image processed using iWE RAW editor with LibRaw AHD demosaicing.

Gnine said:

Your conclusion is absolutely flawed. Otherwise, there would not be all the photo upsizing software on the market, for that particular task. If you want to view/print your images at 200-500% enlargement, use the proper tools for the job. As I wrote, operator error.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The first (#1) is your image! Both images are uspscaled using the same LINEAR interpolation. Are you saing that it is your (as operator) error?

Your must learn some basics...

Click to expand...

And you must learn some spelling basics. There's a tiny bit more detail & contrast in my raw conversion, to my eye. Look at the text & numbers in the top right & top left corners. Nothing in it really. Use whatever makes you happy. No one else would ever pick any difference in the real world. But one thing is for certain, I'm not seeing half the resolution that you're claiming. We get it, you don't like SP, so don't use it. Just don't go making stupid statements such as SP only producing half the resolution.

Click to expand...

Don't care on spelling - English is not my native language.

So, now images are OK for you? Very good! You have to be happy, if you cannot see the principal difference!

Let us take another example, where the difference, to my eyes, is dramatic even at 1:1 view.

The first (Image #1) is the default (now no operator error is possible) SILKY output from the RAW file you can download from my google folder at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HRF8uw6LVw9kzvAiijvAEMbAS25KilLs?usp=sharing

The image #2 is just the hard crop of the image #1, and for me it shows quite clearly the smudged details, especially well visible on trees.

The image 3 is similar crop from the same RAW image, but with my algorithm of the demosaicing. Do you see the difference? Can you get similar level of details with SILKY Pro 10?




#1. Default SILKY output




#2. Crop of image #1 (no upscaling!)




#3. Crop of the image from the same RAW file, but with iWE demosaicing algorithm.

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

The first (#1) is your image! Both images are uspscaled using the same LINEAR interpolation. Are you saing that it is your (as operator) error?

Your must learn some basics...

Click to expand...

And you must learn some spelling basics. There's a tiny bit more detail & contrast in my raw conversion, to my eye. Look at the text & numbers in the top right & top left corners. Nothing in it really. Use whatever makes you happy. No one else would ever pick any difference in the real world. But one thing is for certain, I'm not seeing half the resolution that you're claiming. We get it, you don't like SP, so don't use it. Just don't go making stupid statements such as SP only producing half the resolution.

Click to expand...

Just to accomplish our discussion. I already know that you do not like any kind of learning. However, you made some statements in your last post such as: " don't go making stupid statements such as SP only producing half the resolution" , - and I must answer. Maybe for somebody, who do not hesitate the learning, the info below will be useful.

1. I was never saying on a " half" of the resolution from SILKY. My statement was that SILKY provides resolution of about 10 Mpx from 20 Mpx sensor.
2. The resolution is linear concept, which means that if the effective number of pixels is decreased twice the resolution drops of about 1.4 times (not two times!)
3. There is no demosaicing method, which can provide 20 Mpx output from 20 Mpx color sensor. It is because 20 Mpx color sensor contains only 10 Mpx of green pixels responsible for the luminance. Thus, a simplest linear interpolation can provide only of about 10 Mpx output in a sense of the resolution. Only in case of 20 Mpx Black-White (BW) sensor one can get 20 Mpx output.
4. The advanced demosaicing methods, like AHD, use some additional model assumptions to extract luminance information from red and blue pixels enhancing the resolution. In majority situations these assumptions work quite well, and the output to can be significantly improved (up to about of 16 Mpx from 20 Mpx sensor according to my estimations).
5. In my demosaicing method (crop example in the last post), which uses spectral demosaicing algorithm, the effective output in the terms resolution can approach very close to 20Mpx, without any model assumptions by direct extraction of the high frequency information. Nevertheless, even in theory it is still below 20Mpx, because there are undesirable spectral components to be cut off.

Kind regards, SP

Serguei Palto said:

Serguei Palto wrote:
So, now images are OK for you? Very good! You have to be happy, if you cannot see the principal difference!

Click to expand...

Not sure where you get that idea from. If your "photography" consists of shooting test charts, and upscaling 200%, good for you. Mine doesn't. If I want resolution, I'll do this. These are the small, reduced versions by the way













You continue shooting test charts and lawn chairs if that's what makes you happy, I'll continue my shooting on my hikes and travels

Serguei Palto said:

Let us take another example, where the difference, to my eyes, is dramatic even at 1:1 view.

The first (Image #1) is the default (now no operator error is possible)

Click to expand...

Why bother if you're only using defaults? Save yourself the effort, and just shoot in camera jpeg's

Don't know what went wrong there but I way prefer the look of the trees in the Silkypix crop. The other crop has a weird blurredness to it.

In my own tests on my own files I find no loss of resolution between Silkypix and the excellent DxO Photolab5 when viewed at 100% pixel peeping. DxO corrects a little better towards the edges but that would be the only detail difference.

Naturally 100% viewing is nonsense when most of the time the images may only be used for a screen view like a slide show, then of course only a 2MP version of the file works fine. Make it an 8MP version slide show if using a 4K monitor.

Silkypix from the first English version at V2 has always been good, probably started in those days as the best featured raw converter and has stayed that way since. Now though I prefer to use DxO Photolab5 as it seems to get the results I like a little easier. I like easy.

Guy Parsons said:

Don't know what went wrong there but I way prefer the look of the trees in the Silkypix crop. The other crop has a weird blurredness to it.

In my own tests on my own files I find no loss of resolution between Silkypix and the excellent DxO Photolab5 when viewed at 100% pixel peeping. DxO corrects a little better towards the edges but that would be the only detail difference.

Naturally 100% viewing is nonsense when most of the time the images may only be used for a screen view like a slide show, then of course only a 2MP version of the file works fine. Make it an 8MP version slide show if using a 4K monitor.

Silkypix from the first English version at V2 has always been good, probably started in those days as the best featured raw converter and has stayed that way since. Now though I prefer to use DxO Photolab5 as it seems to get the results I like a little easier. I like easy.

Click to expand...

I have already said that SILKY provides about 10 Mpx resolution from 20 Mpx color sensor. It is not bad, but not good if you want the maximum from your sensor. Don't know about DXO. You can check DXO on the same test image from dpreview (see below). Free software like RawTherapee can provide output of about 15 Mpx from 20 Mpx color sensor, which is better than SILKY.

Now a bit more about 100% viewing and some comparison tests.

If 100% is nonsense then why we need perfect lenses? Why we need high resolution sensors? Why we need cropping ability? And so on...

Below are crops from file p1000015.RW2 processed by Gnine (#1, #3) using in SILKY Pro 10 in comparison with those processed by me (#2, #4) using my algorithm.

Are you again claming that the images from Silky Pro 10 (1# and #3) are better than 2# and #4 ? Try to read the text on the crops below processed by different soft, and you will understand what means the higher resolution. After that you can return to my crops of landscape image above and compare again fine detailes on grass, trees and so on...

You can try DXO for the same file (p1000015.RW2 from dpreview) and compare with my images (2# or 4#). It would be nice if you share your results here. Maybe indeed there is no big difference between SILKY and DXO?


#1. Crop (1X) from image processed by Gnine using Silky Pro 10 (I estimate the resolution at level of about 10 Mpx)


#2. Crop from the same RAW file processed by me with advanced iWE-demosaicing (I estimate resolution at about 18 Mpx from 20 Mpx sensor).


#3. The same as in #1 (SILKY Pro 10), but 2X resized


#4. The same as in #2 (advanced iWE demosaicing) but 2X resized with the same method as #3.

This obsession with analysing image quality at 100% or 200% using text as examples is pointless.

Sure I can demonstrate easily that DxO does better than Silkypix at 100% 0r 200% but at any normal viewing size there is no difference, apart from the usual contrast and sharpness peculiarities that each raw converter defaults to.

If you don't like Silkypix then don't use it, it is as simple as that.

I'm out of there now as it is a total waste of time being in this thread.

Guy Parsons said:

This obsession with analysing image quality at 100% or 200% using text as examples is pointless.

Sure I can demonstrate easily that DxO does better than Silkypix at 100% 0r 200% but at any normal viewing size there is no difference, apart from the usual contrast and sharpness peculiarities that each raw converter defaults to.

If you don't like Silkypix then don't use it, it is as simple as that.

I'm out of there now as it is a total waste of time being in this thread.

Click to expand...

It is all what you can say? Are you a troll? Where your text examples?

Text is the best to show how the software demosaicing works. So, please demonstrate the same dpreview text both 1X and 2X from DXO output! It is really interesting to know!

You can use SILKY or whatever you want. It is your choice and I have nothing against . I do not use it, because I made my own software for the processing.

I am interested not only in the "normal view". For the normal view I have a smartphone. The high resolution and 100% view is important, for example, for birds like below, if you want to see true feathers (without oversharpening).

Serguei Palto said:

Guy Parsons said:

This obsession with analysing image quality at 100% or 200% using text as examples is pointless.

Sure I can demonstrate easily that DxO does better than Silkypix at 100% 0r 200% but at any normal viewing size there is no difference, apart from the usual contrast and sharpness peculiarities that each raw converter defaults to.

If you don't like Silkypix then don't use it, it is as simple as that.

I'm out of there now as it is a total waste of time being in this thread.

Click to expand...

It is all what you can say? Are you a troll? Where your text examples?

Are you on drugs? Read through the thread, Guy has only been pleasant and helpful, to anyone actually interested in the software. As opposed to yourself, who has done nothing but invent weird scenarios and perform bizarre mental gymnastics to try and prove some imaginary point.

You can use SILKY or whatever you want. It is your choice and I have nothing against . I do not use it, because I made my own software for the processing.

Click to expand...

That says it all

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Guy Parsons said:

This obsession with analysing image quality at 100% or 200% using text as examples is pointless.

Sure I can demonstrate easily that DxO does better than Silkypix at 100% 0r 200% but at any normal viewing size there is no difference, apart from the usual contrast and sharpness peculiarities that each raw converter defaults to.

If you don't like Silkypix then don't use it, it is as simple as that.

I'm out of there now as it is a total waste of time being in this thread.

Click to expand...

It is all what you can say? Are you a troll? Where your text examples? ..(herein was falsificated text inserted by Gnine which can be seen in the previous post)..

You can use SILKY or whatever you want. It is your choice and I have nothing against . I do not use it, because I made my own software for the processing.

Click to expand...

That says it all

Click to expand...

Yes! That says all about you!

It is fantastic! You became so excited that you have decided on falsification my text by inserting your "thought" (I cite the falsificated text, and a reader can see this falsification following my posts): "Are you on drugs? Read through the thread, Guy has only been pleasant and helpful, to anyone actually interested in the software. As opposed to yourself, who has done nothing but invent weird scenarios and perform bizarre mental gymnastics to try and prove some imaginary point."

Are you really believe that the readers are so stupid? Everybody can follow the discussion above and see who is who. You do have excellent "Operator SKILL", SHAME!

Goodbye forever and have a good life!

Serguei Palto said:

Gnine said:

Serguei Palto said:

Guy Parsons said:

This obsession with analysing image quality at 100% or 200% using text as examples is pointless.

Sure I can demonstrate easily that DxO does better than Silkypix at 100% 0r 200% but at any normal viewing size there is no difference, apart from the usual contrast and sharpness peculiarities that each raw converter defaults to.

If you don't like Silkypix then don't use it, it is as simple as that.

I'm out of there now as it is a total waste of time being in this thread.

Click to expand...

It is all what you can say? Are you a troll? Where your text examples? ..(herein was falsificated text inserted by Gnine which can be seen in the previous post)..

You can use SILKY or whatever you want. It is your choice and I have nothing against . I do not use it, because I made my own software for the processing.

Click to expand...

That says it all

Click to expand...

Yes! That says all about you!

It is fantastic! You became so excited that you have decided on falsification my text by inserting your "thought" (I cite the falsificated text, and a reader can see this falsification following my posts): "Are you on drugs? Read through the thread, Guy has only been pleasant and helpful, to anyone actually interested in the software. As opposed to yourself, who has done nothing but invent weird scenarios and perform bizarre mental gymnastics to try and prove some imaginary point."

Are you really believe that the readers are so stupid? Everybody can follow the discussion above and see who is who. You do have excellent "Operator SKILL", SHAME!

Goodbye forever and have a good life!

Click to expand...

Let me give you a tip. Perhaps try your luck in one of the full frame camera forums. They're queer about that sort of thing. I honestly don't think your typical m4/3 user is the slightest bit interested in taking photos of test charts, blowing them up 200% plus, and agonising over the results.

Oh, and thank you for your kind wishes. Despite them not being needed. I have a fabulous life thanks, a happy wife, enough money in the bank to do a bit of overseas travel when possible, a very nice camera to take along with me, and most importantly, good health. Possibly due to not stressing over the silly little inconsequential details in the world. Like looking at photos at 200+% enlargement for example. May your life be as happy and relaxed as mine is. It's a fabulous place to be at. Cheers

i did bursting with a fast lens and processed them in DxO v5 deepprime.

exported as tiff 16b adobeRGB.

and looked for the nicest combination of a few of the burst.

to melt some rawfiles in to a new kind of art-isch look:


2 frames


2 or 3


2 frames


same and an other


2 frames


two frames


again 2


2 frames

basic principle:

remove distracting things, darken surroundings which arn't steady in frame stacks. (blackout so to speak)

Find a common WB kind of look for the burst.

export tiffs to a folder and start combining rows of tiff's with numbers and amount.

keep the one's who are "natural" looking.

for pana was cheaper then other stacking programs.

Note the close framing was intentional because it was very close to my position and i didn't wanted too much "backyard fences" in the frame





--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
knowledge is addictive, every time i get some i want more.....
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
When i see a animal or insect i aim, shoot ...several times... take it home process it and hang it on the wall..... so he or she can live on freely where it belong wile i enjoy his presentation of live.

It's a great product. https://lestreasurehunters.medium.c...x-developer-studio-pro-10-review-ef6fbf26852c

asmac said:

It's a great product. https://lestreasurehunters.medium.c...x-developer-studio-pro-10-review-ef6fbf26852c

Click to expand...

The free SE version for Panasonic camera is the older V8 but still extremely useful. https://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/p/ only works on Panasonic raw files and jpegs from cameras or conversions or tiffs from raw conversions. No other brand camera files will work.

Not as good as DxO Photolab for results but is not far behind unless you are one of those avid pixel peepers.

To March 19th Panasonic or Fuji users can buy the latest full V11 brand limited version for a greatly reduced price. The warning is that version will only work for that brand camera released up to this date. That one is currently at 3,980 Yen find at https://silkypix.isl.co.jp/en/ext/special/dsp11fujipana/

The full V11 version for all cameras is a bit expensive and is the same fully featured converter. It does have occasional discount periods. https://silkypix.isl.co.jp/en/ at 22,000 Yen.

From Australia we buy direct from Japan, other countries may trap you to a local agent, maybe?

Get on their email list to see what is available. I think this is where you could do that https://www.isl.co.jp/SILKYPIX/english/p/support/userregist/ not sure as I have had an account from back at V2 age.

After seeing comments on this thread I downloaded the free Sillypix and used it to develop some images from my G9 I took this morning. My initial reaction was that I was pretty impressed with the naturalness colors I got from this software. I will process more to see how things go but my first attempt was pretty good.

grcolts said:

After seeing comments on this thread I downloaded the free Sillypix and used it to develop some images from my G9 I took this morning. My initial reaction was that I was pretty impressed with the naturalness colors I got from this software. I will process more to see how things go but my first attempt was pretty good.

Click to expand...

Opps...should be SilkyPix not Sillypix.....LOL