|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
07-18-2019, 08:37 AM
|
| |
One wonders what made them remove the Nikon D850 as a recommendation.
The existing text still partially reflects that the Nikon was once a second "winner" with phrases like "we couldn't pick just one winner" (it's not the K-1 II, they are referring to as a second "winner") and "even though we think the Nikon D850, Sony a7R III and Pentax K-1 are the best choices".
So many inconsistencies in that tiny page (e.g., did you notice the old reference to "K-1" instead of "K-1 II"?). At least they are consistently amateurish.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2019, 09:25 PM
|
| |
Hi falconeye, what a delight to see you posting at pentaxforums. I missed you and will be missing you again, once you disappear again. :)
If that had been their objective, they could have done a much better job.
First of all, I hoped better from Pentax as well. I agree with Chris that the K-1 is the better buy and I wouldn't recommend an "upgrade" to the K-1 II either. I agree with pointing out that the K-1 II wasn't an impressive upgrade and that introducing mandatory denoising of RAW(!) data is indeed "not the way to go".
Well, it should be their journalistic duty to include Pentax whenever relevant.
Unfortunately, DPReview has a habit of leaving Pentax off the list, even if it would have been important for accuracy to include them.
DPReview has a habit of mentioning Pentax when they can make a negative remark. I won't 100% exclude the notion of "confirmation bias" on my part, but I can provide you with tons of evidence where DPReview has not done justice to Pentax and where they let get other brands away with similar or worse downsides.
BTW, I'm not viewing the video as "Chris and Jordan's private inofficial opinions" because it aired on the DPReview channel and a lot of DPReview staff were present and did not make corrective statements. This has to be viewed as being sanctioned by DPReview and hiding behind a "that's their personal view" pretext is pretty lame, if there is not at least a disclaimer that DPReview does not endorse the statements made.
With one subordinate clause (seven words), he acknowledged that the K-1 "was" an "innovative fantastic product with beautiful image quality".
The rest of his statements are all (potentially just sloppily) worded to transport incorrect messages:
"This camera isn't bringing anything to the table." critically omits "new" as in "isn't bringing anything new to the table".
"The fact that you can take your old camera and upgrade it to this [K-1 II]
really speaks at what they do at this company." turns a positive into a negative.
Even for minor upgrades, it isn't common that a manufacturer allows one to spend an upgrade price to acquire the perks of a new model instead of having to sell one's old model and pay the full new price for the new model.
The fact that the PCB of the K-1 has to be replaced with a new one to turn it into a K-1 II means that it is inappropriate to use the existence of the upgrade option as evidence of how little difference there is between the cameras. Is the K-1 II a disappointing update? In my view, yes, but still the reasoning by Chris is wrong and could be viewed as populist in nature.
Chris also, probably unintentionally, denigrates the Pentax brand and Pentaxians by attributing the "zealousness" of Pentaxians to "loyalty":"You are loyal to your company, I think that's commendable" I'd say that many Pentaxians are not sticking to the brand due to some blind or ill-conceived "loyaltiy" but because the Pentax products work for them (and better than other products would).
Chris essentially implies that Pentaxians continue to buy Pentax products and vocally disagree with unfair treatment of the brand, because they have bought Pentax in the past and want to culture their "loyalty".
Maybe Chris hasn't reflected about the implications of identifying Pentaxians with "loyality" but I think there can be no denying that this tacitly sends the message that if only technical merit would count, they'd choose a Sony or Fuji as well (I guess Nikon also makes their "darlings" list).
Note that DPReview, in their "2019 camera and lens manufacturers' New Year's resolutions", use the phrase "...we respect the way that many of them react to anything short of uncritically gushing praise for their favorite camera maker...". This would be "tongue in cheek" in private communication but as part of an official article, it's an insult. Yes, one could be super relaxed about it, but there is no denying that, overall, their narrative portrays Pentax as a brand that is not to be taken seriously and Pentaxians as irate sheep. If that's not what they want, they should change the way they write about Pentax/Pentaxians.
Chris finishes with"So unfortunately, this is the worst camera." which is simply a wrong statement. No self-respecting journalist should say something like that. I respect Chris a lot. I'm grateful that he overall appreciated the K-1 a lot in his review. I'm not so impressed by how he handled the K-1 II "award" and that he called "every entry-level DSLR the "worst camera of 2018". I think that's an outrageous statement to make. We've come to expect the mirrorless love from DPReview but I thought Chris was better than that.
I know that you want to help Pentaxians to not ruin their image (if that's possible :)).
However, I don't accept that the "award"/video passes as a joke because it has the blessing of DPReview and Chris has to realise that his choice and his wording will be used by fanboys all over the internet to throw mud at Pentax.
Note that DPReview don't seem to regard the whole thing as "joke" either, if they make retractions about "unofficial" verdicts made during the video.
To clarify: I don't care in the least that people do not approve of my camera brand choice. I'm only in favour of actively counteracting the unfair treatment of Pentax by DPReview because I'm concerned about the brand. Pentax sales are low as they are. There is no need to present Pentax in a worse than adequate light.
In your benevolence towards Chris/Dpreview, I believe you also have to acknowledge that "Othering" is a common phenomenon and that viewing numbers/website hits are DPReview's success metric. A controversial statement is good for DPReview but bad for Pentax. I don't think Pentaxians should stay quiet in order to avoid this situation (and I know fully well that you didn't suggest the latter).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2019, 07:36 PM
|
| |
I reckon the "they couldn't sell the pre manufactured stock so quickly" part is 100% speculation on your part.
If so, please preface such statements accordingly so that they cannot be mistaken for the reporting of facts.
If not, please share with us where you get such information from.
The proper "PixelShift" approach is not amenable to hand-holding.
The K-1 II features an approach that has been misnamed "Dynamic Pixel Shift" which is much more related to "superresolution" than to "Pixel Shift".
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2019, 07:32 PM
|
| |
To me it makes a big difference whether someone calls something the "worst camera" or the "most disappointing upgrade" of the year 2018.
Imagine Nikon would have released a Nikon D850 II with some minor improvements regarding burst rate performance, battery life, slightly wider AF area, etc.
Would DPReview have called the Nikon D850 II the "worst camera of 2018"?
Surely, even if the updates themselves are disappointing, the overall product -- here the Nikon D850 II or the Pentax K-1 II -- is still an excellent camera which should be never be mentioned with the phrase "worst camera" in the same sentence.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-09-2019, 02:33 AM
|
| |
Correct.
Also correct.
Incorrect, in our domain (photography). You need to consider the different power spectra affected.
The lowpass filter affects more of the noise than it does the signal (whose power spectrum is heavily weighted towards lower frequencies).
Earlier you wrote:
I agree with your statement and this is almost what is happening when downsampling (decimating) noisy images with natural content. The NR is not completely "out of signal band" but so much more affects the noise than it does the signal that there is an increase in SNR, even in the "image level" SNR metric.
The link wasn't for your benefit but for others so that they can follow the discussion even if they are unfamiliar with the technical terms.
The example presented in the YouTube video, however, served the double purpose to provide an example where there is a real increase in SNR after downsampling (something you earlier said wouldn't be possible). I hope that we can agree that the example shows a scenario where the equivalent of "image level" SNR is improved, not just the equivalent of a single pixel.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-08-2019, 09:20 PM
|
| |
You made a factually incorrect statement.
I responded to that, pointing out that it isn't correct.
How is the problem at my end?
How does recognising an incorrect statement amount to "immediately rejecting"?
I first read your statements and only after assessing them to be wrong -- something that anyone can do for themselves, this is not a matter of opinion -- I responded correspondingly.
I assessed the advantages and disadvantages of the "accelerator" unit a long time ago.
I stated in this thread that I might find its services useful myself at times but would want the behaviour to be optional (not only for my sake, but to prevent DPReview from having a field day so easily).
The fact that you don't accept that there applications where a non-optional "accelerator" unit processing gets in the way, does not mean that these don't exist. That's the only problem in this debate, that there are people like you who insist that everyone adopt their viewpoint that there are zero downsides to the mandatory denoising (or that everybody agree that the "overall net positive" assumption is correct for every application).
Instead of handing out behaviour advice "relax, sit back", perhaps you should stop posting incorrect statements.
It is this uphill battle fight you are creating that makes me want to repeatedly quit from engaging in this thread.
I'll give it another attempt. Next time you post something that is technically unsound, I'll try my best not to respond.
We would have had the same discussion as to whether RAW data should be processed in a destructive manner that some find objectionable for very good reasons.
We are talking about natural images (photography), right?
Downsampling (aka "decimation") can be thought of as a lowpass filter followed by resampling. This chain will increase SNR, provided that the lowpass filtering reduces more noise than it reduces signal. Natural images, as occurring in photography, have power spectra (spatial frequency distributions) that strongly taper off towards high frequencies. Noise, on the contrary, typically has a flat spectrum; it is particularly the high frequency "speckled" appearance of noise that we respond to negatively. Hence, when you downsample (which implies lowpass filtering) you are attenuating the noise more than you do the signal. Hence SNR rises.
Here's a nice visual demonstration of the effect:
Including setup explanation:
Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcs7qw1gEDI&t=95 Just the visual comparison:
Code:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcs7qw1gEDI&t=196 (these links start the below video at 1:35; and 3:16 respectively).
You Tube
|
src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/zcs7qw1gEDI?controls=1" allowfullscreen>
|
So strictly speaking from a mathematical viewpoint you were correct, but in our particular context (photography), downsampling does increase SNR.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-08-2019, 08:02 PM
|
| |
The measurements depend on sharpening levels.
For instance, the K-1 II appears to resolve more because it uses more sharpening.
Imatest resolution tests are obviously sensitive to sharpening.
It is unfortunately unclear to me whether the tests published by PDN are based on RAW data or JPEG files (using pretty much default settings). The documentation of the "Image Engineering" test procedures is ambiguous. I only noticed that later, after I had made my post.
If the tests are based on JPEG settings then very little should be implied by the results, as it could very well be the case that the "texture loss", as measured, only occurs in JPEG files. It wouldn't be possible then to deduce much about RAW processing; there'd be just circumstantial evidence suggesting that the RAW smoothing seen by Bill Claff and the texture loss measured by "Image Engineering" are not unrelated (but they very well could be).
In particular, if the tests are based on JPEG files, it shouldn't be implied that the K-1 does apply sharpening to its RAW data. I would be surprised if it did, but I cannot rule it out.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-08-2019, 04:49 AM
|
| |
It is not used in every audio system.
Noise shaping is a technique to reduce quantisation errors by by shifting noise into regions where it is less objectionable and/or distributing the energy to a larger band.
In audio, for instance, multi-bit D/A converters did not have to use any noise shaping, only so-called "1 bit converters" some of which use more than one bit, require noise shaping.
Of course "downsampling alone" already improves IQ (at the expense of resolution). That's why DxOMark's results often exceed theoretically possible values, as they are expressed in terms of normalised 8MP images.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-08-2019, 03:22 AM
|
| |
I had practically left this thread but stumbled across some measurements that help to understand that the K-1 II's "accelerator" unit is not able to magically only remove noise but leave signal (detail) intact. I thought I'd share these here, for those interested.
PDN measured the amount of artefacts in K-1 II images due to image processing (jump to "Texture loss" to see the corresponding graphs). This analysis uses the Imatest "Dead Leaves"/"Spilled Coins" charts which support the analysis of how much detail is lost in what spatial frequency band.
This confirms the analysis results by Bill Claff.
Yes, the loss of detail may be considered too small to matter.
Yes, the loss of detail may be considered a welcome trade off against lower noise.
No, it's not an imagined phenomenon.
PDN also confirms the presence of sharpening:"The K1 Mark II sharpens images more than the K1 did, although both produce relatively little sharpening" I was surprised to read that the K-1 already used sharpening. It would be very interesting to see the same analysis results for the K-1 and other DSLRs.
EDIT: I'm unsure whether the respective "Image Engineering" test procedures are based on RAW files or certain JPEG settings they describe. I only searched the document describing the procedures instead of reading every word. :) So technically, the artefacts measurements could be purely based on JPEG files. Seems unlikely but I wouldn't be able to exclude this possibility at this point.
Anyhow, let's hope Ricoh will give us the possibility of opting-out, should they choose to offer in-camera image processing again.
This would have to please everyone. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-07-2019, 02:07 AM
|
| |
More likely that they cannot get over the fact that Ricoh does not see a point in sending them gear to review.
Alternatively, they may have no clue as to what Ricoh might be doing, in which case they should say exactly that instead of implying that there are no brands worth mentioning beyond Canikony and Fujympus.
Even though Tony gave credit to the K-1 by considering as "possibly the best landscape" camera, in his respective video he went through some ridiculous contortions to make Canon look better (as in comparing Pentax brand new prices to Canon used equipment prices, because if you are buying Pentax you are "bargain hunting"; strangely, the option to buy used Pentax gear does not seem to be available).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 07:40 AM
|
| |
Sigh. MJKoski didn't like the way his K-1 II images looked like without comparing them to K-1 images.
If you don't see a problem, good for you!
But why do you insist that other people cannot be offended by the "accelerator" processing even if they don't have a reference image to compare to?
How many times do you need to read that some people prefer the PRIME processing over the K-1 II denoising?
Are you suggesting that people are making up these counterarguments?
I'd find that disrespectful.
I have very little idea what you mean by that.
You are quoting DPReview but the fact that their statements were not only exaggerations but also at times patently incorrect still does not make your conclusion ("With this, DPReview has an excuse for anything." logically sound.
Please rest assured that - I'm not engaged in this discussion due to being motivated by my own view on the K-1 II's denoising. For starters, personally, I don't care what the K-1 II does, as I'll never buy a K-1 II myself. Second, my own view is unimportant; I only mentioned it at one point to demonstrate to biz-engineer that people can have objections to the aesthetics of the K-1 II's denoising, as opposed to fearing about compromised specs. Third, I mentioned several times that my main concern is that Ricoh are not doing themselves any favours by inviting criticism from DPReview.
- My response is not emotional. I'll admit that I care about the future of Pentax as a brand, but I'm debating using rational arguments only.
To make such a claim is easy. To corroborate such a claim by referencing things someone said is harder. I maintain you'll find it impossible to point to any irrational statements I made or to anything else that deviates from an objective assessment.
Why are you comparing a 36MP camera to 24MP cameras?
If you really think that "detail eating" will scare away customers into buying different cameras, you should be writing to Ricoh, asking them to make the denoising optional. I surely hope you are not stating that I am making up a "detail eating" issue that in reality doesn't exist and that I'm therefore driving potential Pentax customers into the arms of other manufacturers for no good reason.
Sometimes I feel there is false "you are with us or against us" dichotomy at play. I can be a huge supporter of Pentax and level criticism at DPReview, while simultaneously acknowledging that their criticism against the K-1 II was not entirely without foundation.
I think it is time for me to take a time out again. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 06:54 AM
|
| |
Did you mean to continue the sentence and/or point to a chart?
I'd be interested in what you were trying to reference.
Did you mean to write "DSLM performance was not much worse..."?
Of course, that argument always applies.
In the context of this thread, though, even effects that don't affect a lot of people can be very relevant because if DPReview makes a fuzz about the effects of the "accelerator" processing, they potentially ought to make a fuzz about the minimal additional sensor heat-up in a MILC vs a DSLR. I think it would be nice to know how impactful intrinsic MILC properties are on IQ, so that one can confront DPReview with effects that are at the level of the K-1 II denoising effects or higher.
Yeah, I have no doubt about that. :)
I wouldn't expect a MILC to create a 10°C temperature differential over a DSLR, though. :)
I didn't mean to imply that the presence of IBIS automatically poses a problem regarding sensor temperatures.
I only meant to point out that cooling an IBIS sensor can be more of an effort compared to cooling a fixed sensor.
I'm not surprised that you didn't find a significant difference between the two DSLRs you tested because they are both pretty large and don't need to run their sensors all the time (not sure whether you included full-time LV operation).
I speculate that a very small body like that of a Sony MILC with IBIS could run into sensor temperature issues. Indeed, at least some earlier Sony models were known for not supporting extended video recording as they would shut down due to sensor overheating.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 06:37 AM
|
| |
I'm not against losing noise.
You are making the assumption that it is always possible to differentiate between signal and noise. Unfortunately, that's not possible.
If the SNR is sufficiently high one can certainly perform processing that primarily acts on the signal or primarily on what is probably noise. I'm writing "primarily" because what do you do when your signal is noise-like? Is it OK to change the surface appearance of something, just because it happens to look like noise? I'm writing "probably" because even in images with high SNR portions there may be noisy areas. When the SNR becomes very low, then it is definitely not possible to differentiate between noise and signal and by attempting to kill noise one will inadvertently kill signal as well (in the absence of an additional temporal dimension).
We are running in circles with this argument, as you've tried to make that point a number of times already.
Please show me the noise reduction algorithm that always leaves all signal intact. Hint: If it existed, not only Ricoh would be implementing it. :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 06:24 AM
|
| |
People like MJKoski who complained about what the K-1 II did to their images were talking about photographic output, as opposed to specs.
Again, an argument -- overall aesthetics are more important than benchmark results -- which can be valid in a number of contexts is used in a context where it doesn't apply. I can tell you that I personally dislike the smoothed look of the K-1 II at high ISO settings. I don't like the look of standard noise reduction in post-production either. The PRIME processing shown by Breakfastographer is more appealing to me. So in my case, it is primarily about aesthetics, not measurements.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 06:14 AM
|
| |
I'm saying that even pixel-level differences can be of relevance to some photographers.
For instance, just create huge prints and the pixel level will reveal itself to you at some point (if you want a large print stand up to scrutiny even at viewing distances that are too close to appreciate the full print; which can definitely be an objective of gallery-level artists).
From a certain "photographically relevant" viewpoint, there is no appreciable difference between a Canon sensor and a Sony sensor. Arguably, any visibly discernible differences regarding noise levels only occur when "photography is perverted by extreme post-processing" (or a similar argument). To some, such a view would be spot on, to some it would be unacceptable. Where do you draw the line? More importantly, how do you want to justify imposing your own "line" on to others?
Again, whether the "accelerator" processing yields an "overall improvement" is a judgement call that everyone has to answer for themselves and it is not possible for one person holding one view to prove that a person holding a different view is wrong.
Please, that doesn't follow at all.
You probably just mean that you don't find it useful for DPReview to investigate matters that are only relevant to an extremely small portion of photographers, but that would just mean that they are not doing work of interest to you, not that detailed investigations had no merit.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 05:58 AM
|
| |
Sure, that's true, if they have the light to stay within a low ISO range. However, what if conditions require that they use higher ISO settings?
I shouldn't have included product photographers as it would be very unusual for them to not have control over their lighting, but for the other groups I mentioned and probably more, it is a valid argument.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 05:49 AM
|
| |
That's a judgement call.
For some, your conclusion ("IQ is overall improved") will be correct.
Others will come to a different conclusion because they- need the information that would otherwise be removed, or
- don't like the look of the "accelerator processing" and rather have the noise, or
- prefer a different approach to denoising.
Earlier in this thread, I have offered explanations as to why Ricoh may have added the "accelerator" unit, none of which make "Ricoh people" "stupid", as you put it.
That kind of unfair treatment certainly often occurs in practice.
In this particular case, however, there is nothing to suggest that such unfair criticism has been levelled at Ricoh, on the very contrary, the evidence is in favour of criticism being justified. Just because the problem is of no concern to you personally, does not mean it doesn't exist. I also sense that the majority of users support making the "accelerator" denoising optional. No arguments have been brought forward why the denoising ought to be mandatory, so there is actually no basis for a real debate.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 05:34 AM
|
| |
Sure, I agree with your sentiment when it comes to evaluating IQ visually.
With respect to the subject at hand -- K-1 II "accelerator" denoising -- single RAW exposures of noise are sufficient to demonstrate the issue.
Note that the methodology I've referred to earlier shows the absence of any heavy-handed denoising up to ISO 640, so we are not looking at artefacts that are introduced by factors other than the "accelerator" processing.
Do you happen to have a reference to data on this?
I always thought that one of the downsides of mirrorless cameras is that they have to operate their sensors for much longer periods, leading to more image noise over time. However, I assumed the effect would be negligible for regular photography.
Now that DPReview has discovered their love for IBIS (after the Nikon Z series at last came as an admission by Nikon that IBIS is the superior system), it will be interesting to see how they'll find a way to defend any downsides MILCs may exhibit regarding noise. An image-stabilised sensor should be harder to cool than a fixed one so if sensor heat-up is an issue (I'd definitely expect it to matter in extreme applications) then DSLRs should do better (as they don't have to heat up their sensors as much).
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-05-2019, 05:22 AM
|
| |
I'm glad you are getting something out of the debate. :)
In my view, the relevance of the technical debate to the original "Fake News" topic is borne out as the attempt to answer the question "What was fake about DPReview's criticism and what wasn't?".
Just as I dislike DPReview being inaccurate, I dislike criticism of DPReview being inaccurate. I find that the views of some that DPReview essentially invented an issue are untenable. DPReview has most certainly blown out an issue completely out of proportion and has yet again demonstrated that they are willing to go above and beyond to do that for Pentax while downplaying far worse issues for other brands, but they didn't invent an issue that is "photographically irrelevant".
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-04-2019, 11:21 PM
|
| |
I'm generally with you, but as has been pointed out numerous times, a detection of the image degrading aspects of the "accelerator" unit would have been possible even without the existence of the K-1.
Yes, most people wouldn't have bothered to look that closely and the argument that the detail loss doesn't matter photographically can be made. However, in the same breath you could state that the K-1 (II) should be cheaper because there really shouldn't have been any engineering effort to develop PixelShift. Although PixelShift produces visible advantages, one would have to accept the argument that the gain is not photographically relevant for the vast majority of shooters and that the circumstances in which it can be gained are very narrowly defined.
I don't really want to debate you and I do think your position is defensible, but I just want to point out that people who draw the line below the degradation caused by the "accelerator" unit have just as valid a point as the people who draw the line below the advantages afforded by PixelShift. Who is to say that a certain level of detail advantage is reasonable, while another level is not anymore? And surely we agree that there are some people with certain niche applications that would like to squeeze out the most of their K-1 (II). We shouldn't treat these as having unreasonable expectations.
The case would be a harder one to decide if real advantages were only to be gained by permanently shutting off these niche photographers from the properties they are looking for. In this case, the needs of the many would outweigh the needs of the few, but luckily, regarding the "accelerator" unit, we don't stand before such a dilemma. :)
We can easily agree on "most" but I don't think it is fair to throw people like astrophotographers, product photographers, gallery-level artists, etc. in the same bag as people obsessed with test photos and measurement results.
I have no doubt that there people who are genuinely interested in the image as such (as opposed to measurements and theoretical performances) who would prefer to have the option to turn the "accelerator" unit off when it suits them.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-04-2019, 10:59 PM
|
| |
There are two flawed assumptions in your reasoning:- "High sensor resolution is entirely wasted on a bad lens (or stopped down lens), thus supporting 100%-safe denoising": Optical transfer functions (here, the resolution of a lens and resolution of the sensor) do not combine according to a simple "weakest link" mechanic. Hubert Nasse from Zeiss made a good point about this in his "How to read MTF curves? Part II" article. This is why the Kodak formula, for instance, can be written as resolution = 1 / (1/resolution_lens + 1/resolution_sensor) and not as resolution = MIN(resolution_lens, resolution_sensor). In other words, even a bad or stopped down lens doesn't imply that the resolution of the sensor that goes beyond that of the lens is meaningless. A drastically weaker link will surely dominate the performance but your exposition is too simplistic.
.
- "Pixel noise is caused by the sensor": While it is correct that there is purely sensor-induced noise, in most cases the noise one sees in high ISO images is dominated by shot noise, i.e., shows the stochastic nature of light. That means the noise originates before the blurring by the lens, and therefore cannot be trivially recognised as spatial frequencies that shouldn't be occurring given a certain combination of lens blur and sensor resolution.
These facts mean that your analysis regarding the "accelerator" unit and the cognitive capabilities of the groups of people you decided to judge is incorrect.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-01-2019, 08:18 PM
|
| |
No, it does not rest on a "shaky assumption" and definitely not on a "control signal" being used.
My assessment rests on in-depth knowledge about modern digital components, as opposed to assuming that cameras are built using 1980's technology.
(emphasis is mine)
Now, that's a "shaky assumption".
Oh, but it is most definitely entirely the point.
The behaviour of a DSP is entirely controlled by firmware. It would be a piece of cake for Ricoh to change the behaviour of the "accelerator" unit if it is a DSP, including making it behave neutrally for all ISO settings.
If we only had one more person familiar with modern electronics in this thread, they would have to agree with me immediately.
I'll leave it at this now and won't be responding to further posts from you that lack technical merit, unless you have a genuine question to me in which case I'd be happy to answer.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-01-2019, 07:44 PM
|
| |
OK, then why do you not see the possibility of letting it behave neutrally, even when the ISO setting is equal to or higher than ISO 640?
The "accelerator" unit is just a component in an image-forming-processing chain. You can tell it to do whatever you want it to do. There is no need to have an "off/on signal line".
You had challenged me earlier that I only "assumed" such an "off/on signal line" would be present. We agree now that my argument doesn't depend on a shaky assumption, correct?
EDIT: I just read this:
The "accelerator" unit is at the mercy of Ricoh's engineers. Ricoh's engineers are not at the mercy of the "accelerator" unit. It is entirely unreasonable to assume that the "accelerator" unit is a custom-designed chip that can only perform one hardwired function. It is much more likely that it is an off-the shelf DSP (digital signal processor) that just runs Ricoh's finely tuned image processing algorithm.
I admit that I do not know the exact chip type, but producing a hardwired, i.e., non-configurable custom chip would not only be cost-prohibitive but also unreasonably inflexible. One wouldn't be able to fix errors, etc.
With all due respect but the times when digital components used such high voltages are long gone. With today's frequency requirements and processing power, such voltage levels would be completely unsustainable.
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-01-2019, 07:06 PM
|
| |
Fair enough!
I 100% agree with you in that it is completely fine to use DPReview's inadequate camera comparison tool in order to point out that their conclusion, or at the very least their evaluation based on competitor performance, is not supported by their own data.
What I objected to earlier is the idea of using DPReview's inadequate data in order to argue that there is no issue at all with mandatory noise reduction of RAW data.
Well, if you agree that noise reduction will also remove detail, you agree that some detail is "killed off", right? Killing something off is harmful, no? :)
I have no issue at all with people not being the least concerned with detail being killed off.
They have every right to be OK with the "harmful" behaviour, but it nevertheless remains "harmful"/"destructive", no?
You are preaching to the choir with respect to DPReview being entirely unreasonable.
I don't hold it against them that they are looking with a microscope at levels of detail that are immaterial to the vast majority of photographers. We could all just quickly agree that the level of detail destroyed by the K-1 II's processing is not worth talking about. However, in the same breath, we'd also have to question who really cares if a nameless star gets eaten by a Sony camera, one of several million in an image? Or that whether it matters that Sony's lossy compression adds a few normally invisible artefacts here and there? The cameras we are talking about are not scientific instruments, so we could forgive them all sorts of things.
However, I think it is fair to keep camera manufacturers honest and point out when they are making step backwards. From the perspective from a subset of photographers, the mandatory denoising of the K-1 II is a step backwards, now matter how small one assesses it to be.
No question that other manufacturers have taken much bigger steps backwards and would deserve much more pummelling for that. However, this is a matter of DPReview's unbalanced reporting, not a matter of whether or not people wishing for the K-1 II to provide an opt-out choice have a valid point.
It really is unbelievable.
They are seriously suggesting that running repair tools that patch up images so that artefacts are hidden are a proper solution. First of all, this patching up cannot reconstruct the data that has never been recorded in first place. Second, such patching tools interfere with the workflow of photographers. Am I supposed to batch-process all images before I import them to Lightroom/Capture One, or whatever? Really?
It is unreal what DPReview lets other cameras get away with while giving Pentax cameras a hard time (and assuming that a still photography camera cannot be recommended unless it excels at video, even though the latter can demonstrably impinge on still photography performance).
My frustration with DPReview is aggravated by the fact that they flat out deny their unbalanced treatment. I'd prefer if they owned their bias/mistakes. I could better accept their errors, if they admitted to the fact that they are not as familiar with Pentax cameras/settings/lenses as they are with other brands and hence make mistakes. I could better accept their failings, if they said that they do not have the resources to do justice to smaller players in the market; that they have to focus on the big ones and therefore, for instance, cannot take the time to test the astrotracer feature on the K-1. Instead we get a lame "Seattle weather" excuse.
The worst, though, is that they not only fail to own the fact that they aren't doing the Pentax brand justice, but actually turn the tables and claim that the "zealous" Pentaxians are the real issue. Their position is that they always apply the same assessments, evaluation, judgement, and that they don't use loaded language when describing Pentax products, but it is just the Pentaxians not accepting anything short of (quote) "uncritically gushing praise". With statements like the latter it almost looks like they are trying to see how far they can go before even Canikonyians will point out that DPReview took it too far.
I found it interesting that in their "2019 camera and lens manufacturers' New Year's resolutions", they gave pretty much every brand quite a good roasting but in the case of Pentax, they were rather friendly towards Pentax but instead chose to provoke Pentaxians. Interesting. Works for me, though! I'd rather have them be mad with us than be unreasonable towards Pentax! :)
|
|
Forum: Pentax News and Rumors
01-01-2019, 06:14 PM
|
| |
No, I'm not assuming that.
I know that it can behave in a neutral manner.
Your overall use of terminology, such as "signal line", and "pin-out", leads me to believe you are thinking of the "accelerator" unit very much in terms of an analogue device. However, it is a digital processor. It's function/control is better thought of by digital data being provided as input, as opposed to "lines" being set to ground level, etc.
There is absolutely no reason why it shouldn't be possible to have the "accelerator" unit not manipulate the image data going in.
Just consider the worst case in which one would simply instruct the "accelerator" unit to process the data on the basis of the data coming from an ISO 100 exposure. So even if the data results from an ISO 6400 exposure, say, just process it as if it originated from an ISO 100 exposure.
We know that the "accelerator" unit doesn't perform any denoising at ISO 100. So there's your solution, even in the completely implausible case that there wouldn't be a better way to avoid the "accelerator" processing. No need for an "off/on signal line".
|
