[Class A]

As far as this not being possible - I can't fathom why not.

There is indeed no technical reason why the processing couldn't be made optional.

If analog information is involved there are analog switches that can change the routing.

There is no analogue signal involved. The processing occurs after the Sony sensor chip has delivered digital data.

[Class A]

It is getting esoteric, like some HiFi cable thing.

I don't see how that is a good analogy.

1. The effects of the "accelerator" unit are measurable, in an objective manner. There are no claims that one can see them when one is trained to see them and when one is relaxed, but that A/B comparisons are unsuitable to confirm a real effect. None of this voodo argumentation is needed in the case of the "accelerator" unit.
2. If someone wants to pay through the nose for no real effect but feels happier afterwards because they are convinced to have improved their life, good for them. Who are we to deprive them of their newly gained happiness? The case of mandatory denoising, however, is an entirely different one. Mandatory denoising affects everybody. One cannot simply opt out and let other people decide what they want to do.

The real analogy would be if a certain brilliant turntable were only sold with built-in noise reduction which removes surface noise, clicks, pops, noise on the recording, etc. Of course the music would inevitably be affected as well, but some would argue that you cannot hear it, etc. Yet, measurements would be available that show how the frequency response is affected by the built-in noise reduction.

[Class A]

That one was by me on the DPR announcement.

Good to see you again here!

I had to laugh hard when I read the "joystick" comment and some of the other comments you made.

[gazonk]

But be aware: these are processed jpgs as a screenshot and with other processing the results may look different. Beside a slight focus difference.

just for fun, I dowloaded the DNG IR provides on their pages and threw it into Apple Aperture without any treatment besides Aperture’s defaults. It seems to treat the reds much better than whatever IR are using. It’s a pity Aperture is dying, btw...

Please note: The image is scaled down a little bit which makes it seem softer. Open in a new window to see the unscaled image.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

---

Last edited by gazonk; 10-11-2019 at 02:02 AM.

[sbh]

just for fun, I dowloaded the DNG IR provides on their pages and threw it into Apple Aperture without any treatment besides Aperture’s defaults. It seems to treat the reds much better than whatever IR are using. It’s a pity Aperture is dying, btw...

Please note: The image is scaled down a little bit which makes it seem softer. Open in a new window to see the unscaled image.

The RAW interpretation is on a system level. Can you do a comparison whether it treats it the same in the Photos App?
Perhaps the apps add some additional default settings but I'd be curious how the difference is. (I know it's no replacement for the good old Aperture but I'd find it interesting whether they changed raw development or not.)

[MMVIII]

I don't see how that is a good analogy.

1. The effects of the "accelerator" unit are measurable, in an objective manner. There are no claims that one can see them when one is trained to see them and when one is relaxed, but that A/B comparisons are unsuitable to confirm a real effect. None of this voodo argumentation is needed in the case of the "accelerator" unit.
2. If someone wants to pay through the nose for no real effect but feels happier afterwards because they are convinced to have improved their life, good for them. Who are we to deprive them of their newly gained happiness? The case of mandatory denoising, however, is an entirely different one. Mandatory denoising affects everybody. One cannot simply opt out and let other people decide what they want to do.

The real analogy would be if a certain brilliant turntable were only sold with built-in noise reduction which removes surface noise, clicks, pops, noise on the recording, etc. Of course the music would inevitably be affected as well, but some would argue that you cannot hear it, etc. Yet, measurements would be available that show how the frequency response is affected by the built-in noise reduction.

Haha, okay. My analogy was tongue in cheek (and sure, I won't judge anyone who is convinced he can improve things by spending some money on something), but this is where it's heading to. The beauty or pitfall of social media is, that facts can be spinned to tell different stories. They might not be wrong, but they might support different ideas. If you prefer your "purity" approach that is fine with me. I see the processing pipeline as a complex system with a lot of hardware and software algorithms involved. These are proprietary systems, and some steps after the light arrives the sensor through >filters>lens>(AAfilter)>bayer filter>microlens are happening, like equalisation of Pixel Non-Uniformity (maybe already influencing/"correcting" the lens vignetting?), elimination of signals from stuck pixels, dark floor noise subtraction (from the ring of pixels around the used image) are all done before something like RAW-files are created. The signal processing is done by every manufacturer differently, even if they use similar hardware components. Obviously Ricoh decided that they include a so called accelerator unit, to support the main processor. The results from cameras with the same sensor thus vary highly, even if the same sensor is used! I consider these differences way higher - by a very large margin - than anything that might be detectable visually between a K1 and the MkII. Despite the "measurements" we still have no clue at which stage under which circumstances this unit has an effect. The tests have been done with "synthetic" images, thus the extrapolated "knowledge" that it is starting at a certain ISO is just an assumption. It might show a higher impact at a certain noise floor of the data, or some other parameters. I don't think that a hardware switch is something to look for, it probably is not like that there could be a wired bypass

Cameras are produced by the manufacturers to deliver pleasing images to the costumers. They are not specified as scientific devices to collect photons.

If the K1II would fail in the first task I could understand an outcry and a wish to the designers to reconsider their design choices.

But, and please understand me correctly, I think it might be a somehow risky tactic to set wishes for future cameras of this company on the fact that it either has or has not one of the components of the current processing pipeline. They may have completely redone it and fine tuned to the extreme and it still would say it uses an accelerator unit. And then? Would you still hold to your "pureness" arguments?

Disclaimer: I have absolutely no intention to discourage a discussion about such concerns. I am just adding my own concerns.

[gazonk]

The RAW interpretation is on a system level. Can you do a comparison whether it treats it the same in the Photos App?
Perhaps the apps add some additional default settings but I'd be curious how the difference is. (I know it's no replacement for the good old Aperture but I'd find it interesting whether they changed raw development or not.)

It’s a subtle difference, but as far as I can tell, Photos defaults to slightly more vivid colors which causes a slight loss of detail in the yellow and red fabrics. Note: Not running on the newest OS, still on High Sierra on this machine.

[MMVIII]

just for fun, I dowloaded the DNG IR provides on their pages and threw it into Apple Aperture without any treatment besides Aperture’s defaults. It seems to treat the reds much better than whatever IR are using. It’s a pity Aperture is dying, btw...

Please note: The image is scaled down a little bit which makes it seem softer. Open in a new window to see the unscaled image.

Thank you gazonk!

This is what I meant! That is what makes comparisons so hard and there are so many factors involved which have way higher impact than an AU... IMHO

[repaap]

I change between central focuspoin to sel 9 in middle, or move it around. Depending on situation. Making sure that it focuses correctly is one of the tasks. Little slower, maybe, but also quite handy when it works.


I suppose that is why people can choose? what works for them best. I even use MF sometimes

I use any focus point I need. There are less than 3% of situations where I use the central focus point. Depending on the available light, I choose only the most sensitive af points, but in good light any af point will do the job for me.

[TwoUptons]

I change between central focuspoin to sel 9 in middle, or move it around. Depending on situation. Making sure that it focuses correctly is one of the tasks. Little slower, maybe, but also quite handy when it works.


I suppose that is why people can choose? what works for them best. I even use MF sometimes

I usually use the central nine, but it’s always a bit of a revelation that I can move the cluster of points...

But I have a few AF lenses that I’ll more often use manually...

-Eric

[Serkevan]

It’s a subtle difference, but as far as I can tell, Photos defaults to slightly more vivid colors which causes a slight loss of detail in the yellow and red fabrics. Note: Not running on the newest OS, still on High Sierra on this machine.

Windows Photos can also open DNG files, but they look soft and mushy for some reason. Colour reproduction is quite good however.

[gazonk]

Thank you gazonk!

This is what I meant! That is what makes comparisons so hard and there are so many factors involved which have way higher impact than an AU... IMHO

Indeed. Years ago, I decided on Aperture for my processing tools, after having had evaluation copies of Lightroom and Aperture for some time. I also compared them against the raw converter supplied with my K10D (the Pentax version of Silkypix), and my conclusion was that Aperture gave significantly better resolved details in natural textures like clothes and leaves. I wasn’t quite able to get the same with Lightroom even if I tried to fiddle with RAW import settings. But the Pentax Silkypix version was even better than Aperture in resolving details of textures! Much too cumbersome to work with, though, so that’s why I ended up using Aperture.

[Kunzite]

The effects of the "accelerator" unit are measurable, in an objective manner.

Yet nobody* did that.
Also, while there are claims that the effects can be 100% reproduced in post, nobody did that either.

* outside Ricoh Imaging

[bdery]

I don't think anyone who has looked at the numbers for how much using more than the central point slows down subject acquisition and focus confirm uses multi-point for speed tests. The only place AF-c multipoint is useful would be a BiF against a sky.

Or kids playing soccer, maybe.

My own feeling is that 9 points is often 9 times slower than 1.

That's pushing it but I agree with the meaning

Having more options is always good. I like that Pentax's AF points are almost all cross-type, and often use SEL 1 (especially in the studio). But I don't like trusting the camera to guess what I want to photograph.

[solitudebound]

The Engineers are reported as saying that the 'accelerator' - as used is the K70, KP, and K-1ii - could not be disabled. We, of course, do not know what has been done in the nearly two years since the K-1ii came out.

Perhaps and i have had my fair share of weird noise on my KP that really should not be there. However it is worse on the Nikon D850 to the point that i often changed out for my K-1. In practice i never saw the point of the accelerator or high iso boosting circuits and programing. Most of it is just guess work and more to do with a roll of the dice, 20 sided D&D dice. Kind of difficult to justify the accelerator acting like Topaz AI software when even an eight core desktop computer with 16gb of ram struggles to run the software.