7/16/2023 0 Comments Silkypix developer studio pro 5![]() I am sorry, but if it was released as open source it would not make it IMO to an established user base. I honestly think the interface is dated, and apart from that I think it is a bad start to restrict yourself to functionality from at camera, which has a very challenged interface to begin with. What Pentax have given us is very good at what it needs to do. I don't really see why camera makers should be expected to provide free sophisticated RAW software, a very specialized thing. I would qualify this by saying this is limited to those shots not requiring 'major surgery' - in fact, anything that could have been set and output from the camera can be achieved with better quality in glorious 16bit from PDCU. I use 3 or 4 different converters, and I still consistently find PDCU 4 provides the highest quality results. Once people have learnt to navigate around the interface in a logical way, many have found PDCU to produce excellent images. I just felt your comment was a bit unfair without placing it in the full context. As I have said many times, it is not laid out in any way like a typical RAW file program, but is structured more to reflect and the in-camera controls and menu items that 'edit' files. ![]() I've never avoided the fact that it is commonly disliked - my point is simply that this is due to misunderstanding of its intention and functioning, which is really very different to other RAW converters, Silkypix included. I appreciate you see some use in the program (as a file browser & viewer), but that's not the core of it, and probably not the reason that some dislike it. Hello to Joel too I can only respond to specific points that you actually write down - you said that PDCU (specifically) was c.p and had been run through the 'destructive hands of Pentax hacks'. If K3 was supplied with Silkypix I would have considered it a bonus. ![]() Now I am trying to think of good reasons why users of these cameras don't deserve the same stripped down program. The fact is, according to their website Pentax put "Silkypix Lite" in the boxes of some of their cameras: the Qs, k01, k-30. Where I come from that is still legal, even encouraged. Now it is deliberately crippled and I am dissappointed and expresses that in words. All they had to do was to stay closer to the source (of a consumer program). With alogoriths tuned to Pentax cameras colour characterics and with a feature (lens correction) that you otherwise have to support Adobe to get. The thing is, I think PDCU could have been an excellent program of great use to us. I rarely hear people express their love of the program, so take comfort in knowing I am not alone. I wrote some arguments in favour of my view, but came to think it is not worth it. I write 3 paragraphs, one of them is a critique of Pentax. Pentax K7 with BG-4 Grip / Samyang 14mm f2.8 ED AS IF UMC / DA18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR / SMC A28mm f2.8 / D FA 28-105mm / SMC F35-70 f3.5-4.5 / SMC A50mm f1.7 / Tamron AF70-300mm f4-5.6 Di LD macro / SMC M75-150mm f4.0 / Tamron Adaptall (CT-135) 135mm f2.8 / Asahi Takumar-A 2X tele-converter / Pentax AF-540FGZ (I & II) Flashes / Cactus RF60/X Flashes & V6/V6II TransceiverĪnd a hello to you, MacGregor. My Guides to the Pentax Digital Camera Flash Lighting System : Download here from the PentaxForums Homepage Article. Many people report excellent output results from PDCU once it is understood. Just because many more experienced users don't process in this manner (eg using Lightroom or something else & don't apply camera custom settings) doesn't of itself mean the approach is poor or inferior. The approach is obviously intended to allow users to retrospectively apply camera settings (plus a few extras) to their RAW files in case of error in setting up the camera for the shoot, or if not using JPEGs and you like the camera menu controls. In this way it mimics certain of the menu items and custom image control as laid out on the camera LCD interface - this is the extent of the 'destructive hands of Pentax software hacks'. PDCU is not intended to act as some sort of 'Silkypix Lite' freebie - the interface layout is designed to represent the key image editing features of the cameras. It would be better to step back and consider how PDCU relates both to other RAW converters and to the cameras themselves. This sort of ignorant stuff is hardly helpful. Is Pentax still keeping that cr*p alive? PDCU5 is Silkypix run through the destructive hands of Pentax' software hacks? I thought they were supplying the original Silkypix, just not the latest incarnation.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |