[Class A]

We don't know that yet.

At the 11:12 mark of the "PENTAX Vision Part 2 - The latest information on the new Flagship APS-C" video the captions read:

"This image-processing unit, however, has been advanced to such a level that you can expect greatly improved image quality, even at sensitivity as low as ISO100."

I don't see how that leaves any room for interpretation.

It's clear that the accelerator does not apply a flat amount of NR regardless of ISO, ...

No doubt it does not, however, there is an express claim being made that image processing (i.e., digital post-production of the data, as opposed to some magic sensor / image-pipeline sauce which is often invoked by some) is going to make a difference at ISO 100 already.

All good, AFAIC, as long as it can be turned off.

[Kunzite]

The burden of proof is on those who claim that the "accelerator unit" can not be separated from the image pipeline.

Wrong.
It's the malcontents who should prove that the effort is not significant, and worth it - after considering all the effects.

The "accelerator unit" is a chip which processes digital signals. Instead of processing the digital data coming from the Sony sensor, it could instead directly be fed to the PRIME processor. It is obvious to anyone with an engineering background that while at most a redesign of the "accelerator unit" chip might be necessary, there is zero hurdle whatsoever in principle to bypass it or operate it in neutral mode.

Is it?
"At most a redesign" and "there is zero hurdle" points rather to a management position, than engineering.

The claim that no one would have complained about the K-1 II, if the K-1 had not been available for comparisons, has no leg to stand on as the image manipulation can be detected by spatial frequency analysis without any reference model. DxOMark has been detecting smoothing of RAW data from Pentax cameras long before the "accelerator unit" was introduced. The difference between this type of denoising and the "accelerator unit" behaviour is that previously RAW data manipulation did not start before ISO 1600. In other words, it was in line with other manufacturers did who also manipulate their RAW data but not in the lower ISO regions.

The claim is plausible at least; at it was the introduction of the K-1 II which triggered people into endless attacks on the accelerator. They stopped looking at the images when they realized that the only difference is the mainboard.

If that is a too technical view for some, I clearly remember a forum member (MJKoski) presenting images of some dead animal, strongly complaining how much the fur detail had been smeared by the K-1 II. Visual comparisons to cameras using the same sensor (e.g., Nikon D800) are also capable of revealing some loss of detail in some circumstances (the dust on the PCBs on images published by pentaxforums.com springs to mind; the K-1 II clearly smeared that a bit).

I remember that blunder. More noise reduction applied by default by the RAW app on the K-1 II image, which invalidated any comparison - after fixing that, the difference was debatable; people were studying OOF area trying to find something.
It was this comparison which made me decide that you guys are nitpicking, and to go forward with the upgrade.

The tip to underexpose and then push in post, exploiting the ISO-invariance of Sony sensors, is appreciated but there are not only the disadvantages that have been pointed out by @Breakfastographer but the K-1 III will throw a spanner in the works. It will engage the processing at ISO 100 level already.

You have no idea what it does, what the images look like, yet you complain.

As for the topic of the "accelerator unit" being a perennial bone of contention, it would help tremendously if its supporters would just acknowledge that unadulterated RAW data has advantages for some and then moved on, simply stating that they personally don't mind or even prefer the baked RAW data, instead of accusing people with a different view as seeing ghosts or being (I quote) "disingenuous".

Or maybe it's you being unable to drop the subject. This is bashing.

Personally, I'm happy for everyone who purely enjoys the "accelerator unit" and I don't contest that they see no loss of detail and only see benefits. That's 100% fine by me. What is not OK for anyone is to make unsustainable claims about how the "accelerator unit" is an "integral part of the image pipeline" to the extent that it could not be removed without causing image deterioration (or similar) and that anyone who sees potential downsides is only imagining the latter.

The accelerator unit is an integral part of the image pipeline; that's obvious for anyone with an engineering background.
Removing the accelerator unit means removing essential processing steps, besides the NR stage; my guess is that you wouldn't get an usable image. Well, my guess is actually that the camera will crash but let's say you worked to avoid that.

You would want to say "disabling the NR stage on the accelerator unit" instead. Even for that, the effects on the image and the interaction with all the later processing stages would have to be very carefully considered; and I assume that's what Mr. Iwasaki was talking about.
It's all about effort.

[Serkevan]

At the 11:12 mark of the "PENTAX Vision Part 2 - The latest information on the new Flagship APS-C" video the captions read:

"This image-processing unit, however, has been advanced to such a level that you can expect greatly improved image quality, even at sensitivity as low as ISO100."

I don't see how that leaves any room for interpretation.

There will certainly be - some type of - processing at 100 (as there already must be to get to a visible image). My point is that "image-processing unit" might refer to the PRIME engine as much as the Accelerator co-processor, and thus the can be simply about how good the JPG corrections are, how they improved the demosaicing algorithm used or something else entirely, not necessarily NR - at ISO 100 noise is so unnoticeable that no amount of NR will "increase the image quality" so I don't see why they would make the claim of increasing IQ to refer to a processing that is exclusively used to salvage IQ from a bad image.

[Larrymc]

At the 11:12 mark of the "PENTAX Vision Part 2 - The latest information on the new Flagship APS-C" video the captions read:

"This image-processing unit, however, has been advanced to such a level that you can expect greatly improved image quality, even at sensitivity as low as ISO100."

I don't see how that leaves any room for interpretation.


No doubt it does not, however, there is an express claim being made that image processing (i.e., digital post-production of the data, as opposed to some magic sensor / image-pipeline sauce which is often invoked by some) is going to make a difference at ISO 100 already.

All good, AFAIC, as long as it can be turned off.

Dude, you've beaten the old dead horse till there is only a bit of horse hair left. It's clear that Ricoh/Pentax is not listening to you given the complaints you've registered over the past several years........its time to move on.

[Kunzite]

Dude, you've beaten the old dead horse till there is only a bit of horse hair left.

Yes, but doesn't it look slightly soft due to the accelerator?

[Larrymc]

Yes, but doesn't it look slightly soft due to the accelerator?

Well, you have a point, I think @MJKoski has already used that ploy.

[MMVIII]

^^ - totally!

SLRs and now MILCs were always tools for serious photographers that briefly became fashionable and are now settling back into their normal place.

Absolutely. This nails it. There might be a chance that Pentax/Ricoh was already catering people with deeper interest in photography than other companies.* If you just wanted to have a "real" camera "like the pros" you probably went for Canikon, maybe Sony, but their entry level was bought probably just becausevit eas promoted by the shops. Olympus just got killed by the sensor size being on a disadvantage, Fuji caters the retrofashionistas. If you got a Pentax you have probably done your homework. Same for a Ricoh GR; that's why it still sells despite a focal length easily covered by mobile phones.

* in regard to first time buyers

[reh321]

At the 11:12 mark of the "PENTAX Vision Part 2 - The latest information on the new Flagship APS-C" video the captions read:

"This image-processing unit, however, has been advanced to such a level that you can expect greatly improved image quality, even at sensitivity as low as ISO100."

I don't see how that leaves any room for interpretation.

No doubt it does not, however, there is an express claim being made that image processing (i.e., digital post-production of the data, as opposed to some magic sensor / image-pipeline sauce which is often invoked by some) is going to make a difference at ISO 100 already.

All good, AFAIC, as long as it can be turned off.

Pentax has stated that turning off the 'accelerator' "would be hard" - Oriental for they have no plans to do so.
The onus is on you doubters to prove it can be done - and without the necessary documentation {diagrams of control lines} I don't know how you are going to do it.

Perhaps ISO is one of the inputs that it reads, and processing began only at some level.
Maybe they have changed the design so that it will begin at the lowest possible value and avoid the obvious "kink" in outputs.
We shall see what controls are on the K-3iii menu, and what the output looks like.

[reh321]

Yes, but doesn't it look slightly soft due to the accelerator?

My KP looks the same for ISO 100 and ISO 10000.
I cannot tell the ISO value without looking at EXIF, and frankly couldn't care.
When I photograph birds, I just use 'TAv' modes with the shutter speed I need and an aperture that will work for me, and usually avoid ISO above 12,000.

[reh321]

There will certainly be - some type of - processing at 100 (as there already must be to get to a visible image). My point is that "image-processing unit" might refer to the PRIME engine as much as the Accelerator co-processor, and thus the can be simply about how good the JPG corrections are, how they improved the demosaicing algorithm used or something else entirely, not necessarily NR - at ISO 100 noise is so unnoticeable that no amount of NR will "increase the image quality" so I don't see why they would make the claim of increasing IQ to refer to a processing that is exclusively used to salvage IQ from a bad image.

People talk and talk and talk about noise reduction, but the 'accelerator' also improves DR and color rendition.

[ecostigny]

Absolutely. This nails it. There might be a chance that Pentax/Ricoh was already catering people with deeper interest in photography than other companies.* If you just wanted to have a "real" camera "like the pros" you probably went for Canikon, maybe Sony, but their entry level was bought probably just becausevit eas promoted by the shops. Olympus just got killed by the sensor size being on a disadvantage, Fuji caters the retrofashionistas. If you got a Pentax you have probably done your homework. Same for a Ricoh GR; that's why it still sells despite a focal length easily covered by mobile phones.

* in regard to first time buyers

If you look at Pentax marketing materials from the 1980s, they were clearly targeting serious photographers. The obvious hope was to get you into their ecosystem with the K1000 and be able to meet your needs regardless of how far you advanced, up to and including professional-level work.

[reh321]

If you look at Pentax marketing materials from the 1980s, they were clearly targeting serious photographers. The obvious hope was to get you into their ecosystem with the K1000 and be able to meet your needs regardless of how far you advanced, up to and including professional-level work.

Despite their intent, I didn't like the noise made by their purely mechanical cameras, just as I was 'turned off ' by those made by Practika.
I purchased a "ME/SE", and when it got damp at Niagara Falls, I replaced it with a "Super Program"

[ecostigny]

Despite their intent, I didn't like the noise made by their purely mechanical cameras, just as I was 'turned off ' by those made by Practika.
I purchased a "ME/SE", and when it got damp at Niagara Falls, I replaced it with a "Super Program"

I started with an ME Super, then upgraded to a Super Program. My experience with the K1000 is very limited, but I do remember it being relatively big and noisy compared to the camera bodies I did buy.

[MMVIII]

I started with an ME Super, then upgraded to a Super Program. My experience with the K1000 is very limited, but I do remember it being relatively big and noisy compared to the camera bodies I did buy.

Right, that's how I see it too. The K1000 beeing the classic photography school camera, the LX a really great and versatile system, the 645 and 67 line covering the upper end.
Somehow they still have it. The KP is still a camera where you can't go wrong with it. Sure, it is not the basic, reduced-to-the-essence of a camera, but if the price is right it would be my recommendation for a start into serious photography. However, I am aware, that there might not be so much interest in learning how to turn the three knobs to adjust shutter aperture and ISO if the iPhone does all that for you.

[repaap]

But, there is one (atleast) but. Accelerator chip is now Mk 2. It has been shown that it is really effective(mk1). Other thing has been risen up too but not for example feared star eater, it is not black hole, like Sony for example.

Now, will mk2 be more effective (yes, 1,6 M ISO) but also more sensitive? Allowing high shutterspeed at dusk to get max out of that 12 fps even in those conditions, and if so, will shooter be sad or happy about it.

I’d think that they(Ricoh) promised excellent image quality and that is what is coming out of it. Even at 100ISO.

Generally I use noise reduction with LR cc. Yes, I do have more of control over it but I don’t have that good skills in more demanding shots. I’ll be happy if they have done it for me. Better than I could. Less time to consume to get the result I want.