P: Denoise AI and Pentax K3 MKIII DNG files - not working

The older cameras you mention, have raw files with raw data. They have a noise profile which is identical to all other cameras which output raw data. The new situation with K-3 III (and a few other Pentax models) is that they have inbuilt noise suppression. That means the raw data in the dng file is not "raw" anymore, but processed and have a completely different noise than K-50. The result of this is that the AI algorithm has to be trained to be able to recognize the noise from K-3 III and which is unique to K-3 III. 

For Adobe, this means they have to train AI for a specific camera modell instead of using a generic model that works for all cameras without inbuilt noise suppression. That is not an easy task.

fotonor: I don't think that insufficient training material is the problem because the denoise function is working perfectly well with older Pentax raw files from K30/K50 and even prehistoric PEFs from my K100D.
There must be a technical reason that DNGs from K3-iii etc. cannot be denoised easily. I tried DxO PureRaw and it shows the same behaviour.
Anyway: ACR 16.1 has been released, no improvement.

It is not an easy problem to solve. The AI algorithm has to be trained and how do you do that. Feed it with the millions of Pentax images floating around on the web?

Sure - it's a really easy problem to solve, and Adobe is just it's taking time to spite you...

Just got a K-3 Mark III and run into this issue 😞 This is a very bad news for me, especially as it seems that Adobe don't care at all, as the issue was reported in April!

Tried indeed the pentax image linked to above by @digitaldog in yesterday's Lightroom release and indeed enhance is not doing anything for the luma noise at all. In fact the "enhance" image is worse than the original. 

Camera Raw 16.0 has been released, no improvement...

Any update on this for Ricoh + Pentax DNG ?

Add the Pentax KP to the list. Same issue here.
BTW I'm using PEF, and so it doesn't seem to matter which of the two available RAW-Formats you use.

Actually, I may have gone off half cocked. While not a lot seems to be happening at relaitively "low" high iso settings - 4000 and maybe up to 10,000 - it seems to be doing a reasonable job when you hit outrageously high iso settings like 128,000 (in my case). More investigation necessary!