[Tan68]

... If changing the EXIF ISO changes the developed TIFF, then it suggests that the RAW developer is using the expected noise level associated with the EXIF ISO value to adjust how it deals with the image. That is, the RAW developer may have some denoising effects. ...

Oh, certainly. I am 97% positive I have read on Phase One forums that Capture One varies amount (if not other settings) of NR based on ISO. [+ the amount of sharpening Shown at default is always 50 or whatever but the amount done do vary] Amount must be based on info drawn from EXIF but I never asked.. I suppose it could just be an on-the-fly evaluation of image noisiness, but I vote EXIF.

My older computer computer lagged a lot and I would sometimes see the virgin image displayed before default rendering occurred...... dude, it is scary like that melting German fellow in the first Indiana Jones movie. frightening :^)

+ anyone wanting to glimpse raw RAW should resurrect an Athlon II system with integrated graphics

---

Last edited by Tan68; 05-13-2018 at 08:23 AM.

[D1N0]

Do you not see it?

No i don't I think the noise in the K-1 file just increases the perception of contrast

[Class A]

Just two comparisions that shows, what the K-1 II is capable of.

I prefer the K-1 version of the hair, but please note that due to the issues with the lens that DPReview used for the K-1 II shots, you ought to look at the centre of the studio scene only. Some of the other areas are spectacularly bad (looks like lens defects).

Even DPReview staff have said that you should only look at the centre. This makes zero sense, of course, because they uploaded the full images and the tool supports navigation to any area, but somehow they are of the opinion that there is not much of a problem with uploading such faulty images and that it is sufficient to bury the hints regarding the limitations of the comparator tool in some comments of the "K-1 II"-article.

[Class A]

No i don't I think the noise in the K-1 file just increases the perception of contrast

Look at the bottom row of letters/numbers under the guy's vest.

In the K-1 shot I can make out a "G" and what looks like an "N". I can also make out a "4".
Squint your eyes to help your brain to not be detracted by the noise.

The K-1 II shot has nothing in the areas of the "G" and the "4".

Again, I don't think we can conclude anything from this, because the test conditions weren't the same.

[Tan68]

My observations have come to conclusion that not many are satisfied with mk2 as it is. People are afraid to speak of it. ...

Where I think I can get away with it, I try to be brave and wrote in another post "... I have decided the K-1 II does a good job with these samples."

... propellerhead ...

This does sound like a rock band :^)

---------- Post added 05-13-18 at 09:31 AM ----------

Look at the bottom row of letters/numbers under the guy's vest.

In the K-1 shot I can make out a "G" and what looks like an "N". I can also make out a "4".
Squint your eyes to help your brain to not be detracted by the noise.

The K-1 II shot has nothing in the areas of the "G" and the "4".

Again, I don't think we can conclude anything from this, because the test conditions weren't the same.

That's right... I didn't notice that

I did look at the signature. Pretty good.
The date under the larger coin looks good.

It's all chutes & ladders, roundabouts & roundels, forelocks & dreads :^)

+ your suggestion of the stacking test to Bill C is a good idea

[texandrews]

Yes, we can agree that:

1. there is proof of image processing on pure noise images
2. it is "smoothing" the noise (but any effects on the signal are not well known at this time)
3. it is contentious (but unclear those contentions are justified)
4. DPReview has done a crap job on the K-1ii somewhere between gross negligence and outright maliciousness
5. Ricoh would be wise to provide user-controls from the chip

We seem to disagree that:

1. anything done in-camera can be done in post processing
2. signal can't be distinguished from added noise
3. the chip is doing a "nearest neighbour"-type denoising approach

Actually, if you look carefully, the FFTs are not consistent with this at all. Energies for the nearest neighbors are actually preserved almost as if the chip is denoising and then resharpening (or never smoothing those ). (Unfortunately, bclaff's tendency to normalize all the FFTs makes it really hard to judge what's happening. )

That's a good question!

The answer is in analyzing all the differences in values of pixels in a neighborhood. Noise has independent differences that are statistically bounded to modest values. Image detail has structured differences (and similarities) and are potentially unbounded in value. Any large magnitude differentials above some statistical threshold are certainly "signal." Any small magnitude differentials that are structured are also probably "signal." It's the small magnitude, unstructured differentials that can be attenuated to leave only the structured ones and the large ones.


As much as I totally respect MJKoski's photographic skills and applaud his efforts to push cameras to their limits, I'm not confident of his conclusions because I fear that his choices camera settings and the RAW developer may be contributing to the problem.

If the image of the small dust spec spans multiple sensels, it will be easily distinguished from noise. And if the image of the small dust spec only falls on one sensel, then the RAW image will be wrong anyway due to Bayer filter sparsity. If the lens is out-resolving the sensor so that the image of a tiny dust speck only falls on a blue pixel, then the color information about the dust spec is irretrievably gone. We're back to the missing red berry problem. Using the K-1 or K-1ii with a sharp lens at a sharp f-stop WITHOUT the anti-aliasing filter is guaranteed to create bad RAW data.

I like this test! What's interesting is that the phenomena of Stochastic resonance - Wikipedia implies that noise will actually help occasionally reveal the smoothed low-amplitude signal in some images of the stack. The loss of low-amplitude detail will be a lot less that one might assume and the gains in noise reduction in the rest of the image will certainly be nice.

Once again you have demonstrated with your thoughtful, rational, clear, and concisely reasoned post why you are so valuable here at Pentax Forums. Kudos, again.

[Class A]

Why lose sleep over DPR article if you know it contains pure herecy?

I fight the broken testing methodology and permanent negative bias against Pentax at DPReview because their discrimination against Pentax -- intentionally or not -- causes loss of sales to Ricoh.

Pentax isn't a big player to begin with and they need the opposite of the discrimination that DPReview exercises.

Camera is just a lifeless tool to me.

I don't have names for my camera bodies either, but I'd hate to use a Canon with their inferior sensors and terrible ergonomics. I'd also hate to use a plastic Sony with an EVF. Nikon seems OK but they don't offer sensor-based image stabilisation and their cameras do not offer nearly as good value for money as Pentax does. Also, I acquired my Pentax lenses when they were still bargains compared to what Nikon charges for their top lenses.

You may not care if one day you will be forced to use a plastic Sony with a mini-TV as a viewfinder because DPReview has finally succeeded in convincing everyone that only mirrorless cameras make any sense, causing small DSLR players like Ricoh to throw the towel. This scenario is not what I want and even if it weren't for my selfish motive of being able to keep shooting Pentax, the injustice exercised by DPReview deserves some resistance.

[Fenwoodian]

I fight the broken testing methodology and permanent negative bias against Pentax at DPReview because their discrimination against Pentax -- intentionally or not -- causes loss of sales to Ricoh.

Pentax isn't a big player to begin with and they need the opposite of the discrimination that DPReview exercises.


I don't have names for my camera bodies either, but I'd hate to use a Canon with their inferior sensors and terrible ergonomics. I'd also hate to use a plastic Sony with an EVF. Nikon seems OK but they don't offer sensor-based image stabilisation and their cameras do not offer nearly as good value for money as Pentax does. Also, I acquired my Pentax lenses when they were still bargains compared to what Nikon charges for their top lenses.

You may not care if one day you will be forced to use a plastic Sony with a mini-TV as a viewfinder because DPReview has finally succeeded in convincing everyone that only mirrorless cameras make any sense, causing small DSLR players like Ricoh to throw the towel. This scenario is not what I want and even if it weren't for my selfish motive of being able to keep shooting Pentax, the injustice exercised by DPReview deserves some resistance.

Well said - "resistance" is the key! But what form should our resistance take?

I came over to Pentax from decades with Nikon/Canon/Hassy in 2015 because I was blown away by some early pixel shift photos I'd seen on the Internet that were taken with the Pentax K3ii & 55mm f/1.4 lens. For me, it wasn't the reviews or blogs that prompted my move, it was the images. Maybe DPReview and their like are not as influencial with prospective camera buyers as many believe. Maybe the best thing we as Pentaxians can do is to post incredible photos on the Internet that demonstrate the capabilities of modern Pentax gear?

If all of us can do just a little bit to positively promote Pentax on the Internet, the future will gradually improve for our favorite camera maker. For example, I'm currently producing on-line photography courses that will feature Pentax cameras. I have no doubt that my future students will walk away from the course thoroughly impressed with the Pentax brand.

[Class A]

For example, I'm currently producing on-line photography courses that will feature Pentax cameras. I have no doubt that my future students will walk away from the course thoroughly impressed with the Pentax brand.

Two thumbs up for that!

Maybe DPReview and their like are not as influencial with prospective camera buyers as many believe.

One can hope but with 20,000,000 hits per day, the site is rather popular.

[rawr]

It appears the studio scene at DPReview for the K-1 II has been re-shot with the D FA 24-70/2.8.

If so, they need to improve their setup. Hard to get consistent results if there is no consistency in method.

Ideally, find a good-performing lens like the Sigma 70mm macro that's available on most mounts, and stick with that for all the tests across camera brands.

[Tan68]

20M hits / day can nail up a coffin before you can holler Edgar A

[beholder3]

Ideally, find a good-performing lens like the Sigma 70mm macro that's available on most mounts, and stick with that for all the tests across camera brands.

That is what a professional reviewer would do.


And not use pre-prod firmware.


And not use completely different camera settings.


And not change actual lighting condiitons.


Other than the Sigma 70mm they could as well use a Samyang 100mm macro or Samyang 135mm F2. Same lens can be used or adpated to pretty much any current mount.

[Kunzite]

It appears the studio scene at DPReview for the K-1 II has been re-shot with the D FA 24-70/2.8.

This lens copy appears to have problems with sharpness at the right hand side.

Are you sure? I'm still seeing the D FA 50mm samples for the "Image Quality" tests; the D FA 24-70 was used for the "DR" tests.

[Fenwoodian]

Can't claim 'incredible photos'...

Feel free to visit my Flickr link, below and follow along for updates as they happen. I post daily to over 10,000 followers. My page has recorded over 7million total views and I get 3K-5K page-views per day.

Currently, you'll find K-1 MkII+DA*300/4+HD1.4TC images featured.



Comments and questions are always welcome.

Cheers... m

Beautiful images, especially the birds. I have no doubt that many viewers have been impressed by your photos, with some likely buying Pentax gear because of your images.

You should be a Pentax ambassador.

[biz-engineer]

It looks like the K1 II got a 1 stop read noise reduction from iso500 onward.