Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-09-2007, 12:02 PM   #76
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Northern California
Posts: 475
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
Hi Ray,

I don't think I would feel that concerned by seeing VPN in deep shadows in Zone 1. I could live with that and sometimes I might decide to use my DS instead.

Everything else you say makes sense. In the thread here:
Test: Are you VPN sensitive?
In which picture(s) do you see VPN?

I ask as I have some problems grasping the problem. Perfectly normal members at this and other forums don't see it, while just as perfectly normal but other individuals have no problems seeing it and also describes it the same way independently from each other.

To that we can add some reports VPN from their cameras while others "never" have seen it. All this make me wonder if Pentax already fixed the problem with later items (without telling anyone). Tracy's Epsom salt picture can hardly be said to be underexposed. Nor is it pushed. Still, in reality her kitchen wall doesn't look like that.

Maybe I just have to buy a K10D and find out by myself what it is like.

regards,
Hi Jonas,

I believe that all K10Ds have VPN to a very similar level, given the exact same image capture circumstances. Of course, getting the same exact exposure and color temperature on two different cameras at two different times is impossible.

I also believe that seeing it or not seeing it is influenced by the following (at least):

Monitors being used.

Ambient viewing conditions.

Presence of any color blindness (I have a bit of red/green color blindness, which is reasonably common).

Pattern recognition differences in different people.

Here is a test that I believe will show very similar VPN in all K10Ds:

Create a new image in your favorite editor. In a white (255,255, 255) background, place two squares, one filled with 128,128,128, the other filled with 000,000,000.

Leave plenty of white area around the squares.

Print the image on a good quality B&W inkjet on matte paper.

Tape the print down and light it as evenly as you can.

Set the K10D to ISO 1600 and perform a custom color balance on the white area in the print. Spot meter on the white area and adjust the exposure until you see that the histogram is just under clipping on the right side.

Shoot a RAW image.

Open in your favorite developer, leaving all settings "as shot". Use the little eyedropper to make sure your white is just under 255.

The black square will have some noticeable patterning in the vertical direction, albeit reasonably faint.

Now push the exposure just +1 and the patterning will be much more noticeable in the black square. I never saw any pattern in the grey square no matter how much it was pushed. Note also that your black square is no longer black. Herein lies much of the controversy:

If a part of my exposure is 000,000,000 why would I push it such that it is no longer black?

On the other hand, I am sure that patterning shows up somewhat before full black as I have tested with shots of my white wall where some detail was still visible and pushing +1 started to reveal distinct green and purple patterns. +2 and the patterns were very obvious. The wall was exposed to be very dark, maybe zone 1 or 2, but not black.

So, the absolute amount of illumination that hits the sensor is the main driver of VPN, but it seems to follow light and color gradients in these dark areas as well (which is a function of the image prcessing done by the NuCore chip). This is why it is usually seen in smooth background areas, usually darker, many of which might have also had a color temperature gradient as well. High ISO is not really the cause in the normal noise amplification sense, rather low light levels in certain parts of the scene where the NuCore performs certain tricks to compensate for color and light gradients, and also where a dark level offset error will show is the cause. Unfortunately, it seems to do this in hardware so we cannot get at the unprocessed RAW data to apply a different technique that might work better.

Normally, I have no desire to shoot any 10MP APS-C camera at 800-1600 ISO, and even less desire to push that shot +1 or more, so I have not seen VPN in any but test images, but there is no doubt in my mind that every K10D camera will produce pattern noise under certain conditions.

Ray

04-09-2007, 12:15 PM   #77
Junior Member




Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Jonas I think your last post pretty much hits the nail on the head regarding the VPN problem.

Many of the images that show it are low-key, low contrast shots where the VPN show up very easily. Your work on Sean's image (which DEFINITELY is one of the best VPN samples I've seen) shows that PP can overcome many of the limitations.

I crush the hell out of the blacks so I'm usually ok, but I'd imagine photographers who prefer a less high-contrast approach wouldn't look too kindly on the VPN.
04-09-2007, 01:43 PM   #78
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
Hi John/ JFDavis,
I think this is a great post. I also like the one on DPr, where you play the violin for some user that seemed pretty out of line.
I also think scq/Stephen had some good input, as did *isteve.

To Jonas B. : I donít see this post from John, as a response to you. So no need to worry.

When I first saw the picture in this thread, the portrait with something blue sticking out in front of it; at first glance it looked like the typical older problem of a thumb or finger in front of the lens.
When I gave it some more attention, I see that it is a baseball cap, getting in the way of the image. I sometimes frame my desired point of interest, with some point of attention close by. This does not seem to have been the point here. The cap or blue/white thing, whatever it is, seems to have been very close to the lens.
Iím fairly critical of my pictures, I would probably take a couple of shots of something I wanted, and see how they turned out. Some would be pleasing, others not. This one in particular, I would either clone out this hat that got in the way of the picture, see if I had other good images, or accept that I didnít get what I wanted. This last option, Iím also accepting, since it will force me to increase my efforts and improve my skill.
In the film days, I would say that 5-10 % of the images taken, were the good ones. Some of the rest could tell a story, others would just be discarded.
Michael Reichmann on his recent Antarctic Photographic Expedition trip, took 7.024 frames. And ended up with 92 frames which he considered worth printing, and a dozen which were portfolio / exhibition grade. And three of these were among the best work he felt that he had ever done.

In regard to this VPN raving, I think that there are some that have a very valid point. And I hope that a solution presents itself for them.
What I also notice though, is that the amateur photographers that I most enjoy seeing photos from, do not seem to have any particular problem with VPN, or be limited in their photography by it.

In regard to the Proís, I guess that they have so much experience that they know what their camera can, and canít do. If they encounter problems, they develop workarounds to get the shots they want.

I really had to take the boring turn (since other sides of photography interest me more), to read into it all, since I got worried about the same issues being discussed over and over.
However, I kind of stopped getting much involved or trying to sort things out, when I received what at first looked like a hate mail; demanding an official apology that I had dared to enter a thread and try to bring it back on track. I was surprised since prior, all that I had encountered from the forum was a very nice tone and feedback. So to begin with, I was almost happy that the person didnít live in the same country as I. But we were able to discuss it through and put it to rest, so it turned out to be no big deal. But I still feel that the shouting and obsession by some, bringing forth the same over and over, is counterproductive to their case.


One of the newest fun examples are, how Roland has to learn not to take proper photos, but to tweak his camera, and everybody will make conclusions about his photography.
This technical weird science, really goes to show the way this and other issues have screwed up DPr. The fun of going there has been decreasing for some time now.

Had it not been for the Mo/Adam forum, then the joy of Pentax community would really be closer to lost.

It is said that one should simply avoid the VPN threads, especially since it is the same things brought up, and the same crowd trying to convince each other how poor the K10 is, and how it is never their fault.
But if people who enjoy their photography, and take excellent pictures with the K10, are not allowed in; then new potential buyers will not get a balanced and fair view, and see that it is only a minority complaining about VPN. I almost got spooked by it all, but having spend many hours and months following DPr, I could put things into perspective. And seeing that many of the greatest photographers from DPR does not understand how this issue has sprung up.


Sorry for the long rant, but these ideas about going through the same, again and again, can be fun from a technical point of view, but in regard to reading about photography on DPr it is getting very tiresome. And also how people have to learn to get VPN :
Go in a closet, for safety leave the cap on, now take a shot at 1/2000 sec. be fair and do it fully open, if your camera brings out a faulty image, then you have a VPN problem.

I know that I have put the issue on the edge, and that some might take offence, but Iím trying to illustrate the trend that has also been noticed. Iím sure that Ansel and other threw away hundred of images that didnít have an exposure they could work with. I know that the issue is more complex, but it would be nice if it could be given a rest, in regard to what has already been discussed numerous times.

In the instances that user error has been spotted as the reason for the problem, I guess this is good. And the user will have more fun, knowing that it was just a mistake he made by himself. But many times, people jump the gun, and shout about, and in the end many experienced photographers donít feel like jumping in for the rescue.

The community used to be very nice and pleasant. But for some of the new things seen, I understand why John/ JFDavis have gotten feed up with it all. Some of the people coming in, not knowing how things have been dealt with and discussed in the past, really need to have things explained in very straight ways, to get the picture.

Dag T. has been posting for years in a fine Norwegian forum, but never encountered anybody talk about VPN or Banding in his images. But the VPN flu has seriously hit DPr. If you havenít got it, there most be something wrong with your photography.

But as one user wrote some time ago :
worse than pixalisation, VPN peeping.

Hope everybody had a fun Easter, luckily I was also outside, instead of trying to calibrate my screen to get it displaying patterns. It was possible in the end, and weird flashing, banding, moirť and what have you was all over, but then I couldnít see the images or anything else.

To new and coming users : donít worry be happy. Donít let this intimidate you into avoid giving the wonderful world of Pentax a try. Youíll miss out.
04-09-2007, 02:01 PM   #79
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: GŲteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
Hi Ray,

I agree with you about all the factors playing a role when it comes to see VPN or not, or to what degree.

The rest of the text is also sensible. My worries are not about VPN in Zone 1 or other very dark areas. I'm more concerned about the patterns showing from time to time in typical greyish areas of pictures, pictures properly exposed and postprocessed, or not processed by any human at all.

It may very well be that the amount of factors are so many that any real and sensible discussion immediately drowns among the amount of opinions. In the end we probably have the VPN to the same degree with all cameras (except of some rare exceptions ) and have to deal with it different ways. The last thing to try would be to use another camera.

I contemplate the situation. Thank you for your input.

04-09-2007, 02:11 PM   #80
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: GŲteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonson PL Quote
To Jonas B. : I donít see this post from John, as a response to you. So no need to worry.
Well, with all that rubbish in it I hope it wasn't. To bad he can't speak for himself.

^^ I know you won't like the tone in that part ^^

The problem is that his post made me a bit sad. It's a heavy dosis of psychology embedded in it - in effect putting people experiencing problems to keep silent. The rough tone in that post even gets applauded by Lance, and now you. Scary reading in my opinion.

I can't see the good thing with that. Maybe that I some day will understand the good thing with not seeing, not allow to speak.

For the people screaming about VPN and asking people not seeing it to be silent, well, that is just as bad.

Hmm. We humans are what we are; we can't even save the planet.

If there is no VPN, can we discuss ghost pixels instead...

kindly, really,
04-09-2007, 03:14 PM   #81
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
Hi Jonas,
Donít be scared, we just react differently to things. I always welcome a sound debate that is well founded, I like arguing. :- )

And I think that the MightyMike thread, or the input from scq/Stephen, Joshua Hakin, GordonBGood, BTG308/Richie and Rpulley/Ray etc. have been very good.

Iíve been a happy Pentax user, but even I was beginning to get concerned. Luckily some of the ones that had gotten so tired of the threads that they had stopped participating, came back in, at the last minute to even out the picture a bit more. And I came to the conclusion that it would not be a big problem for me.

Maybe we read Johns post differently, you and I.
It is acceptable that it subject discussed, but it has gotten out of proportion.

I donít know how many thousands are in the DPr forum, but still we see VPN threads appear and reappear every other hour or so, with little new and many times from the same users. I donít blame new potential buyers though, with all the commotion going on, I can understand that they would be hesitant and need more info.

Thanks for bearing with me, and reading through the long post. Had some steam to let out.
:-)

Jonas, I appreciate your efforts and work. And I think when it comes down to it; weíre probably not that far between on the top of things. You just havenít hit your acceptable limit of VPN threads yet.
[o:

(You also have more interest in the scientific aspect of photography than I. So you will enjoy threads that I would find a waste of time).

And donít worry about the planet; Iím beginning to recycle.
:~]

Have a great week.
04-09-2007, 03:27 PM   #82
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
Btw: there were parts of the sky with strange noise, now I see you made a quick little editing there to get rid of the lens flare. That was puzzling at first when I saw the original post.

thanks again,
Yes, this is a good lesson in not believing everything that Jonas B proves! Your lengthy and well-done piece in which you demonstrated that except in rare cases, (good quality) UV filters are benign to the resultant photo had me occasionally use them. Then I found out that the one exception - nasty flare artifacts - found its way into too many of my photos!

Yes, I re-processed this shot at least 5 times to try to get the noise to blend in neutrally over the filter flare, obviously not successfully. I blame you!

(All in good fun, mind you!)


On VPN:
I think you know that in my K10 review here, I mention VPN. The shot above is an exact shot that I could process to my tastes with my DS and not get distracting bands of noise. (Feel free to keep processing until you're happy, but your version above is too black and removes the eerie glow that was truly there.) I'm sure the Shout Down VPN Club didn't read the review, as it would give lie to their belief that we are all frustrated hacks unable to use our cameras. A quote from the review:
But there are many variables to digital photography, from the camera and lens to the post-processing and print. With a little work and some helpful hints I was able to get my photographs, and my opinion, much improved. It wasn't - and still isn't - an effortless process, and every day I am producing better photos, as a result of my understanding the characteristics of the sensor and how to deal with them after the fact. After two months, I'm much more optimistic - and satisfied - than I was after that first week.

Despite the overuse of hyphens, it is still how I feel.

All the best,
Sean
04-09-2007, 04:03 PM   #83
Veteran Member




Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Copenhagen
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,845
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote
On VPN:
I think you know that in my K10 review here, I mention VPN. The shot above is an exact shot that I could process to my tastes with my DS and not get distracting bands of noise. (Feel free to keep processing until you're happy, but your version above is too black and removes the eerie glow that was truly there.) I'm sure the Shout Down VPN Club didn't read the review, as it would give lie to their belief that we are all frustrated hacks unable to use our cameras. A quote from the review:
But there are many variables to digital photography, from the camera and lens to the post-processing and print. With a little work and some helpful hints I was able to get my photographs, and my opinion, much improved. It wasn't - and still isn't - an effortless process, and every day I am producing better photos, as a result of my understanding the characteristics of the sensor and how to deal with them after the fact. After two months, I'm much more optimistic - and satisfied - than I was after that first week.

Despite the overuse of hyphens, it is still how I feel.

All the best,
Sean

It is difficult to phrase ones words so that people will not misunderstand the message. (I know it falls back on me to make sure).

I think that there is a big lump of people that have ways with their technique and specialises in photography in such a way that they will encounter and meet problems with the K10. Like I said, Iím a big fan of Joshua Hakinís photography, and I understand how he could run into problems with the K10. And I see that it would be very frustrating.
Many others I put in this same group, of people having a very valid point. And I enjoy reading their posts, for me also to learn a lot more. And the thread I mentioned from MightyMike, is one such example.

But on the internet there are also those that I call spammers. And I, and others, have grown tired of their tirades.

In regard to Jonas, from an objective and very tolerant stance, heís probably right on the money, and people are of cause allowed to come forward with their problem.
People set their level of acceptable margin in forums differently. I like learning more about theoretical and practical photography. But when many of the oldtimers of the DPr forum simply cannot bother anymore with the way things have gone hysterical, maybe its time to see if itís possible to get back to the basics and put things in perspective.

Itís late, and I donít know if it still makes sense anymore what Iím writing, so will hit the sack, and we can continue the talk at another time.

I donít wanna try to dig the ditch between camps deeper, but I still like when every once and a while somebody tries to state what weíre all here for. That is why I like reading from many of the Proís in the DPr forum (Darren M, Magicone, Godfrey etc.), and the experienced users (LuzArt, snow4ever, *isteve etc.).

04-09-2007, 04:12 PM   #84
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: GŲteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote
Yes, this is a good lesson in not believing everything that Jonas B proves! Your lengthy and well-done piece in which you demonstrated that except in rare cases, (good quality) UV filters are benign to the resultant photo had me occasionally use them. Then I found out that the one exception - nasty flare artifacts - found its way into too many of my photos!
Haha. I also remember that I somewhere in that lengthy and blabbering UV filter test said that you shoul dtest the effect on your own lenses. Hmm... I also showed how to different lenses reacted differently to the filter (where the FA35 worked together with the filter better than the well known, "the best lens ever produced by anone" did). Benign to the resultant photo?

Hi Sean,

I'm sorry I removed the eerie glow... I was more looking at the patterns in the sky and the sidewalk. Oh well. What I learned from your picture (one of the few that I have been able to lay my hands on) was that the K10D pictures are more sensitive to PP manipulations than the DS pictures are.

Yup, I remember your review. I even remember the part you quote (and it's a good feeling when you are able to quote yourself, isn't it - I often do the same) as I tend to stretch for what there is that can give me hope. I like hypens, btw.

The the Shout Down VPN Club is silent - I think they all are attending a seminar on How to deny ghost pixels - A hands on anti pixel peeping crash course, this time on the art of looking at the big picture. Risky project in my opinion - they might discover VPN that way.

yours,
04-09-2007, 04:23 PM   #85
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: GŲteborg, Sweden
Posts: 810
QuoteQuote:
Maybe we read Johns post differently, you and I.
It is acceptable that it subject discussed, but it has gotten out of proportion.
I don't think we read it differently. Hi tried to make people stop discussing VPN, in his own way. You liked that, Lance liked that (I'm sure LuzArt likes it as well), surely many more. I didn't like it, together with some more.

It's like saving the world by repeating that the temperature rise is normal.

You are starting to recycle, that I appreciate.

(yes, I'm also tired now)
04-09-2007, 05:01 PM   #86
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
I don't think we read it differently. Hi tried to make people stop discussing VPN, in his own way. You liked that, Lance liked that (I'm sure LuzArt likes it as well), surely many more. I didn't like it, together with some more.

It's like saving the world by repeating that the temperature rise is normal.

You are starting to recycle, that I appreciate.

(yes, I'm also tired now)
Actually the inverse is true. Its like you think you can reverse climate change by talking about it which actually just generates more CO2. Now if you lobby Governments and Industry you may have some effect, so write to Pentax or report an issue to their service department if you want them to fix something.

VPN clearly exists but since GBG came up with a plausible explanation several months ago, not one thread on the topic has contributed one iota to solving it or improved anyones ability to deal with it, but probably has put more than one prospective customer off buying it.

I just dont get the point of all the hand-wringing and angst. If someone found a really good PP solution, that would be a positive contribution, but 99% of each thread is the same old information repeated ad nauseam. What does it achieve?

And, BTW climate change IS perfectly natural, no-one doubts that - the debate is whether the rise in the last 40 years is natural.
04-09-2007, 06:29 PM   #87
Veteran Member




Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: West Chester, PA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 1,420
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Actually the inverse is true. Its like you think you can reverse climate change by talking about it which actually just generates more CO2. Now if you lobby Governments and Industry you may have some effect, so write to Pentax or report an issue to their service department if you want them to fix something.

VPN clearly exists but since GBG came up with a plausible explanation several months ago, not one thread on the topic has contributed one iota to solving it or improved anyones ability to deal with it, but probably has put more than one prospective customer off buying it.

I just dont get the point of all the hand-wringing and angst. If someone found a really good PP solution, that would be a positive contribution, but 99% of each thread is the same old information repeated ad nauseam. What does it achieve?

And, BTW climate change IS perfectly natural, no-one doubts that - the debate is whether the rise in the last 40 years is natural.
Steve,
You've managed to keep your posts civil - thank you for that. You are not part of the Shout Down crowd earlier mentioned.

And yes dpreview has seen more posts. Dpreview lives and dies by the large number of contributors, and without good searching there is little to stop all the converts to our really quite nice brand from bringing it up!!

But there were a ton of posts on banding in the DS/DL prior to the firmware update that fixed the problem! That firmware sure shut things up pretty quick, and even more - Pentax was widely applauded for fixing it by people like me who didn't complain in the first place.

Also, anyone who read GBG's posts in full know that there is a faulty algorithm in the K10 (at least the initial ones) that produces more pattern noise than it should. Key word - "more". I also promise you that if Pentax were to acknowledge VPN by either fixing it or declaring it un-fixable, I will agree that there is little point in bringing it up. Since we know Pentax reads these forums, until then VPN threads are still valid.

Take care,
Sean
04-09-2007, 07:00 PM   #88
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
QuoteOriginally posted by Jonas B Quote
Well, with all that rubbish in it I hope it wasn't. To bad he can't speak for himself.

^^ I know you won't like the tone in that part ^^

The problem is that his post made me a bit sad. It's a heavy dosis of psychology embedded in it - in effect putting people experiencing problems to keep silent. The rough tone in that post even gets applauded by Lance, and now you. Scary reading in my opinion.

I can't see the good thing with that. Maybe that I some day will understand the good thing with not seeing, not allow to speak.

Jonas,

Maybe I shouldn't have been so much in agreeance with the whole tone of jfdavis58(Johns') post, but should have been more selective. Maybe I have been coming across too strong in my opinion of the matter.

It appears I keep getting howled down by the proponents of VPN as trying to shut people up, but this is not really my stance. I will state my feelings once again:
I have never stated that VPN doesn't exist, just that I do not see it in my images and I am not about to go looking for it nor to change the look of my images in order to see it and appease those that do.

Due to the fact I didn't see it, I basically kept out of the threads other than to say I didn't see it on the images shown. I offered a few thoughts as to why some see it and other's don't, like colour blindness, monitor types used and calibration of said monitors.

Anyway, ss much as VPN is a problem it was the constant threads on the matter which I thought was overdoing it especially where the same old issues were addressed by the same people with many of the same photos. My point is that Pentax are the one's who ultimately have to fix the problem, not this or any other forum, and the multitude of rehashed threads were achieving little if nothing other than to create a heated debate over a user unfixable issue, and in some eyes, an overstated issue. Unfortunately, A simple request like this labelled me a "fanboy".

The constant threads on the matter leads me to believe that some proponents of these threads may have had some underlying agenda other than the issue itself. I sincerely hope this is not the case.

The fact of the matter is, there are quite a few people directly attached to Pentax that read and contribute to the "other" forum, like Ned B, John C and Mark Dimo and I am sure that Pentax are very much aware of the issue and are addressing it if it is possible to do so.

Maybe it needs to be "put to bed" unless someone actually comes up with something constructive about a actual *fix* for the problem, rather than another whinge about the matter.

If it were a Canon or a Nikon I would say the same thing, so it's not a "brand issue" defence.


For the people screaming about VPN and asking people not seeing it to be silent, well, that is just as bad.

This disappoints me too.

Hmm. We humans are what we are; we can't even save the planet.

If there is no VPN, can we discuss ghost pixels instead...

kindly, really,
Also, very kindly, really.
04-09-2007, 07:10 PM   #89
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 593
QuoteOriginally posted by *isteve Quote
Actually the inverse is true. Its like you think you can reverse climate change by talking about it which actually just generates more CO2. Now if you lobby Governments and Industry you may have some effect, so write to Pentax or report an issue to their service department if you want them to fix something.

VPN clearly exists but since GBG came up with a plausible explanation several months ago, not one thread on the topic has contributed one iota to solving it or improved anyones ability to deal with it, but probably has put more than one prospective customer off buying it.

I just dont get the point of all the hand-wringing and angst. If someone found a really good PP solution, that would be a positive contribution, but 99% of each thread is the same old information repeated ad nauseam. What does it achieve?

And, BTW climate change IS perfectly natural, no-one doubts that - the debate is whether the rise in the last 40 years is natural.
Perfectly put on all counts, Steve.

As far as the VPN issue is concerned, this is what I also have really been trying to say, but sometimes it needs another person to state it so that people can see what I was trying to put across. I think that there are some here(and over "at the other forum") that are so intent on trying to prove me wrong(and I do not mean you Jonas) rather than trying to actually see what I was saying.
04-09-2007, 09:41 PM   #90
Veteran Member
*isteve's Avatar

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: London, England
Posts: 1,187
QuoteOriginally posted by carpents Quote
Steve,
You've managed to keep your posts civil - thank you for that. You are not part of the Shout Down crowd earlier mentioned.

And yes dpreview has seen more posts. Dpreview lives and dies by the large number of contributors, and without good searching there is little to stop all the converts to our really quite nice brand from bringing it up!!

But there were a ton of posts on banding in the DS/DL prior to the firmware update that fixed the problem! That firmware sure shut things up pretty quick, and even more - Pentax was widely applauded for fixing it by people like me who didn't complain in the first place.

Also, anyone who read GBG's posts in full know that there is a faulty algorithm in the K10 (at least the initial ones) that produces more pattern noise than it should. Key word - "more". I also promise you that if Pentax were to acknowledge VPN by either fixing it or declaring it un-fixable, I will agree that there is little point in bringing it up. Since we know Pentax reads these forums, until then VPN threads are still valid.

Take care,
Sean
Hi Sean,

Sadly the so called fix did nothing for my DS which continued to show pronounced banding. However this was far more akin to the D200 type banding which was also fixed. Furthermore the hysteria was nothing LIKE the same volume from what I remember.

VPN has a totally different cause. Do you think Pentax would not fix it if they could - without messing something else up anyway? I mean, they have always been quick to address failings in the past when they could, why do people think they are ignoring it? Spite?

Personally I think Pentax engineers have enough on their hands, including a 645D, several lenses, a replacement for the K100D and their future employment prospects, so I'm sure they will get around to everything in good time, but I would rather everyone at Pentax focused on continuing to survive as a great camera company....
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!
camera, concerns, dslr, issue, pentax, photography
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
K20 Vpn? :( ennoia Pentax DSLR Discussion 7 05-22-2008 09:10 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:27 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