Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Closed Thread
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-11-2018, 07:24 PM   #241
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
QuoteOriginally posted by clackers Quote
but the damage has already been done
They can revise or amend their conclusions, just like they have revised the data those conclusions were based on. The review should be a living document.

05-11-2018, 07:37 PM - 3 Likes   #242
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
They can revise or amend their conclusions, just like they have revised the data those conclusions were based on. The review should be a living document.
If their conclusions are drastically changed, the damage is already done, though. Maybe they should have gotten it right before publishing it ?
Seems like it is a frequent occurrence for their problematic Pentax reviews to publish them before they are really done.
05-11-2018, 08:24 PM - 3 Likes   #243
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Otis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis FanOtis Fan
Loyal Site Supporter
clackers's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Melbourne
Photos: Albums
Posts: 16,394
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
They can revise or amend their conclusions, just like they have revised the data those conclusions were based on. The review should be a living document.
People read a libelous headline, they're not even aware of the retraction weeks later.

Well known phrase in public relations - ''Stuff (or another word beginning with 's') sticks".

They've done this before with the notorious bike test.
05-11-2018, 08:26 PM - 2 Likes   #244
Pentaxian
Class A's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wellington, New Zealand
Posts: 11,250
QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
There's zero evidence of "smoothing" in bclaff's analysis because bclaff's analysis does not look at an image with any signal in it.
Of course there is evidence of "smoothing" even if taking the -- in my view untenable position -- that only noise is smoothed out.

Perhaps we can find common ground by agreeing on the fact that there is proof of image processing. You seem to be of the opinion that there is uncontentious image processing for RAW files. I disagree, but be that as it may it is clear that some people will take exception with having the RAW data being processed for them. These people hold the view that external computing power and future processing methods are/will be superior to anything that an in-camera solution can provide, as impressive the latter may seem by today's standards.

We not only have RAW purists, though, we also have DPReview as a known entity and their negative response regarding the accelerator could have easily avoided by making the processing optional.

It may turn out -- although given the current evidence I find this to be extremely unlikely -- that the accelerator processing is not some after-the-fact beautification, but instead reduces system-generated noise only. In this case DPReview would have to send a huge apology to Japan and many posters here (including me) would have to acknowledge that they made the wrong conclusions. However, even considering this hypothetical scenario, I cannot understand why Ricoh invites major (mainly DPReview-induced) trouble by making the processing mandatory.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
There's only evidence of noise reduction.
True "noise reduction" as opposed to after-the-fact "denoising" would not result in the frequency analysis results we've seen.

Again, given the source of the images (Rishi Sanyal) we cannot be certain whether due rigour has been applied when creating the images but it seems unlikely that he messed this up.


QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
There's an assumption that noise reduction requires smoothing but that is unproven and may be false.
Of course not all noise reduction requires smoothing. But the results of the accelerator processing are consistent with a "nearest neighbour"-type denoising approach.

You wouldn't get the 2D FT plot characteristics we see for higher ISO K-1 II images, if the noise reduction had been achieved by dark frame subtraction, for instance.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
Attenuation of higher spatial frequencies in a noise image says nothing about attenuation of higher spatial frequencies of a signal if the filter is a non-linear.
How do you suggest any processing to be able to distinguish signal from noise?
The latter is only possible at a level where signal and noise have not been mixed yet. Given the design of modern Sony sensors, it is, to the best of my knowledge, impossible for any external "accelerator" processor to access system-generated noise independently from the signal.

Perhaps Ricoh does something clever involving dark frames, etc., but why would such genuinely useful noise reduction result in an attenuation of higher frequency (aka, "loss of detail") that is typical for post-denoising?

I fully consider the possibility that Ricoh found some non-linear processing that will retain quite a bit of detail, if it is recognised as detail. This clearly seems to be the case with the non-smooth transitions between sharp detail and mushy background MJKoski takes issue with, and the apparent sharpening that seem to occur in some K-1 II files. The problem is that Ricoh's algorithm will sometimes be more or less successful in distinguishing suspected detail from noise. It is absolutely great that Ricoh provides this processing, but it just has to be optional. There are no two ways about it.

Note that I do not know whether all the issues MJKoski has seen and the apparent sharpening are artefacts of developing RAW files with converters that haven't been tuned correctly or are not optimised yet for handling K-1 II files. This is possible and AFAIC the jury is still out on what is really happening. However, it makes sense to make some educated guesses and my money wouldn't be on the scenario that Ricoh has found a way to considerably improve the performance of Sony sensors without any disadvantages of any kind.


QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
The only signal that is in danger of attenuation from these kinds of filters is signal of an amplitude so low that it's indistinguishable from noise.
It has been shown in the audio domain that very low signal amplitudes can be retained in a noise floor that has much higher amplitudes. You can think of the very weak signal as modulating the comparatively much stronger noise.

Again, Ricoh's algorithm may be really good discovering even such low levels of signal, but
  1. there can be signal that is impossible to distinguish from noise (-> extremely small dust specks?!?).
  2. future algorithms will probably be even better, but only if they are fed the original data, not something that has been processed already.

QuoteOriginally posted by photoptimist Quote
But if the signal is indistinguishable from noise, it will also be lost in an image without NR anyway.
I dispute that view (see above).

I would expect RAW image stacking (as common in astrophotography) to be more successful with high ISO K-1 files compared to high-ISO K1-II files. The K-1 files should retain the real signal in the potentially high noise floor whereas the K-1 II files most likely will have smoothed it away (mistaking it for noise). As a result, stacking high-ISO K-1 II images should not recover the signal as well as stacking K-1 images would.

Perhaps the above hypothesis regarding high-ISO RAW image stacking can serve as an experimental design that someone with access to both a K-1 and K-1 II could carry out?

05-11-2018, 08:45 PM   #245
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere over the rainbow
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,528
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote
Two words "cloning tool".
while your at it then you will need to clone out the forehead the chin and the cheeks, then what is the need for PS ?
05-11-2018, 09:45 PM - 2 Likes   #246
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
Possible images were shot with pre-production FW ver. 1.00

There’s a couple new posts in the Comments over there about the RAW files EXIF showing FW 1.00, (which was the pre-release version). Several posters have said their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. DBracaglia (one of the reviewers) just said he went to Ricoh’s website and found there ‘“is no FW 1.01 available for download there.” Posters responding their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. IIRC I read some early posts with warning that shared images were shot with 1.00, which the poster said was not the final FW. It is possible the actual production cameras carried FW 1.01.

I didn’t stick around long (I can only take it 5 minutes at a time) but if it turns out in addition to everything else these images were shot with pre-production FW these guys have truly beclowned themselves.

Last edited by monochrome; 05-11-2018 at 10:04 PM.
05-11-2018, 09:59 PM - 1 Like   #247
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Ricoh's algorithm may be really good discovering even such low levels of signal
I suspect that the algorithms that have been hard-coded into silicon within the Accelerator chip are quite complex. More than just crude signal vs noise.

A casual browse of the DPR image samples at ISO 6400 or thereabouts shows, for example, that the NR effect varies depending on the features of the scene. A scene feature like this, for example, featuring reds, good contrast, and solid areas of contiguous detail, looks great, whereas an area of fine, un-patterned detail with no linear edges like this gets a bit more mushed, even though there is plenty of [mainly green] colour signal in the scene..

05-11-2018, 10:04 PM - 1 Like   #248
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
I suspect that the algorithms that have been hard-coded into silicon within the Accelerator chip are quite complex. More than just crude signal vs noise.

A casual browse of the DPR image samples at ISO 6400 or thereabouts shows, for example, that the NR effect varies depending on the features of the scene. A scene feature like this, for example, featuring reds, good contrast, and solid areas of contiguous detail, looks great, whereas an area of fine, un-patterned detail with no linear edges like this gets a bit more mushed, even though there is plenty of [mainly green] colour signal in the scene..

You may be right about the algorithms being baked into the silicon of the accelerator chip. However, DPR's review says these algorithms are not in use at ISO <640 . The ISO is controlled by the firmware of the camera, and is user-settable. Thus, even if you cannot change the algorithm that the accelerator chip uses, you can very likely turn it off altogether in firmware, as this is apparently already happening for ISO <640 . Again, just more speculation on my part, but that is what makes sense to me. IMO, if Pentax considers the critcism on NR from DPR as legitimate, they will likely find a way to turn it off. The question is whether they consider it a defect or not. There is a wide variety of opinions on that by various Pentax users, non-Pentax users, and DPR trolls.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 10:06 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
There’s a couple new posts in the Comments over there about the RAW files EXIF showing FW 1.00, (which was the pre-release version). Several posters have said their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. DBracaglia (one of the reviewers) just said he went to Ricoh’s website and found there ‘“is no FW 1.01 available for download there.” Posters responding their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. IIRC I read some early posts with warning that shared images were shot with 1.00, which the poster said was not the final FW. It is possible the actual production cameras carried FW 1.01.

I didn’t stick around long (I can only take it 5 minutes at a time) but if it turns out in addition to everything else these images were shot with pre-production FW these guys have truly beclowned themselves.
I wouldn't bet that there are major differences in IQ between firmware 1.00 and 1.01 . Last-minute changes in software/firmware are usually only very minor bug fixes. I wouldn't expect this has any effect. Still, if they tested a pre-production camera, they should have disclosed that fact. So far, they seem to be the only ones with any K1-II files at firmware 1.00 . Then again, how many other review sites let you download the SOOC JPG and RAW files ?
05-11-2018, 10:22 PM - 1 Like   #249
Forum Member




Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 88
QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
There’s a couple new posts in the Comments over there about the RAW files EXIF showing FW 1.00, (which was the pre-release version). Several posters have said their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. DBracaglia (one of the reviewers) just said he went to Ricoh’s website and found there ‘“is no FW 1.01 available for download there.” Posters responding their cameras were delivered with FW 1.01. IIRC I read some early posts with warning that shared images were shot with 1.00, which the poster said was not the final FW. It is possible the actual production cameras carried FW 1.01.

I didn’t stick around long (I can only take it 5 minutes at a time) but if it turns out in addition to everything else these images were shot with pre-production FW these guys have truly beclowned themselves.
I have pre-ordered K-1 Mark II and received the camera on the very next day of its release in US (Since I am in NJ, the shipping was overnight for me). Mine came with firmware 1.01.

Also, check the one of the first comparison from March 28th when K-1 Mark II was released in Europe:
Pentax K-1 Mark IIDSLR camera already shipping, first review published online | Pentax Rumors

You can see the K-1 Mark II has firmware 1.01 from its official release day itself.
05-11-2018, 10:50 PM - 1 Like   #250
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter
monochrome's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Working From Home
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 26,276
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
You may be right about the algorithms being baked into the silicon of the accelerator chip. However, DPR's review says these algorithms are not in use at ISO <640 . The ISO is controlled by the firmware of the camera, and is user-settable. Thus, even if you cannot change the algorithm that the accelerator chip uses, you can very likely turn it off altogether in firmware, as this is apparently already happening for ISO <640 . Again, just more speculation on my part, but that is what makes sense to me. IMO, if Pentax considers the critcism on NR from DPR as legitimate, they will likely find a way to turn it off. The question is whether they consider it a defect or not. There is a wide variety of opinions on that by various Pentax users, non-Pentax users, and DPR trolls.

---------- Post added 05-11-18 at 10:06 PM ----------



I wouldn't bet that there are major differences in IQ between firmware 1.00 and 1.01 . Last-minute changes in software/firmware are usually only very minor bug fixes. I wouldn't expect this has any effect. Still, if they tested a pre-production camera, they should have disclosed that fact. So far, they seem to be the only ones with any K1-II files at firmware 1.00 . Then again, how many other review sites let you download the SOOC JPG and RAW files ?
I’m well aware FW 1.00 would be very nearly finished. Ricoh would not likely have sent cameras that weren’t ready. OTOH, if the FW version was amended enough to have a documented version change at release, the FW version used in the review images should have been revealed, at least in footnotes.

There are now enough documented anomalies, unattributed image file replacements, potentially hacked ACR camera profile issues, settings issued that would alter the RAWs, questions about the processing settings and backtracks in the comments that, at best, the entire Review, Conclusion and Score are questionable. At worst they are outright fraudulent.
05-11-2018, 10:55 PM - 1 Like   #251
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
Here is another example of the different targets DPR used to compare the K-1 and K-1 II .
Man has black hair on two cameras, and brown hair on two other cameras.
And some parts (feather) is missing on two cameras (actually relocated to another place in the target).

As if using different lenses wasn't enough, they make another print to photograph.
(and yes, D850 looks better in the bottom one, it has 9MP more, and costs 65% more than the K-1 II also).
Attached Images
   
05-12-2018, 01:51 AM - 1 Like   #252
Pentaxian




Join Date: May 2015
Photos: Albums
Posts: 3,304
This is old news and nothing to complain about. They announced quite a while ago that they've introduced the feather as a new element to test very high resolution cameras. This fault finding is going into truther territory. I've never witnessed it develop in real time before but I've certainly learned a thing or two about the mechanics of that sort of thing.

The review contains a number of unfortunate things such as the lens swap that in themselves make sense but taken together make the mark 1 mark 2 comparison very hard to draw any conclusion from. The things we're looking at are so hard to detect reliably that scientific methods will have to be employed to make any firm conclusion. There are currently to many parameters that are uncontrolled.

The review is certainly way to harsh, even if I agree about non optional in camera NR, considering the small differences and the change in testing parameters. The camera is reviewed as a new model and from the assumption that existing K-1 users should buy this new camera. When it's just a small tweak launched at a similar price point to the previous model. As I see it mainly for people who haven't bought the K-1 yet. Why not introduce minute upgrades if it can be done without large changes to production lines.
05-12-2018, 02:33 AM   #253
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
Yes, there's no problem with the feather (if I'd thought it was, I would complain about it to the point of getting banned ). There's a problem with the upper-right corner, which shows in the image above.
DPR should be careful about their tests, but we should be careful to make valid criticism.
05-12-2018, 03:51 AM   #254
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by house Quote
This is old news and nothing to complain about. They announced quite a while ago that they've introduced the feather as a new element to test very high resolution cameras. This fault finding is going into truther territory. I've never witnessed it develop in real time before but I've certainly learned a thing or two about the mechanics of that sort of thing.
How is someone who read an in-depth DSLR review by DPR for the first time supposed to know this (that happens to be my case, I joined DPR only very recently) ? They are comparing one camera against each other. Don't you think this important element should be mentioned in the context of that K-1 / K-1 II comparison ?
At least they mentioned the lens difference.

QuoteQuote:
The review contains a number of unfortunate things such as the lens swap that in themselves make sense but taken together make the mark 1 mark 2 comparison very hard to draw any conclusion from. The things we're looking at are so hard to detect reliably that scientific methods will have to be employed to make any firm conclusion. There are currently to many parameters that are uncontrolled.
+1000000

---------- Post added 05-12-18 at 03:53 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by monochrome Quote
I’m well aware FW 1.00 would be very nearly finished. Ricoh would not likely have sent cameras that weren’t ready. OTOH, if the FW version was amended enough to have a documented version change at release, the FW version used in the review images should have been revealed, at least in footnotes.

There are now enough documented anomalies, unattributed image file replacements, potentially hacked ACR camera profile issues, settings issued that would alter the RAWs, questions about the processing settings and backtracks in the comments that, at best, the entire Review, Conclusion and Score are questionable. At worst they are outright fraudulent.
The explanation may be that Ricoh never sold any camera with firmware 1.0, and may have sent a pre-production model to DPR for review. Maybe DPR sat on it for a while, since everyone else reviewed units with 1.01 . Or maybe the other sites don't get freebie cameras from Pentax to review, they had to buy them, and got firmware version 1.01 . Pure speculation on my part. This doesn't rank high on the list of things wrong with the test.
05-12-2018, 04:01 AM - 2 Likes   #255
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
whereas an area of fine, un-patterned detail with no linear edges like this gets a bit more mushed, even though there is plenty of [mainly green] colour signal in the scene..
Please switch to ISO 100 .

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

As you can see, the green part is blurred even there. There is no NR going on at ISO 100 . This proves that the issue is with the lens, not the NR.

This has been pointed out to DPR staff repeatedly. They just repeat "please don't look in that upper right area, we know it is not sharp. Just look in the center". Why do they even bother posting a full studio shot if the periphery is overall so poor ? They just don't care about their readers.

BTW, in that link of mine, the A7R II picture looks all wrong. There is a vertical line half way through that separates two different shades of green. No lens is going to do this. And probably no camera Sony ever shipped does this, unless it's a really, really major bug. If I was a Sony fanboy, I would be pissed. More evidence of problems with the DPR testing.

This would be funny if people weren't looking at those terrible shots, and reaching completely wrong conclusions about the camera, as you did, when it's actually the lens/focusing.
Attached Images
 
Closed Thread

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
dslr, full frame, full-frame, hardware, ii, k-1, k1, kicking, lens, lot, model, panasonic, pentax, pentax k-1, quality, rate, release, screen, sony, successor, upgrade, upgrades, video, yadda
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
an opportunity: Super Blue Blood Moon aslyfox General Photography 37 01-31-2018 10:23 PM
where and how to find " wild life " photography opportunity aslyfox General Photography 37 08-21-2017 01:20 PM
Another "Supermoon" Opportunity RobA_Oz General Photography 8 12-28-2016 11:11 PM
Banned on DPR, anyone else? KL Matt General Talk 44 11-22-2013 03:51 PM
Keep K-x buy premium lens, get K-r and get good lens, get the K-7 w/ lens or K-5? crossover37 Pentax DSLR Discussion 19 02-06-2011 10:38 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:01 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top