[peerSr]

Chris
So far
Fact: Some badly Hot Pixelled images from ONE camera has been posted on a Polish Website.
PK

Hello,

as far as I know, there were three K20D tested by this guy. You can see those pictures at:

Test Pentax K20D - Szumy i jakosc obrazu w RAW - Optyczne.pl


Since I am considering to buy a K20D, I immediately contacted our regional seller /and service center. They told me, they saw only two K10D with hot pixels in the past. And no K20D yet.

(sorry for my broken English)

---

Last edited by peerSr; 05-10-2008 at 07:32 AM.

[Peacekeeper]

Chris

Why do I suspect we will be waiting a long time before we see anyone post one of these images hehe

Edit:

Yes this was the images I posted over on the other thread, as you can see they are quite dramatic and if the problem was widespread we would all have either experienced them personally or seen examples from other people.

PeerSr, you English is great and I bet a lot better than my Polish when checking that other site.

PK

[peerSr]

Thank you, Peacekeeper!
(Just - you should hear me and you would change your mind

[codiac2600]

A bunch of links to my blog? I copied and pasted my latest blog article again and make it as a new post! If you think you can say anything that is not true NOW just because my post / thread has been deleted, you'll surely be wrong.

Repeated topic needed to be deleted? Third or fourth thread? Are these really true and always applied?? Or, only on my threads?? - JUST because of the "unfavourable" contents I shared???

I have pointed to a picture posted by a K20D end-user for a hot pixel picture and his story for sending back to Pentax Japan for repair, and, two users in a single post at another Pentax forum reported and confirmed that their K20D units had hot pixels. What else "new information" do you really want before a thread should/could be deleted owing to *any* EXCUSES??

Still waiting for proof RH... you may say people have found hot pixel issues but where is the pictures from it?

Oh, have we forgotten that new cameras tend to have STUCK pixels that disappear over time. Like I said before it's totally crap till I start seeing proof besides from a polish website that picked the perfect RAW converter that who knows may add hot pixels cause it doesn't translate the Pentax PEF properly.

Again, until PENTAX officially announces this an issue or I see some hard proof from actual end users that have EXIF attached my stance is this is bogus. 3 or 4 cameras experiencing this issue is a non-issue if the statements are true, but I want to see images not from poland, I want to see them here so we can all experience what is going on.

It's strange how DPR never officially writes anything bad until Canon/Nikon officially announce that there is an issue, but pop in and proclaim Pentax has one without word from them. Whatever they do to make these pixels appear I can't with my camera, I ust ran it through 5, 3 minute long, live views of a black object and neither the picture nor the screen showed me a hot pixel.

Oh, and why hasn't DPR talked about the XSi focus issue? Wait the D300 now has hot pixel issues in live view, why didn't they find that? Why aren't you talking about that RH? There are other cameras with real problems and those guys are showing pictures of the issues but we don't have any here yet.

[Maxington]

A bunch of links to my blog? I copied and pasted my latest blog article again and make it as a new post! If you think you can say anything that is not true NOW just because my post / thread has been deleted, you'll surely be wrong.

Repeated topic needed to be deleted? Third or fourth thread? Are these really true and always applied?? Or, only on my threads?? - JUST because of the "unfavourable" contents I shared???

I have pointed to a picture posted by a K20D end-user for a hot pixel picture and his story for sending back to Pentax Japan for repair, and, two users in a single post at another Pentax forum reported and confirmed that their K20D units had hot pixels. What else "new information" do you really want before a thread should/could be deleted owing to *any* EXCUSES??

So why did you need to make an entirely new thread? Cut & paste your blog post to one of the multiple existing threads. Give one reason why you needed to make a new thread except for attention whoring.

[Falcons]

Don't hold back Falcons, ......let it all out

Perhaps I am a fictional character too.

Love this anonimity thing.

[Peter Zack]

Post deleted. I promise myself to limiting posts to commenting on others pictures and staying away from these threads forever.

---

Last edited by Peter Zack; 05-10-2008 at 08:35 AM.

[ricardobeat]

Oh, have we forgotten that new cameras tend to have STUCK pixels that disappear over time. Like I said before it's totally crap till I start seeing proof besides from a polish website that picked the perfect RAW converter that who knows may add hot pixels cause it doesn't translate the Pentax PEF properly.

Not that fast Chris... dcraw is a very well known software with great capabilities. Just because you don't use it doesn't mean it's bad - I doubt any converter will "add hot pixels" and am surprised by your naiveness to say something like that.

I'm glad to know that this debate won't settle until you see proof. How conforting.

Now, let's get the facts straight: the hot pixels that they claim appear only in RAW, supposedly in converters that do not map those pixels out. That excludes ACR, Capture One and most commercial converters (because there is no use for 'transparent' decoding for end users) - dcraw can do that. They say these pixels appear randomly, so it could be that they can't be mapped out properly. Every camera will show hot pixels under these conditions, it's a matter of in what proportion (I wonder about the 1Ds).

Do you remember one of the first K20D shots posted here by Benjamin Kanarek? ISO 800, HUNDREDS of hot pixels in shadow areas. So I think the reality of the issue is not so far-fetched. It doesn't mean everyone will have hot pixels all over their pics, because converters eliminate them (usually), but it could be that they are above average, or maybe that the randomness is too great to allow for mapping. We just don't know, and whining and shouting that this is bullshit and that "we need proof" is not going to take us anywhere. In a short time they will publish the review and hopefully explain what happened, so we can wait. You're not going to convince DPR staff that it doesn't exist - they said they've seen it, you haven't. You really have no point here.

It remains a mistery though how did they manage to get visible hot pixels using ACR.

[LDevil]

Prove what?

I just wanted to say, that JPEG files from body should be only used to check quality of JPEG files from body. They shouldn't be used to check for hot pixels existence, lens resolution, etc.

If this so called problem exists only in these conditions and we know that every sensor has certain number of hot pixels, where is the problem? If we cant see it in our real life pictures using normal work flow, I cant see any problem either. Hot air.

Some people says that this problem exist even on ISO100 and fast shutter speeds.

I don't convert my pictures using Dcraw to lossless format, I use some more photographer friendly software (Silkypix) and convert them to tiff:s and jpeg:s for real use. If this problem is not visible in my work flow, what a damn problem it is?

Probably this problem exists, because some testers wanted to test images produced by K20D body instead of images produced by K20D+PPL/ACR/another black box. And they probably see too much hot pixels. It's also confirmed by some people that files developed by PPL are void of hot pixels.

So if you're using PPL, ACR or something similar, you will probably never see any hot pixels, even if they exists in RAW file.

[Rickster]

I remember many years ago when I was working as an qc engineer for consumer computer manufacturer. We had reports of excessive failures from customers of a particular store in South Philadelphia. After an investigation we found this store just sold its returns as new stock and kept reselling the same bad unit until it didn't come back.

What does this have to do with the current "crisis"?

At this point we do not know the provenance of the cameras that DPR or the Polish web site had. Were they new stock, pre-prods or some returns the sales company had laying about.

HA HA HA HA I F%$#@*&G Love it!!!!

As far as the issue goes, I think this is all DPR hot air and I'm still ordering a new camera next week.

Btw. I sold electronics for 10 years and every manufacturer in the business said that they were happy with 0.002 -0.003% pixel failure in sensor devices and display devices. I defy anyone to find a similar device with 6 or 10 or 14.2 million pixels and not find one or 2 defective ones somewhere in there. This is just life and deal with it.

Edit Opps sorry I just reread this post and realized I had entered the wrong % amounts for dead/hot pixels. The correct numbers are now posted. (about 20 per million was the threshold that most manufacturers claimed to stay under).

Hey Peter, I think what is being discussed in this ghost phenomenon is actually hot pixels... What your pecentages are refering to is Dead or Stuck pixels. They dont change on a sensor... I have 4 or 5 on my K100d that show up in tight crops or under certain conditions. Those are the type of issues that can be mapped out in-camera by the K20d (unfortunately my old K100d needs to go back to pentax to do the same.)

I am sure you know this but, But hot pixels happen during long exposure shots, the amount of them increase as more heat is generated when more long exposures are being taken. Our Dslr's use dark frame subtraction to deal with hot pixels. My old fuji did not have DFS and it started off with a few on the first 4sec shot, then it could look like it was snowing after about ten long exposure shots.

What has been hinted at is that the 'live view' may be causing the sensor to heat up and creating the "floating" hot pixels.

But just like everyone else.... I am talking out of my ass here since I aint seen what they are seeing...

[codiac2600]

I remember many years ago when I was working as an qc engineer for consumer computer manufacturer. We had reports of excessive failures from customers of a particular store in South Philadelphia. After an investigation we found this store just sold its returns as new stock and kept reselling the same bad unit until it didn't come back.

What does this have to do with the current "crisis"?

At this point we do not know the provenance of the cameras that DPR or the Polish web site had. Were they new stock, pre-prods or some returns the sales company had laying about.

They did release an announcement that they received a pre-prod unit and never announced a true production unit.

[Harald]

I just wanted to say, that JPEG files from body should be only used to check quality of JPEG files from body. They shouldn't be used to check for hot pixels existence, lens resolution, etc.
Some people says that this problem exist even on ISO100 and fast shutter speeds.
Probably this problem exists, because some testers wanted to test images produced by K20D body instead of images produced by K20D+PPL/ACR/another black box. And they probably see too much hot pixels. It's also confirmed by some people that files developed by PPL are void of hot pixels.

So if you're using PPL, ACR or something similar, you will probably never see any hot pixels, even if they exists in RAW file.

Evidences? please. "some people say" is just an troll as far as I can see. Here is much (obviously including you?) people that believe all what is written to net is true.

Here was asked evidences, but nothing appears.... so these rumors can be result an negative advertising campaign.

All Pentax bodies I have own (D , K10D and K20D) has been targets of this kind of campaigns. I call them campaigns because I and none of my friends has never noticed phenomenas those campaigns are accusing Pentax. Here we see one again.

It cant be an coincidence that all Pentax bodies got one this kind of campaign just some months after their release. I don't see any conspiracy here, but just an defaming campaign of rivalries.... quite normal dirty marketing tricks. World is not an nice place when we talk about money.

[Peacekeeper]

................... You're not going to convince DPR staff that it doesn't exist - they said they've seen it, you haven't. You really have no point here...

There are three points....
1. Are there hot pixels? .... have no doubt, they have manifested in the Polish pictures, we can see that...so Yes they exist...no one is denying it.

2. Has DPR reviewers got them...No-one knows, they have hinted that they have a similar problem, but not provided any examples of it and have simpley rattled everyones cage....bad DPR .

3. Is it Pentax wide or just an handful of K20Ds that are affected?

Would be interesting to see if the Pentax has sent out the same cameras they sent to the Polish reivewers.

PK

[Harald]

There are three points....
1. Are there hot pixels? .... have no doubt, they have manifested in the Polish pictures, we can see that...so Yes they exist...no one is denying it.

2. Has DPR reviewers got them...No-one knows, they have hinted that they have a similar problem, but not provided any examples of it and have simpley rattled everyones cage....bad DPR .

3. Is it Pentax wide or just an handful of K20Ds that are affected?

Would be interesting to see if the Pentax has sent out the same cameras they sent to the Polish reivewers.

PK

3. It certainly is not Pentax wide. Any K20D owner has not shown his/her pictures to us so far.
1. One Polish reviewer has been able to produce such an phenomena that none of us K20D owners has not seen so far? and the existence of this phenomena is granted? Why I am a little bit suspicious? Why this claim is brought into light in Poland where laws against fraud and public insults are not yet in the level of rest of western democracies and the existing ones are not enforced very keenly?