[Fcsnt54]

If you are talking about curves implementation then it's only for jpegs. Raws are raws, you'll need to do work youself

---------- Post added 02-16-18 at 10:49 PM ----------

I'd be stoked to have the live comp mode from oly in my k-1, I found it very useful. Plus focus stacking sequence

I understand that but from the programs Ive used, and Ive checked with multiple programs, when applying those curves adjustments in camera it shows up when viewing the raw files on the computer. As though either it is burned into the raw file or the editing software adds that data to the photo. Ive tested it with a constant light source so the values aren't skewed in one way or another. in any aspect it can be a handy feature to have and it would be great if there could be more advancement for this feature to allow for better highlight/shadow control in camera for less work at the computer.

oh that would be sweet if they could add live comp mode to the K-1. I would love that feature and if they added a 4:3 crop selection to the k-1.

[RobA_Oz]

yeah, the real interface battle between them and MS was really over who could control the user the most

(and poor Xerox never got their due)

As I recall it, Xerox got something like $150M out of Apple for the rights to use their interface: from MS, $0. I've used both systems over extended periods, so I don't fantasise about who got the better deal, or who screwed over Xerox.

Didn't Fuji just buy up Xerox?

[Mistral75]

(...)

Didn't Fuji just buy up Xerox?

They are planning to control 50.1% of the new Xerox after the merger of Xerox with Fuji Xerox, their current joint venture:

FUJIFILM Holdings and Xerox Announce Agreement to Combine Fuji Xerox Joint Venture with Xerox Creates a Global Leader in Innovative Print Technologies and Intelligent Work Solutions | FUJIFILM Holdings

...but the deal isn't proceeding as smoothly as expected:

Xerox's No. 3 Shareholder Sues to Block Fuji Takeover Deal - Bloomberg

[Class A]

I understand that but from the programs Ive used, and Ive checked with multiple programs, when applying those curves adjustments in camera it shows up when viewing the raw files on the computer. As though either it is burned into the raw file or the editing software adds that data to the photo.

All RAW converters apply some tone curve.

C1 supports choosing a "linear" tone curve and when you choose it, it becomes obvious why this is not the default.

RAW data is a linear encoding of the sensor data. I verified this myself with measurements, using dcraw to look at the RAW data without any tone curve applied.

N.B., some software (e.g., Photo Mechanic or Faststone) shows you the JPGs that are embedded in RAW files. Consequently, such software will show any adjustments you may have made in camera. Faststone has an option to take the RAW data instead, but the default is to use the embedded JPGs (for snappier performance).

[Class A]

Supposedly, they added this:

This is probably the "accelerator" chip.

There is nothing that such a chip can do to change the nominal noise performance of the sensor. Such a chip can speed up noise processing and thus enable the use of noise reduction algorithms that would otherwise take too long to execute, however it cannot increase information in the RAW data.

Such a chip may still be useful for those shooting JPGs or appreciating baked RAW files, but unless Pentax will be using a different sensor, the actual noise performance won't be better than that of the K-1.

[Class A]

Yes, I would like to see some technical papers on what is used currently.

Have a look at this description of the Sony column-parallel conversion technology.

The "per pixel noise reduction" some attribute to the new accelerator unit is already done on the sensor. Technically, it is " reset level substraction". As I said before, without changing the sensor, Pentax cannot increase the nominal performance (only make images look prettier; a job that should be left to post-processing out-of-camera).

[Sandy Hancock]

Such a chip may still be useful for those shooting JPGs or appreciating baked RAW files

Rubbish.
I have never shot JPEG, and *hate* baked RAW. The KP's files are a revelation.
What is your experience?

---

Last edited by BigMackCam; 02-17-2018 at 06:15 AM.

[Class A]

I have never shot JPEG, and *hate* baked RAW. The KP's files are a revelation.

The KP's files can be great because

1. the sensor is great, and/or
2. the RAW files are baked (at high-ISO settings).

Just because you "hate" baked RAW files, doesn't meant it doesn't happen for the KP.

I cannot comment on whether or not KP RAW files are massaged by Pentax. I do know, however, that a modern Sony chip delivers digital numbers with no leeway for the camera manufacturer to improve performance by adding additional chips or some analogue circuits.

The only approach to making RAW files look better out of camera, is to manipulate the RAW data. So, again, for actually better performance (as opposed to "better looking"), another sensor is required.

[Kunzite]

So the technical expertise deciding that K-1 Mark II is no good can be resumed to two words: "baked" and "massaged".

[MMVIII]

The KP's files can be great because

1. the sensor is great, and/or
2. the RAW files are baked (at high-ISO settings).

Just because you "hate" baked RAW files, doesn't meant it doesn't happen for the KP.

I cannot comment on whether or not KP RAW files are massaged by Pentax. I do know, however, that a modern Sony chip delivers digital numbers with no leeway for the camera manufacturer to improve performance by adding additional chips or some analogue circuits.

The only approach to making RAW files look better out of camera, is to manipulate the RAW data. So, again, for actually better performance (as opposed to "better looking"), another sensor is required.

Isn't that funny. Is not the 'look' the final deciding factor if an image from a sensor is better or not?
Seriously, I would be very interested to read somewhere an explanation on what such an accelerometer chip does which is technically profound (beyond 'baking' and such useless terms).
Unfortunately DXO did not Test any camera with this setup, yet(?). The results I can visually observe and numeral tests (I linked to some data from german ColorFoto) do seem to show that it works excellent, whatever this work is.

[reh321]

So the technical expertise deciding that K-1 Mark II is no good can be resumed to two words: "baked" and "massaged".

I'm not certain what the definition of "baked" is. Some Nikon cameras have several different sizes of NEF {their so-called raw} files; I figure some kind of processing must be involved {this is a menu choice on the camera}, but no one is willing to address the issue. Does "baked" cover processing after data leaves the sensor? In that case, is processing performed by the sensor itself excluded? And how is "processing" defined? Would putting resistors and/or capacitors in the data path be a form of "baking"? What about more "active" components?

When the 8088/8086 {heart of a PC} were first developed, their instruction code had more instructions than could be implemented on a separate integrated circuit, so Intel {their developer} came up with two "co-processors" - the 8087 intercepted and performed floating-point arithmetic, and the 8085 intercepted and performed esoteric data-management operations; the latter was never used as far as I know, but as electronics progressed, the former was included in the 80386 and later units.

When talking about electronics, one can be casual or one can be a legalist. I look at the results.

[MJKoski]

KP does some magic with low ISO exposures definitely. Except for D3X (good unit, some copies are noisy) I have never seen a DSLR pulling 8 minute exposures without need for LENR in ~0C temp. D8x0 Nikon, A7r1 (spatial filtering) and 42MP BSI sensor get there when temps drop to -30C. Long exposure output from KP is on pixel level similar to files Sony cameras provide these days.

Cameras using Sony 24MP APS-C sensor like Fuji X-T20 become very noisy after 1-2 minutes or so.

[Kunzite]

It has no definition. Its purpose is to generate some negative emotions regarding a new Pentax product.

I would understand if we had discovered some sort of "star eater" (for those unfamiliar, it's a compulsory noise reduction applied by some Sony cameras, resulting in stars disappearing from astrophoto images).
But all we have right now are two cameras using this Accelerator Unit, with very good high ISO/low light performance.

[ffking]

KP does some magic with low ISO exposures definitely. Except for D3X (good unit, some copies are noisy) I have never seen a DSLR pulling 8 minute exposures without need for LENR in ~0C temp. D8x0 Nikon, A7r1 (spatial filtering) and 42MP BSI sensor get there when temps drop to -30C. Long exposure output from KP is on pixel level similar to files Sony cameras provide these days.

Cameras using Sony 24MP APS-C sensor like Fuji X-T20 become very noisy after 1-2 minutes or so.

What a joy when people use experience and knowledge of other brands in a constructive way that's helpful to other people's understanding - just thought I'd say

[Królik]

I'm taking back what I have said about these specs being a disappointment. I looked at KP reviews and sample crops and I must say they are impressive. If K1 gets this high ISO tech on larger sensor than KP then it is enough for me to wait for K1 II.