Originally posted by Kunzite Yes, I read the patent. It's an example of information not available when post-processing your images.
There are tons of examples and techniques for when post-processing cannot achieve the same as in-camera processing.
It matters, though, whether they are applicable.
In the case of the K-1 II, your referenced technique is not applicable. You could point to tons more of those, they are all irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Originally posted by Kunzite A warning against over-simplifying a very complex problem.
The capabilities of the Sony sensor in the K-1 II are known. They are published in a datasheet.
We know what it can and cannot do. There is no "oversimplification" if one just references hardware capabilities.
Originally posted by Kunzite We know next to nothing about what the Image Accelerator Unit does.
We know quite a lot, in particular through what we know about the Sony sensor and what the latter does not allow.
At the time the K-1 II was released, a lot of comparisons with the K-1 were made and everybody seemed to agree that post-processing can equalise the differences between the two. Some still regard it as a big plus that the K-1 II performs the improvements for them, but I don't recall any dispute over the fact that the K-1 II accomplishes anything that could not be achieved with the K-1 plus post-processing.
Originally posted by Kunzite Let's not make convenient assumptions under the cover of an unrelated principle.
What "unrelated principle"? What "assumptions"?
Do you realise that you made an "assumption" (that the "accelerator unit" does something more than image processing) and referenced an unrelated principle (the Ricoh patent about real-time noise substraction)?
Originally posted by Kunzite You're saying it's all software and can be done better in post? Prove it.
Again, I think it has been proven way back when the K-1 II was released already.
If you know about two RAW images, one from the K-1 II and one from the K-1, which you think represent a case where the K-1 image cannot be made to look as good, please point me to the pair and I'll have a go.
Furthermore, you are attempting a reversal of burden of proof.
Anyone who wishes to claim that the "accelerator unit" does something special beyond post-processing needs to provide evidence to be taken seriously. For all I care, you can claim whatever you want about the "accelerator unit" but if you attack my findings by evoking all sorts of magical things the "accelerator unit" could do, you better provide evidence for why a regular "image processing" explanation (which was given by Ricoh themselves(!) in the K-3 III interview) is not good enough.
Originally posted by Kunzite This thread is about the K-3 III, by the way. So... can we get back to being amazed at the results?
The relevance of this discussion to the thread are the claims that have been made about the "accelerator unit" in the K-3 III.
Remember that I merely made one post observing some facts around the topic of comparing APS-C (K-3 III) images to FF images (K-1 II) and after that my responses to you were only made in defence to accusations.
Regarding:
Originally posted by Kunzite To avoid a thread closure (I feel we're very near that point), I will only respond to this specific thing then stop.
If you feel that certain topics are endangering the thread then please don't bring them up in the first place. It is strange to first accuse somebody about spreading "prejudice" and when that somebody then asks for clarification how such an allegation could be justified, respond by stating that a no-response is best to avoid having the thread closed.