lm_user Posted January 9, 2016 Share #1 Posted January 9, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Some have reported the M262 color palette is different than the M240. Has anyone with both cameras taken back to back photos? Has anyone compared IR sensitivity back to back with black synthetic fabrics under incandescent lighting? Curious - so I thought I would ask the question.... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 9, 2016 Posted January 9, 2016 Hi lm_user, Take a look here M262 Color Pallette. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
elmars Posted January 9, 2016 Share #2 Posted January 9, 2016 I think this is not right. Leica told me, that the colors should be equal to those of the M240, when the Adobe standard profile is implemented in Lightroom. Till then, there might be differences. Elmar 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted January 9, 2016 Share #3 Posted January 9, 2016 The M 262 embedded profile is somewhat cooler than the M 240, so in the direction of SL colors. Shooting back-to-back, on a tripod, yes, you can see small differences even after DNG files are nominally matched in ACR. To my "eyes" (it is actually your brain that interprets color, not yours eyes), the M 262 is cool like Zeiss tones whereas M 240 has a yellowness that won't go away. I would say the difference is *not* as great as between colors of say Biogon 25mm vs. Elmarit 24mm. As I posted on another thread a while ago, although one can pixel-peep into finding differences in the files, I do not feel that is a fair or useful comparison at all between the two bodies. A shooter should confidently assume that M 262 and M 240 files can be fully equivalent. Shooting the two is where any differences appear: the M 262 feels/ sounds different, and I am convinced my M 262 VF is a bit contrastier than my M-P 240. The two bodies were assembled 14 months apart, however, and I have no information about what Leica may or may not have "modified" in the M VF as a matter of course in production (things always change). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 9, 2016 Share #4 Posted January 9, 2016 How do you match? The way to do so between different cameras is to use a colour chart and make dedicated profiles. I bet you onions against dates that there will be no visible difference between 262 and 240 files then. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted January 9, 2016 Share #5 Posted January 9, 2016 How do you match? The way to do so between different cameras is to use a colour chart and make dedicated profiles. I bet you onions against dates that there will be no visible difference between 262 and 240 files then. No, Jaap, I did not do a color chart test, as I do not have one. I always use a set of teddy bears because the blues, in particular, are very difficult to reproduce accurately. Of course dedicated profiles made in the manner you describe would take advantage of digital adjustments to match the output... perhaps between current M and SL too. But I am happy with your bet, BTW , because I love onions and do not like dates! If I had any dates, I would Fedex them to you in one of my Schouten boxes in payment of the bet. My point was that the embedded profile (which is what I wrote) in M 262 produces different colors, somewhat, than M 240. I further said that any difference "out of the box" between DNG could easily be balanced in pp without much effort. But the starting point between the cameras' raw output is a bit different... wasn't that the question raised by OP? My practice is to begin in ACR with the embedded profile, correct WB to taste, and work from there. I realize you can start with a custom color profile instead, but you still wind up adjusting something for each image (at least I do). I shave, then I brush my teeth, but fully accept the reasonableness of brushing teeth and then shaving. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 9, 2016 Share #6 Posted January 9, 2016 It is not a test, it is the way to set your postprocessing software/raw converter to match any camera, irrespective of brand and type. Actually, after I started using proper profiling throughout my workflow, I find it indispensable. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted January 10, 2016 Author Share #7 Posted January 10, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) I agree that profiling will normalize everything provided the level of ir contamination is the same in the conditions in which the profile was created and the photo was taken. Given that the std color card and foliage and synthetic fabric..... all have different ir signatures i dont see how a profile can correct for ir. Thus my motivation / request for a comparison of ir contamination I too use color profiles. Using a custom color profile with the M8 in combination with ir filters I can get consistently get good color. The M240 and 262 do not recommend if filters and will not correct for the cyan corners they may induce. Both the M8 and M9 had cyan corner correction in their software as sn option with ir filter use Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted January 10, 2016 Share #8 Posted January 10, 2016 It is not a test, it is the way to set your postprocessing software/raw converter to match any camera, irrespective of brand and type. Actually, after I started using proper profiling throughout my workflow, I find it indispensable. Standard then, for normalization across sensor/ firmware installations, if you prefer over "test." I do use a SpectraView profile for my monitor (an Ezio, which I actually ordered based on your recommendation), but my ACR workflow remains from vanilla, as described. Anyways, I understood the OP here to ask about the out-of-the-box colors, not what one could achieve in pp. So, perhaps I misunderstood? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elmars Posted January 10, 2016 Share #9 Posted January 10, 2016 The M262 has not an Adobe Standard profile till now. Lightroom uses the embedded profile, which is different from Adobe Standard. This may be the reason for different colors between the M240 and M262. Elmar 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 10, 2016 Share #10 Posted January 10, 2016 (edited) The M 262 embedded profile is somewhat cooler than the M 240, so in the direction of SL colors. Shooting back-to-back, on a tripod, yes, you can see small differences even after DNG files are nominally matched in ACR. To my "eyes" (it is actually your brain that interprets color, not yours eyes), the M 262 is cool like Zeiss tones whereas M 240 has a yellowness that won't go away. I would say the difference is *not* as great as between colors of say Biogon 25mm vs. Elmarit 24mm. As I posted on another thread a while ago, although one can pixel-peep into finding differences in the files, I do not feel that is a fair or useful comparison at all between the two bodies. A shooter should confidently assume that M 262 and M 240 files can be fully equivalent. Shooting the two is where any differences appear: the M 262 feels/ sounds different, and I am convinced my M 262 VF is a bit contrastier than my M-P 240. The two bodies were assembled 14 months apart, however, and I have no information about what Leica may or may not have "modified" in the M VF as a matter of course in production (things always change). Your brain is not the only process that is involved in color perception. Your eye's photoreceptor distribution have much to do with how you perceive color... not to mention that processing is being done in ganglion cells, bipolar cells, horizontal cells and amicrine cells in the retina before being sent to higher processing areas of the brain. The retina is a neuro-processing network and is the first order of processing in color perception. Rick Edited January 10, 2016 by Rick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gpwhite Posted January 10, 2016 Share #11 Posted January 10, 2016 Your brain is not the only process that is involved in color perception. Your eye's photoreceptor distribution have much to do with how you perceive color... not to mention that processing is being done in ganglion cells, bipolar cells, horizontal cells and amicrine cells in the retina before being sent to higher processing areas of the brain. The retina is a neuro-processing network and is the first order of processing in color perception. Rick Well, the retina is part of the CNS and, in a pure sense, part of the brain. I tried to keep it in the simplest language to make the point that perception of color is a form of cognition. The transduction and visual mapping stages you describe, Rick, are necessary for any signal to get to the cycles in V1 through V5 that subserve "awareness" like color perception. Some male humans have an abnormal distribution of short wavelength receptors in their retinae, so that creates a major problem in what light sensitivities get signaled back to visual cortex, you're correct. But my point to Jaap was that it is a misnomer to say "such and such colors, to my eyes" because it is not the eye assembly (as you described it) that perceives color... that cognitive process arises in posterior occipital areas (at the back of your head). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 10, 2016 Share #12 Posted January 10, 2016 Well, "to my eyes" (where did I use it??) is not really an expression to be taken so literally. One can happily substitute "perception". 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePioneer Posted January 11, 2016 Share #13 Posted January 11, 2016 So far my M262 color palette seems a little cool... but since all I am doing right now is taking pictures of mountain snow scenes I guess it stands to reason. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePioneer Posted January 11, 2016 Share #14 Posted January 11, 2016 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lm_user Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share #15 Posted January 12, 2016 So far my M262 color palette seems a little cool... but since all I am doing right now is taking pictures of mountain snow scenes I guess it stands to reason. Nice photo! Thx Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillo Posted January 12, 2016 Share #16 Posted January 12, 2016 Well, the retina is part of the CNS and, in a pure sense, part of the brain. I tried to keep it in the simplest language to make the point that perception of color is a form of cognition. The transduction and visual mapping stages you describe, Rick, are necessary for any signal to get to the cycles in V1 through V5 that subserve "awareness" like color perception. Some male humans have an abnormal distribution of short wavelength receptors in their retinae, so that creates a major problem in what light sensitivities get signaled back to visual cortex, you're correct. But my point to Jaap was that it is a misnomer to say "such and such colors, to my eyes" because it is not the eye assembly (as you described it) that perceives color... that cognitive process arises in posterior occipital areas (at the back of your head). Well, don't take it to heart. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 13, 2016 Share #17 Posted January 13, 2016 Well, the retina is part of the CNS and, in a pure sense, part of the brain. I tried to keep it in the simplest language to make the point that perception of color is a form of cognition. The transduction and visual mapping stages you describe, Rick, are necessary for any signal to get to the cycles in V1 through V5 that subserve "awareness" like color perception. Some male humans have an abnormal distribution of short wavelength receptors in their retinae, so that creates a major problem in what light sensitivities get signaled back to visual cortex, you're correct. But my point to Jaap was that it is a misnomer to say "such and such colors, to my eyes" because it is not the eye assembly (as you described it) that perceives color... that cognitive process arises in posterior occipital areas (at the back of your head). This mishmash has nothing to do with what I posted. Copy and paste from wiki? Rick Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted January 13, 2016 Share #18 Posted January 13, 2016 (edited) The M262 has not an Adobe Standard profile till now. Lightroom uses the embedded profile, which is different from Adobe Standard. This may be the reason for different colors between the M240 and M262. Elmar ...... not may be the reason ...... IS the reason. I don't think Leica have produced a camera to date where the initial embedded profile or WB is correct. It will get altered in future LR releases if users feel it is an issue ... ...... and Adobe will eventually produce a profile in LR which will be correct for the RAW data from the sensor .... so what Leica does will be irrelevant unless you use JPG only from the camera Same problem currently with the SL Edited January 13, 2016 by thighslapper 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Exodies Posted January 13, 2016 Share #19 Posted January 13, 2016 Is there a human interpretation aspect to profile creation? If so, how can a Leica embedded one or an Adobe standard one or a user created one be better or worse than any other? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2016 Share #20 Posted January 13, 2016 Not really, it is a matter of measuring and implementing, albeit at various light compositions. However, colours in general will always be subject to human interpretation in the end. It is not a simple subject. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.