|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-17-2018, 05:21 AM
|
| |
I don't understand why it feels that way to you.
I would have absolutely zero problem with any non-destructive RAW treatments (I'm pretty sure that we don't see pure data from the sensor in any event).
Even though I'd have to run all my images through a RAW converter anyhow as I would never degrade a camera of the calibre of a K-1 to a JPG machine, any improvement to RAWs is welcome as they help to reduce processing time.
If anyone could demonstrate that no detail is lost (AFAIC, the opposite has been done already) then I would not complain in the slightest. On the contrary.
It is a long-held assumption that a camera manufacturer can squeeze more out of a sensor by tweaking it. You need to understand, though, that a modern Sony sensor is a black box that spits out digital data. You cannot reach inside and optimise anything on an analogue level. Even providing super stable voltages to the sensor does not help, as the sensor should not be viewed as an analogue device. I'll admit that I'm not passing on first-hand knowledge. Instead, I'm drawing on comments made by user falconeye, a physicist who dived much deeper in the matter than I did. I'm not invested/interested enough to study sensor spec sheets, but if you do, I'm sure you'll find that you can confirm falconeye's statements. Falconeye, back when he was a Pentax user, made many scientifically sound contributions, such as investigating the K-7's shutter blur issue. You can read about his work on his LumoLabs pages. Although I much prefer to not parrot what others are saying, I feel highly confident in passing on his assessment on the matter of "squeezing quality out of a sensor".
As to why Sony did worse using their own sensors, there are a number of potential explanations. Perhaps Pentax uses a different CFA which is less discriminating but lets more light through overall. Perhaps Pentax always performed some RAW baking (they most certainly did for a number of camera models beyond ISO 1600, for instance). Another potential source for a difference could be thermal conditions. Sony has to run their sensors full-time which I don't think is helpful with respect to noise. Sony, with their compact cameras, may also provide a worse cooling environment. I don't claim to know all the potential sources, but I think it is pretty much certain that there is no way Pentax has found a way to use the "accelerator" to truly only reduce system noise, without affecting potential information in the scene at the same time.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-17-2018, 03:08 AM
|
| |
Yes, I've observed a similar effect on other images. Rarely, but sometimes, the K-1 II image lacks some information that the K-1 retains (albeit in a noisy form).
I don't want to argue against anyone who prefers the K-1 II results. All I'm asking is that we unite in terms of asking Ricoh for making the adjustments optional. If Ricoh did that, everyone would win and DPReview would have to give the K-1 II a better score.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-17-2018, 03:06 AM
|
| |
Yes, you are right, this makes a numerical comparison impossible and sorry for having posted the numbers without realising that two different cameras were used. :( I swear I tried to convince myself that the same cameras had been used; not sure how I could mistake the K-5 on the front page with a K10D. :)
However, in this particular case, I think we are not totally clueless as Klaus (from opticallimits) tested the FA 43/1.9 on both K10D and the K-5. The latter test came up with lower resolution numbers.
There could be all sorts of reasons for the lower resolution numbers (one is that Klaus' measurements are not scientifically accurate in an absolute sense, they really only support relative comparisons between lenses on the same camera) but if it were true that all lenses would deliver lower resolution numbers on the K-5 (in Klaus' tests) compared to the K10D then that would mean the 50/2.8 macro is even better than the figures posted suggest.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 11:41 PM
|
| |
I used the photozone (now "opticallimits") charts to come to the opposite conclusion. Do you not see that the 50/2.8 macro resolves more at f/5.6?
50/2.8 @f/5.6 centre: 2595 lw/ph
77/1.8 @f/5.6 centre: 2302.5 lw/ph
50/2.8 @f/5.6 border: 2505 lw/ph
77/1.8 @f/5.6 border: 2214 lw/ph
EDIT: Sadly, I only thought the two lenses had been tested on the same camera. If the retesting of the FA 43/1.9 is anything to go by, the 50/2.8 should look even stronger when tested on a K10D as well. However, the safest bet is not to compare the numbers.
This difference seems born out in the DPR shots, although who knows whether the same levels of sharpening were used and what effort went into focusing the 77/1.8. I saw some purple fringing in 77/1.8 shots which I don't think should occur at that aperture with proper focus. Maybe I looked at different ("DR" test) shots, I don't know.
It probably is, but note that you shouldn't compare resolution figures on photozone/opticallimits across cameras. Comparing the 50/2.8 and 77/1.8 is fine because they were both shot on a K10D. If one of them would have been shot on a different Pentax camera, you wouldn't be able to compare the resolution figures.
In this case, there should be a big caveat, explaining that one should not make sharpness comparisons and that the tool is only intended to support relative noise performance. Without such a big permanent caveat displayed, the tool is very misleading.
Also, I have trouble believing a small portrait lens like the FA Ltd 77/1.8 is ideal for reproducing a studio scene. For this purpose, the new 70-200/2.8 could even be better? Just speculating, as I don't have comparative data.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 11:14 PM
|
| |
Thanks for helping Bill!
I believe DPR is not alone in believing that the measured DR is not real as it has been achieved with image processing. Everything points to the fact that the measurements are distorted by image processing (much like you could distort resolution figures by sharpening files).
Sadly, none of the tests ran so far are suitable for allowing any definitive conclusions. Even Bill, who has produced compelling evidence, leaves a tiny bit of probability that Ricoh doesn't apply smoothing.
FWIW, there is a way (-> Dual Conversion Gain) that enables one to get a genuine noise advantage for higher ISO settings -- and it would produce the jump we see in the DR charts, but looking at images and analyses, it really doesn't look like the K-1 II is using it.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 11:03 PM
|
| |
I fully agree, which is why the "accelerator" processing should be optional.
Pointing to the K-1 as an alternative is not a solution, because- it is unlikely that the K-1 will be available for much longer, and
- it is a matter of principle. A future FF camera by Pentax -- e.g., with a better sensor and much improved AF -- may still include a mandatory "accelerator" unit. In this case "each to their own" would be broken.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 10:58 PM
|
| |
It would make sense if the shots were only available in the context of the article.
However, one can use DPReview's camera comparison tool outside any article context and it will be referenced by other DPReview articles. This will inevitably lead to the K-1 II being compared to say a Sony A7 III and then it matters how sharp the lens used on the K-1 II is.
The whole camera comparison tool doesn't make much sense, given they don't use a reference lens model (like Imaging Resource did with the Sigma 70/2.8 macro) across all camera brands. With the current limitations in place, the best you can hope for a camera you'd like others to appreciate is that they use the best possible lens available for it. I love the 77/1.8 as a portrait lens, but I think there should be better choices for the purpose of capturing a studio scene with the best resolution possible. A proper copy of the 50/2.8 macro would be preferable, don't you think?
And yes, they should reshoot the K-1 with the 50/2.8 macro as well, to support comparability in this manner.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 10:53 PM
|
| |
I agree, but please note that we are talking about RAW files.
RAW files, per definition, have to be post-processed and their main legitimation has always been to support any kind of processing decision (including white balancing, for instance) to be deferred.
Mandatory denoising is in conflict with the very basis of RAW files.
I would not engage in a discussion about JPG files at all.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 09:39 PM
|
| |
They have admitted that they replaced one RAW file.
The explanation for the initial denial (commenting "while on vacation out-of-the-office"), misses the real point that an assumption was made (readers are making stuff up again) and snarky replies were being made using this assumption, without first checking the facts. One option would have been to simply refrain from commenting immediately and postpone a response until fact checking.
I don't want to be hard on Rishi Sanyal and I certainly don't think he needs to apologise more deeply, but this approach of having one's perception of readers/products and then acting on it without properly testing that perception appears to extend to their testing methodology. Using unreliable bicycle testing is not suitable for confirming "real world experiences". (I'm not saying the K-1 is a great AF-C performer, I'm sure it is certainly behind much more expensive cameras, all I'm saying is that DPReview's methods are not suitable do objectively demonstrate differences in AF performance).
I hope that the announced reshoots will be of very high quality. If they are going to replace the current K-1II 50/2.8 macro shots with softer 77/1.8 shots, just to improve comparability between K-1 and K-1 II then the K-1 II will suffer from it when it is compared to other cameras. At f/5.6 the 77/1.8 is excellent, but the 50/2.8 macro is indeed sharper.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-16-2018, 09:19 PM
|
| |
The "non-processed" images have such a high level of chroma noise that they are not fit for comparison, AFAIC. I think you'll find that if you remove the chroma noise from the non-processed images, they'll look much better.
It does not make sense to compare a processed image to an unaltered one.
The question is not whether image processing can improve how an image looks. The question is whether in-camera processing is acceptable, given the fact that - the processing does not always lead to improvements. Some areas appear to get mushed and even just printing an unprocessed file may result in more detail (with some of the noise being handled automatically through downscaling/printing).
- image processing is still improving and it is preferable to have the original data rather than something that has processed already in order to exploit future advances in processing.
- even today, through simple image stacking, one can retrieve detail from a series of noisy images that cannot be retrieved from a series of denoised images.
I agree that signal that is noise-like will effectively drown in other noise. Note my point about image stacking, though. By averaging out non-signal noise, one can retrieve the real signal. This is not possible if the destructive denoising of single images before stacking has removed some of the signal already.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 04:21 PM
|
| |
Yes, you are right.
I followed someone else's link not realising that it send me to another comparison for the "DR" tests.
It did not occur to me that DPReview would use a different lens for the "DR" tests, so it looked like another change took place.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 09:39 AM
|
| |
Two thumbs up for that!
One can hope but with 20,000,000 hits per day, the site is rather popular.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 08:58 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 08:17 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.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 08:06 AM
|
| |
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.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 07:58 AM
|
| |
Do you not see it?
Squint your eyes (to blur the images a bit) and you'll see structure in all of the coins of the K-1 image but very little in the K-1 II shots.
Now I could assume that the mushy mess by the K-1 II is due to the "accelerator" processing, but then I'd be crediting DPReview with having produced images that allow such conclusions. As it is, I don't know whether the loss of detail is due to the different lens or some other factor they haven't kept constant during the comparison.
Thanks, BTW, for the attempt to provide a level playing field with respect to the noise. I think you have the right idea, but as your source material has not been produced with rigour, I don't see how it can help to arrive at conclusions.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 03:28 AM
|
| |
Apparently you expect optimal support for the K-1 II from Adobe already?
Even if Ricoh approached Adobe early on about the best support for the K-1 II then I don't think Adobe would have optimal support available already. Adobe does not properly support Pixel Shift to this day. Does that mean Pixel Shift becomes irrelevant? Just because one big player with their ransom-ware and "have all your auto-adaptively processed images on our cloud"-approach does not fully support Pentax?
It seems you are suggesting that we ought to blame Ricoh for Adobe's shortcomings.
I see where you are coming from, but you are taking it way too far.
Capture One Pro is a perfectly fine alternative and I'm sure there are others.
If the shoddy stuff that Adobe calls "software" were the only recourse we had, we'd indeed be in trouble.
I think many of us think you should just do that and leave us alone with our digital/Pentax troubles. We won't be mad with you, if you abandon us. :)
I appreciate it when you point the finger to something real (it isn't always real what you are pointing to, but sometimes you do have a point) but your negativity and propensity to boundless exaggerations are really quite tiresome. Instead of viewing yourself as being outside of this community (quote "You folks poison yourselves.") why don't you become a part of it and try to be more constructive?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-13-2018, 02:48 AM
|
| |
We don't disagree on this point.
It is obviously true that there are noise reduction approaches that can only be performed in-camera.
Where we disagree is on our estimation whether this happens in the case of the K-1 II. According to the data I cared to assemble, it is very unlikely that the accelerator makes use of any information that either isn't already available in standard RAW files or could be made available (by adding some additional data).
With all due respect, I think your idea of signal vs noise seems to be based on the notion of a "strong signal" with identifiable features against a "weak noise" floor and in my estimation such a perspective is too naive for high-ISO (read "low light") scenarios.
We may also want to distinguish between "source noise" (Poisson distribution of photon events) which one could consider to be part of the signal vs system-generated noise (from analog amplification, A/D conversion, etc). How do you want to separate the "source noise" from the "system noise" (unless you gain access to sensor internals which I understand to be off-limits to the accelerator chip)?
It is too bad that member falconeye has defected to Nikon as he had some interesting thoughts about forgoing to even store all the "source noise" and then add it later (thus gaining more data compression in storage). This could suggest that there are ways to separate noise from signal that are not harmful, but I'm not immersed enough in this subject to competently comment. My current level of involvement with the matter suggests to me that you'll find it extremely difficult to separate weak signal from strong noise.
I'm not saying it is doing just that. I fully expect it to do something much more clever overall. However, the attenuation of high frequencies one can observe is consistent with the notion that some "nearest neighbour"-processing is part of the overall manipulation.
I did spot features in the FT plots (FFT= Fast Fourier Transform / FT = Fourier Transform: The first "F" refers to an implementation choice which is irrelevant for the outcome) that are not consistent with a simple pure "nearest neighbour" processing. That is absolutely correct, but I never stated that the processing just amounted to a simple "nearest neighbour" smoothing. What I always meant to communicate is that a large part of the FT plot features is consistent with a "nearest neighbour"-type processing component.
In any event, to a RAW purist (who has good reasons for their principles, other than being pedantic) any kind of processing that isn't reversible is a problem; we need not fight over the specifics of the processing as long as we agree that it is destructive in a sense. I'm not sure you'd agree to that, but I don't know how you can explain why the 2D FT plots show high frequency attenuation while not destroying information. I'm making -- the very reasonable -- assumption that the processing cannot distinguish between noise and low, almost random signal, and thus would destroy signal as well as noise.
I believe this is an example of where your view on signal and noise may be too simplistic.
Have a look at this visual demonstration of signal surviving noise levels that exceeds signal noise. Interestingly, the blog entry makes reference to our friends at DPReview who apparently espoused the untenable notion of signal only being meaningful as long as SNR >= 1.
Note that the "signal" in the examples chosen is pretty regular and thus nurture your hopes of extracting it by looking at pixel correlation, but in general the signal could be more random and I dispute the notion that any signal that looks like noise is noise.
Possibly true.
A thorough analysis of the problem would have to go beyond anything that has been done by anyone so far.
Thanks!
Do you think I should propose it elsewhere more prominently so that there is some hope that someone may conduct the respective experiment?
I'd say that is only remotely relevant to the discussion at hand, as stochastic resonance is about passing thresholds that otherwise would block signal entirely. As such it seems related to the idea of "dithering" that is used in audio applications to avoid systematic quantization errors. However, a possible "take away" from this area is that there is "good noise", i.e. that by removing noise at the wrong stage or in the wrong way, you can introduce non-linearities that give rise to a bothersome artefacts that some people refer to as a "digital signature".
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 08:26 PM
|
| |
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 - there can be signal that is impossible to distinguish from noise (-> extremely small dust specks?!?).
- future algorithms will probably be even better, but only if they are fed the original data, not something that has been processed already.
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?
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-11-2018, 05:29 AM
|
| |
@photoptimist, you seem to be missing the fact that the low ISO shots show no signal correlation but the higher ISO shots (past ISO 640) do. If you trust that all the shots were done consistently then the difference in the 2D FT plots shows that smoothing is applied (only) at higher ISO levels.
It makes me a bit uncomfortable that Rishi Sanyal said that he took the shots that bclaf then analysed, so we are in the hands of someone who has trouble understanding the problem with changing lenses when comparing two cameras, but if we assume that he did not mess up the shots (and how would he have done that in a manner that correlates with the ISO setting?) then the results posted by bclaf leave no room for doubt/interpretation.
It only takes an FT to understand when higher spatial frequencies (aka "detail") have been tampered with.
Whether the images are affected in a "detrimental" way is another question, but there is no doubt that processing is occurring and to RAW purists that is a problem in itself.
Having just read about the quiet, behind the scenes changes of DPReview images, I lost pretty much all trust into the material that bclaf was given by Rishi Sanyal. God knows what happened. I'm not saying the results are bogus for sure, but unless the analysis is confirmed by someone else, I would reserve some scepticism.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-10-2018, 05:31 AM
|
| |
It is proof of smoothing.
That's alright, but those technically inclined can infer from the 2D FT plots that smoothing is applied.
Again, I'm not saying that this is terrible; the only bad thing about it is that it is not optional.
Note that DxOMark have reported smoothing for Pentax cameras before. Both K-7 and K-5, for instance, applied smoothing to RAW files as well. The difference is that back then the smoothing was applied beyond ISO 1600 only. While, in my book, any kind of mandatory smoothing should be avoided, it seems preferable to leave as many ISO settings untouched.
I don't know if the K-1 II would have fared better with DPReview if it didn't apply smoothing but I don't see the point of taking choice out of the hands of photographers and giving DPReview ammunition at the same time.
That may or may not be the case. However, if Ricoh, as a company did not know how their products will be received by the press and hence ran into avoidable mistakes, that wouldn't be good at all. For sure, you don't want a company's engineers bend to marketing pressures, but some awareness is necessary for sustainability, in particular if respective choices create more winners (in this case, make RAW purists happy as well as those that appreciate some processing being done in-camera already).
I'd be very surprised if that were the case.
A great DPReview result will definitely help sales. I don't think you want to seriously dispute that.
To be clear, I don't give a rodent's bottom what some DPReview staff personally think about the K-1 II. Very often protest by Pentaxians is misconstrued as the latter requiring approval for their gear choices while they are probably, just like me, trying to prevent damage to the reputation of a brand that could do with some praise instead of being the target of criticism that other brands receive to a much lesser extent.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 11:54 PM
|
| |
I would agree with you that DPReview did a poor job of comparing the outputs. For starters, it does not make sense to compare denoised images with noisy images. One has to establish some kind of level playing field. DPReview made further mistakes and the (probably unconscious) inconsistent treatment of Pentax compared to other brands (of some of their staff) manifests itself in a number of ways.
That said, I don't understand why you call their assessment "outlandish".
Have you looked at the pentaxforums.com comparison?
Have you seen the analysis by bclaff?
The latter is proof that denoising (i.e., as in post noise removal with unavoidable smoothing effects) is applied, as opposed to a genuine noise reduction at the sensor hardware level (which I always maintained is not possible with a modern Sony sensor).
You cannot rely on DPReview studio scene comparisons, no matter whether they are in favour of Pentax or not. They just allow too many variables to change (just note the change of lenses between K-1 and K-1 II).
Do you have a link to that?
I'd be surprised to see anything that deviates from everything I've seen so far (which all pointed into one direction), but I have an open mind.
It's not a "minor miracle". The evidence is overwhelming that it is some competent denoising, possibly combined with other manipulations (saturation, sharpness) thrown in. All of that is fine, except when it is mandatory.
BTW, I always preferred a noisier image over a smoothed one and I guess it is not a "change of heart" for many either.
Please keep us posted.
It would be wonderful if Ricoh released a firmware update that made the RAW manipulations optional. It would make everyone happy and we could see whether DPReview updates their score.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 08:23 PM
|
| |
It is not great news if there is proof of software/hardware-based denoising.
A simple reduction of (sensor-generated) noise should result in homogeneous 2D FT plots. The patterns you see in the published 2D FT's show that some (mostly higher) spatial frequencies are attenuated. What looks like "vignetting" in the 2D FT plots is the effect of signal blurring, i.e., some "smoothing" that is applied to denoise the image.
I'm not making a comment on the quality of the denoising that the K-1 II applies, but I wish it were optional.
Ricoh may have had the best intentions, but they had to realise that DPReview were going to make a meal of mandatory RAW file denoising. Ricoh's approach does not make much sense to me unless they really only want to sell in Japan and count on their customers not attempting to translate DPReview pages into Japanese.
|
|
Forum: Pentax K-1 & K-1 II
05-09-2018, 04:13 AM
|
| |
Yes, and the emphasis is on what "they" expect, which is a small, light camera that features very good 4K video.
The downsides that come with their favoured design (EVF, striping, worse battery life, ...) do not matter to them so they are marginalised and typically not even mentioned in reviews. They sometimes run dedicated articles on some of the downsides, but these do not matter one bit when someone consults the reviews to make a purchasing decision.
I can understand that as well and it would be completely fine for Joe Blog, who runs his own private blog to have his personal preferences and evaluate cameras according to his own personal preferences and in amateurish ways (e.g., not using the same lens when comparing two camera models, let alone choosing one reference lens that could be used on multiple mounts).
The reason why I get angry with DPReview is because I keep mistaking them with a professional review site which tries to do its best to impartially report on various properties and essentially leaves it to the reader to draw their own conclusions about what is a pro or a con to them personally.
The concept of a single score (their percentage figure) is fundamentally flawed because different users have different needs. The weighting that goes into the score should at the very least be adjustable by readers.
|
