What your saying is true Smeggy, these are contained within ACR, but what your looking at here is the XMP file which is a look up table for the values of all the tools on opening the file. The preliminary start up values.

If all I wanted was to set the de-noise to 13 then all I would need here is two hexadecimal digits to set any value between 0 and 255 and start and end of data characters. The other hexadecimal digits are where to apply it, comprising the seed data for the algorithm within ACR for it's memory map flagging those pixels which are to have this setting applied.

There is no need to store all, in this case, 12Mp all it needs is the column (0 - 4000) and row (0 - 3000)in the memory map for the start pixel and then the algorithm within ACR will plot the others effected from that point and mark them to receive this data.

All Raw files open with the same tools in the same order, starting with brightness, then contrast and so on, once ACR has got these preliminary values in the XMP file it then moves onto the next tool then refers to this file for the parameters for that, the tool doesn't have to be called it's automatic in the program. There is no need to select the tool on opening as they always work in the same order, so the 'end of data' character in this XMP file makes ACR step through the program and move onto the next tool.

By this method it assembles the data for the XMP layer and creates it which, as I'm sure you know, sits above the DE-mosaiced file and adds the original values to those we have applied, we see the original data though this layer and modified by these settings, similar to how a colour profile works.

Any pixel can have all, none or some of the data applied from all, none or some of the tools within ACR.

It has to be stressed that this is just what happens on opening the Raw file within ACR, any further editing, such as altering the de-noise will alter the value within this XMP file, but it will still only effect those pixels tagged for that tool.

When you open the file into PS it flattens these two layers together and opens them as a PSD file, now, unless you make selections, any adjustments will be global.

The de-noise you refer to is under these conditions and then it's different.

And the purple defringeing gets applied globally too - interesting.

The outline in my image is the data from the camera giving the location in the memory map of what the camera thinks are the effected pixels, we can change those to by using simple addition or subtraction to those values, but they are usually pretty accurate, the value of 13 is what I set as a basic de-noise after looking at different values on lots of different images shot (usually) in our studio, it is a compromise, and it can be subsequently altered by just moving the, in this case, the Luminance noise reduction slider in ACR.

If you open the image in PS and then alter noise reduction, then that will apply globally, but while ever you are altering in ACR it's just these pixels that are effected.

Here is a screen grab of a Hex Editor file looking at the XMP file from a Panasonic G1, the reason I chose this is because I worked on this ACR for Panasonic before I retired.

[

Hex example-1 by Chris_Judge, on Flickr]

The highlighted values are what we decided was a good pre de-noise for files from a Panasonic G1, the values surrounded by my rather crude outline are the pixels in the image to apply the de-noise to. These will vary from image to image, at this time we could only crudely identify a threshold value any speckled group of pixels, speaking to my former colleagues it's come a long way since then. The tool being applied is the Noise Reduction slider within ACR.

In this Hex Editor I could alter any value much the same as a text editor. We then save it and import it into the C++ assembler in our developers edition of CS5 to test and from then on ACR will apply these changes when it opens a Panasonic G1 Raw file and create the XMP file from it. The hex file was then sent to Panasonic who forwarded it to Adobe to be included in the next ACR update.

This just one parameter from hundreds which are applied to every Raw file when you open them in ACR, just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it's not happening.

When you edit in ACR and, may be, increase noise reduction, this is the parameter you are altering within the XMP file. If you select an area within ACR and alter, in this case, the noise reduction, then you are creating a new parametric and adding it to the XMP file. This will only apply to that one image, the ones we applied to the ACR will happen on every first conversion from Raw to XMP.

The whole XMP file is only 6KB as it only holds the changes from the de-mosiced image file and is a very small text document. It will swell when opened in PS, LR etc and those changes are applied to a PSD copy of the Raw file.

Everybody happy now?

Couldn't agree more except that they do and have done for years, Raw files are pretty poor images without them. In the past these codes were only global, recently theses same codes can, and are, used on specific pixels. May be your a little out of your depth?

Technobabble like this for instance.

Actually I do and none of which can open a Raw file and alter the code in it which is what I am talking about.

Good to know that you are conversant with PIE, the average user doesn't need to unless they want to know what the program is actually doing and how it's doing it. If you think that PHP is good for image editing it would be interesting to know what program you use to open and edit directly the code in a Raw files. It's only 'technobabble' to people that don't understand it.

Certainly true, the same lame excuse for the bad behavior of every Troll I've ever come across.

As in the above example for instance?

Still it's good to know that we have our very own self appointed, self opinionated policeman to protect us from technobabble.

I'm not sure what PHP has to do with images being as that is a Hypertext Preprocessor for HTML files usually so web pages appear the same across different platforms, personally I have several years experience in PIE (Parametric Image Editing) which is the application of algorithms to the master file created after you de-mosaic the Raw data based on embedded data created by the camera.

Currently all you can view in any Raw converter program is the master file, once the algorithms are in place in image editors and PIE gets to work to reinterpret these files it will be different, visibly different, which is all I'm saying.

To be accused of writing technobabble is a little severe, dare I say troll like. But from your other comments to other contributors it seems I am in good company.

Yes I think that's the main reason for the noise Ken. Probably a combination of me not applying EV compensation in the heat of the moment and the camera being foxed by the bright sky. May be that's why Pentax spent the time and money to increase the accuracy of the exposure on the K3, because they knew there would be (slightly) more noise to deal with. Getting the exposure spot on reduces noise.

The noise reduction in Lightroom is just blurring the image globally, the retention of detail, that's also applied in Lightroom, it can't do because Lightroom, as yet, can't read the hexadecimal codes in the Raw file which tell Lightroom and any other software which pixels are affected.

There is a lot of data in the Raw file that you seem unaware of. There is approximately 3-4Mb of data in the Raw file other than the image data, some of that is the EXIF data, around 100K, around 800Kb is the embedded Jpeg in a DNG file, the rest (several Mb) is data about that specific exposure, it's how content aware works in Photoshop or Lightroom. It's how Lightroom will know which pixels are effected by noise and by how much, then Lightroom can apply noise reduction based on data it can't currently read when it opens the image, when the algorithms are included for the K3, there may be no visible noise, or very little. As yet we don't know, but you are comparing adjusted K5 images with, as yet, unadjusted K3 images, images that have only been De-mosaiced into a visible image with none of the embedded image data applied.

Noise is not as simple as "I turn ISO up - therefore I will get more noise", this shot was taken at an ISO of 400 on a K5 with a Sigma 70 - 300mm lens

[

Vulcan 02 by Chris_Judge, on Flickr]

and is full of noise.

Same camera, same lens - different day shot at 3200ISO

[

Botanical_Gdns_0199 by Chris_Judge, on Flickr]

No trace of noise.

The K3 has more Mp crammed onto the same sized sensor, so the pixels are smaller, will it have more noise - yup, but that's not the whole story, it will also have finer resolution, more detail to start with so noise reduction blur has less effect.

My final point is that as yet there is no software that optimizes K3 files for noise or anything else as the software hasn't yet caught up except for, may be, the Silkypics software bundled with the camera, so your comparing K5 images which have been optimized for noise reduction with K3 images that, as yet, haven't.

Adobe Camera Raw V8.2 doesn't, as yet, fully support the K3 so MAWB may not yet be fully implemented.

http://helpx.adobe.com/creative-suite/kb/camera-raw-plug-supported-cameras.html#

Addition

Currently the Pentax K3 isn't on the list for ACR V8.3 either, though it may be in the final release due 31st December 2013.

http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/cameraraw8-3-cc/?tabID=details#tabTop

It also talks about "Separate Auto Temperature and Auto Tint feature. Shift-double-click to invoke "auto temperature" and "auto tint" separately".

This is something that Ricoh has brought to the table, it looks like a very useful addition, now we can have different WB in different parts of the image.