Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
05-08-2018, 12:45 AM - 1 Like   #406
Pentaxian




Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Romania
Posts: 15,132
QuoteOriginally posted by rawr Quote
Interesting. Both here and in the case of rabbit fur, their NR algorithms do seem to have a problem with rendering fluffy organic matter.
Dead fluffy decomposing organic matter, to be precise.

05-08-2018, 12:49 AM   #407
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Original Poster
So Ricoh could negotiate with Sony to get the 42MP chip in K-1 mk3. Star Eater aside (which currently activates after 3.2sec exposure time in Sony bodies) the noise levels are quite a bit lower without this kind of filtering. 42MP sensor has two base ISO values thanks to dual-gain. ISO100 and ISO640.

Now, FW patch please if possible. I would not derail possibility for such. Long exposure quality at ISO100 has gone way up from mk1 so there could be some conditions in which filters get enabled. Still Bill Claffs analysis shows no penalty @ ISO100 with "normal" exposures.
05-08-2018, 01:11 AM   #408
Digitiser of Film
Loyal Site Supporter
BigMackCam's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: North East of England
Posts: 20,571
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
Now, FW patch please if possible. I would not derail possibility for such. Long exposure quality at ISO100 has gone way up from mk1 so there could be some conditions in which filters get enabled. Still Bill Claffs analysis shows no penalty @ ISO100 with "normal" exposures.
Agreed, that's the right approach here. If Ricoh can offer firmware that allows the accelerator NR to be (a) switched off altogether, (b) level adjusted, and/or (c) customised by ISO level (perhaps that's expecting too much?), then it's a "best of both worlds" situation.
This should have been done ready for release, undoubtedly.

I wonder if Ricoh involves its brand ambassadors in the early testing stages of new cameras? It seems someone would have picked up on this in advance, had they used a pre-production model in anger...
05-08-2018, 03:24 AM   #409
Veteran Member
madbrain's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: San Jose, CA
Posts: 1,341
QuoteOriginally posted by maw Quote
Images downloaded in DNG unfortunately, but the difference is real. 100% cropping, ISO 12800.
This is actually a problem with the lens in the top right corner, IMO, not the camera.

See :
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/190-pentax-k-1/365652-opportunity-get-ba...ml#post4274841

Foliage in other parts (lower) of the shot looks favorable on the K-1 II :

Image comparison: Digital Photography Review

05-08-2018, 03:49 AM   #410
Veteran Member
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by BigMackCam Quote
Agreed, that's the right approach here. If Ricoh can offer firmware that allows the accelerator NR to be (a) switched off altogether, (b) level adjusted, and/or (c) customised by ISO level (perhaps that's expecting too much?), then it's a "best of both worlds" situation.
This should have been done ready for release, undoubtedly.

I wonder if Ricoh involves its brand ambassadors in the early testing stages of new cameras? It seems someone would have picked up on this in advance, had they used a pre-production model in anger...
It's been pointed out that pages 51 and 55-56 of the K1 Mark II manual do address user-configurable NR settings, in quite some detail (I've checked). What itsn't clear is whether this applies to RAW or only to in-camera jpegs or to both. My apologies if this has already been covered (I haven't read every post on this thread).
05-08-2018, 05:00 AM   #411
Veteran Member
MJKoski's Avatar

Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 1,784
Original Poster
I have disabled all in-camera nr-settings and it did not change anything unfortunately. This was one of the first things I tried few weeks ago whether they also affect RAW or not.
05-08-2018, 05:06 AM   #412
Veteran Member
mecrox's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 2,375
QuoteOriginally posted by MJKoski Quote
I have disabled all in-camera nr-settings and it did not change anything unfortunately. This was one of the first things I tried few weeks ago whether they also affect RAW or not.
Darn! But thank you for replying.

05-08-2018, 05:36 AM - 1 Like   #413
Pentaxian
photoptimist's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2016
Photos: Albums
Posts: 5,113
But what about the RAW convertor?

SteveBrot published a comparison of two versions of the same RAW file demosaiced with different convertors: (DPReview: K-1 IIs Noise Reduction costs Details - Page 2 - PentaxForums.com)


They show different artifact patterns and different amounts of edge softness.

How do we know that the loss of detail is being caused by the camera and not the RAW convertor?
05-08-2018, 07:10 AM   #414
Veteran Member
DimC's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Paris
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 813
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Ricoh should have made the "accelerator" processing optional. Everyone would have won.

As it is, the K-1 II got slammed by DPReview and that won't help sales at all.

I haven't looked at DPReview's review in detail, it may be flawed in some aspects, but as there is no doubt that the accelerator processing mainly constitutes some form of noise reduction, I cannot complain about DPReview when they point this out and criticise it. Restrict such measures to JPGs or at least make it optional for RAW files.

Let's hope Ricoh will give us the option to turn off the accelerator processing via a firmware upgrade or at least make it optional in future camera models. For better or for worse, DPReview's opinion matters for sales and it is completely unnecessary to give them ammunition like that.


Exactly my thoughts.
05-08-2018, 07:24 AM   #415
Loyal Site Supporter
Loyal Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Gladys, Virginia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 27,603
QuoteOriginally posted by Kunzite Quote
Is it? The K-1 II is slightly out of focus - they botched the test.
Check the corners, especially the top-right one is awfully OOF.
I agree. I noticed right off that the right upper corner was significantly more blurry than the rest of the image. Either decentering or poor focus, but either way, you can't comment on detail in that part of the image. The center part of the image is significantly better focused and there, the K-1 II looks better to me.

Regardless, I don't see DP Review doing this level of pixel peeping with other cameras out there, even when there are cameras, like some Sonys, that are well known to have even more serious smoothing of raw files. Looking at Sony's images, it is totally obvious whereas here, while it is visible, it isn't obvious till you magnify things to 200 percent.

Edit: I will add that to me not having the ability to shut off the accelerator chip is not a big deal since there is a version of the camera available that doesn't have the accelerator chip. If you find this processing to be terrible, then you can just get the original K-1. Probably it is a bigger deal with the KP and K70, where there aren't options without it, but oddly, the folks who shoot with those cameras seem pretty pleased with the results they are getting (maybe they aren't as quick to pixel peep as K-1 shooters).
05-08-2018, 09:27 AM - 2 Likes   #416
Senior Member




Join Date: Jun 2010
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 120
QuoteOriginally posted by normhead Quote

You do realize there is no noise in nature? It's a product of sensor technology don't you? As posted previously, I have far more images ruined by noise than I have ruined by lack of resolution. I think you're barking up the wrong tree.
This is almost the opposite of what is true. There is no nature without noise. It is prohibited by the most fundamental laws of nature (if we assume quantum mechanics to be correct). One of the ways this is clear in photography is by the poissionian arrival times of photons onto the sensor: light is quantized in photons, and the photons do not come into the camera in an entirely smooth continuous stream, rather showing (in most cases) some amount of randomness (according to poisson statistics) in their density. A bit more info here.

That said, obviously, there is added noise in the camera electronics as well.
05-08-2018, 12:31 PM   #417
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by madbrain Quote
Can we really be sure the difference is solely the camera, though, when they didn't even use the same lens in both tests ?
QuoteOriginally posted by maw Quote
This is just a sample image and may not be very explicative
End of discussion? No they are not very explicative.


Steve
05-08-2018, 04:16 PM - 1 Like   #418
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by xandos Quote
One of the ways this is clear in photography is by the poissionian arrival times of photons onto the sensor: light is quantized in photons, and the photons do not come into the camera in an entirely smooth continuous stream, rather showing (in most cases) some amount of randomness (according to poisson statistics) in their density. A bit more info here.
Obfuscation by statistics...

To be even a little more pedantic, the randomness is still there and is characteristic of the source (not the detector) and follows rules for Poisson rather than Gaussian distributions. Poisson distribution is typical for photon emission, radioactive decay, and various natural processes and has quirks (See Wikipedia). "Noise" in this case is whether the measured photon count over a given period at a particular site on the sensor is detected as different than the expected value. Those variant counts in a Poisson distribution have higher relative probability as the expected count decreases (i.e. as events becomes more rare). This is sometimes referred to as the Law of Rare Events. The preceding example assumes a detector with perfect sensitivity. False events, missed events, and/or amplification/dampening of events can complicate detection of intrinsic noise from the source. Are we confused yet?

To simplify...extremely dim light measured over a sufficiently short period of time may record pixel-level discontinuity that may be expressed as noise. Increasing the time will even out the discontinuity and as a side-effect provide adequate exposure and better tonal gradation after A/D conversion. In case it isn't clear...the detector needs light to make an image.


Steve
05-08-2018, 08:23 PM   #419
Pentaxian
reh321's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: South Bend, IN, USA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 23,124
QuoteOriginally posted by Class A Quote
Let's hope Ricoh will give us the option to turn off the accelerator processing via a firmware upgrade or at least make it optional in future camera models. For better or for worse, DPReview's opinion matters for sales and it is completely unnecessary to give them ammunition like that.
Read the initial reactions to the K-1ii. Responder after responder said there was no point to the Mk ii ... and they were correct in the sense that the Mk ii without the 'accelerator' is a Mk i - so if you don't want the 'accelerator' use the older camera to photograph dead animals.

I continue to believe that Sony integrates their circuitry into the sensor as an added layer, which is the best way to do this if you can, and turning parts of the sensor on or off is not a viable plan.

Last edited by reh321; 05-08-2018 at 08:30 PM.
05-08-2018, 08:40 PM - 1 Like   #420
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 42,007
QuoteOriginally posted by reh321 Quote
Use a K-1 if you don't want it.
That statement has been repeated multiple times as these reviews have come out and reminds me of concerns regarding the K-3II and the suggestion that the two bodies would share market space until a successor body was crafted. The K-3's life as an active product would be numbered in months with the last review on this site purchased new being bought five months after the K-3II was released.


Steve
Reply

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!
accelerator, camera, claims, crop, dslr, exposure, full frame, full-frame, image, information, iso800, iv, k-1, k-1 mk2, k1, mess, mk2, op, pentax k-1, sensor, settings, software, sony, unit
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Macro Best moderate priced macro lens for newbie HGMerrill Photographic Technique 16 10-20-2014 06:08 PM
Old Moderate Mitt is Back! boriscleto General Talk 3 10-10-2012 02:12 PM
"Moderate" Mitt jeffkrol General Talk 2 10-08-2012 01:59 PM
Excesive noise in moderate light, please help Al_s14 Pentax K-r 4 08-03-2011 03:28 PM
Pentax lens all-in-one with moderate zoom fevbusch Pentax DSLR Discussion 17 01-27-2007 05:13 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:48 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