M9 Firmware Update - When and what may we expect?

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The use of fuel cell technology for this kind of devices has been promised to be just around the corner for years now, with nothing substantial actually forthcoming. It may still be the future, but I’ve stopped holding my breath.

 

Michael,

 

I had a micro fuel cell "instant" charger for my Palm Treo 680 phone. Definitely technology under development. Sometimes it gave a tiny amount of charge but more often than not - none.

 

Wilson

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Seconded. I've done enough work with artificially lit blacks to feel that this is a non-issue - and I've done a lot with the 5D2 alongside the M9.

 

Earl - so far I feel you've made a big thing about this but not shown us any evidence (and I'm looking at my images on a colour calibrated system using a Lacie reference monitor....)

 

It was a big thing for me. I wasted time taking 200+ shots that the client refused to pay for unless I corrected all the magenta blacks, which were present in every one of the lot. Fortunately I had been shooting my 5DII as well (I would never do a paying shoot with an untested piece of equipment without shooting backups with known equipment), so I did not lose the client altogether. But I never said it is, was, or should be a "big thing" for anyone else. If your subject matter and/or standards and those of your clients are such that the M9's IR issue goes unnoticed, then by all means you should buy one. Buy two or three if you like. But inasmuch as Leica published an admission that the M9 is still somewhat sensitive to IR, it seems rather foolish for someone to assert that it is not.

 

I regret I did not save any of the tainted images (if you are a pro you can imagine how riled I was at the time, and how much I wanted to erase the memory ). I didn't anticipate at the time that I was destroying "evidence", as you put it, which implies that I am somehow on trial...for heresy against the iconic brand, perhaps?

[jonoslack]

 

I regret I did not save any of the tainted images (if you are a pro you can imagine how riled I was at the time, and how much I wanted to erase the memory ). I didn't anticipate at the time that I was destroying "evidence", as you put it, which implies that I am somehow on trial...for heresy against the iconic brand, perhaps?

 

Neither of those things, but it does mean that you didn't have the chance to try a very simple batch fix on the images.

 

You are making a categorical statement which will certainly put other potential users off the M9 . . . Which is fine, as long as it's the whole story.

 

Have you been reading your PM's incidentally? I'm not sure if I'm being ignored (your privilege), or simply not read. As I said, I've seen it once in something like 10,000 shots (actually in natural evening light), and I have been looking (oh yes). I can, however, reproduce the effect quite easily with some materials . . and get rid of it with the simplest of batch PP without affecting other colours.

 

I'm not for a second suggesting that you didn't have it in your shots (oh no). Just that it seems to be very uncommon (after all, Chris is not getting it in his theatre shots), and wherever I've seen it, it's simple to fix (unlike the M8 where it really was impossible).

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Neither of those things, but it does mean that you didn't have the chance to try a very simple batch fix on the images.

 

As I said, I've seen it once in something like 10,000 shots (actually in natural evening light), and I have been looking (oh yes). I can, however, reproduce the effect quite easily with some materials . . and get rid of it with the simplest of batch PP without affecting other colours.

 

 

10,000 shots???!!! The M9 has only been out a month and a half. What did you do, crazy-glue the shutter release and hire someone to help you change batteries and SD cards whenever you need to sleep

 

But what you seem to either be unaware of or else choose to ignore, is that dialing down the magenta (which is what your "simple" fix is according to your PM) only works if there isn't anything in the shot that really is magenta. In theatre, quite often there are many colours of fabric in the costuming, including purple/magenta.

[Jamie Roberts]

10,000 shots???!!! The M9 has only been out a month and a half. What did you do, crazy-glue the shutter release and hire someone to help you change batteries and SD cards whenever you need to sleep

 

But what you seem to either be unaware of or else choose to ignore, is that dialing down the magenta (which is what your "simple" fix is according to your PM) only works if there isn't anything in the shot that really is magenta. In theatre, quite often there are many colours of fabric in the costuming, including purple/magenta.

 

Earl--it's pretty well known that Jono was an early tester of the M9. It's quite possible he shot 10K shots over the course of 6 or more months.

 

As for getting rid of your affected files--you shouldn't have. While it's true that a batch job in post might not have fixed the issue it's also true that a different colour profile in C1 or ACR (both of which are out now in one form or another) might have completely erased any stray magenta.

 

See--what I saw in early M9 colour shots in Tungsten *was not* the same as what we saw from the M8. I saw excessive magenta in most shots (kind of the way Canon balances skin by default )

 

A simple RAW converter tweak, a different overall profile and presto; much better overall. And not time consuming either. I still don't have an M9, but I've now processed enough RAWs to know that there was a profile problem at first.

 

Anyway, to me it's just unfortunate that so many people did a lot of colour testing with RAW converters that just weren't quite ready for the M9.

 

It's the same for other cameras, too. Anyone who's ever shot Canon for any length of time knows that when a new image tech. comes out from Canon, you always had to check colour for the first 6 months or so in DPP. Same for Nikon in Capture NX. It's too bad Leica doesn't have a reference converter (when it comes to colour, anyway) like Nikon and Canon do....

 

But the bottom line from that is that it takes more time for Adobe and C1 (and others) to catch up when a new Leica is released (oh, how I remember the cyan contamination with the first C1 profiles for the 1dm2... )

[steve70]

shoot, i just want my camera delivered, have not worried about firmware updates quite yet.

 

.

 

amen to that!

[jonoslack]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10,000 shots???!!! The M9 has only been out a month and a half. What did you do, crazy-glue the shutter release and hire someone to help you change batteries and SD cards whenever you need to sleep

 

But what you seem to either be unaware of or else choose to ignore, is that dialing down the magenta (which is what your "simple" fix is according to your PM) only works if there isn't anything in the shot that really is magenta. In theatre, quite often there are many colours of fabric in the costuming, including purple/magenta.

 

Hi Earl

Actually, I've had the camera since June 24th. I've spent many many hours and hundreds of shots on the IR issue, and I was only trying to be of some assistance.

 

Clearly it was not well received, and the M9 is obviously not for you.

[jonoslack]

 

As for getting rid of your affected files--you shouldn't have. While it's true that a batch job in post might not have fixed the issue it's also true that a different colour profile in C1 or ACR (both of which are out now in one form or another) might have completely erased any stray magenta.

 

Thanks Jamie

I was trying to be of assistance, but seem to have wreaked some kind of a whirlwind.

[stunsworth]

10,000 shots???!!! The M9 has only been out a month and a half. What did you do, crazy-glue the shutter release and hire someone to help you change batteries and SD cards whenever you need to sleep

 

I hope you've read Jono's response and are prepared to be man enough to apologise for the above.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

While it's true that a batch job in post might not have fixed the issue it's also true that a different colour profile in C1 or ACR (both of which are out now in one form or another) might have completely erased any stray magenta.

 

...A simple RAW converter tweak, a different overall profile and presto; much better overall. And not time consuming either.

 

 

 

I'm baffled as to how that could be. TTBOMK software does not recognise the difference between a subject area that should've been rendered black but was contaminated by IR, and one that is actually magenta. I recall several shots of an actress wearing a purple sash over a black gown, and the result from the M9 rendered it all almost the same colour. How would a profile have distinguished the sash from the gown and rendered only the latter black?

[jonoslack]

I'm baffled as to how that could be. TTBOMK software does not recognise the difference between a subject area that should've been rendered black but was contaminated by IR, and one that is actually magenta. I recall several shots of an actress wearing a purple sash over a black gown, and the result from the M9 rendered it all almost the same colour. How would a profile have distinguished the sash from the gown and rendered only the latter black?

 

. . . .and in which software did it look like that? (or was it just looking at the LCD?) Even the difference between LR2.5 and LR3 beta is pretty astonishing. Such a pity you don't have the shots.

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

I hope you've read Jono's response and are prepared to be man enough to apologise for the above.

 

I had no idea my sarcasm would cut through his skin and yours. It took me all of a few hours to produce 200 or so IR-contaminated files with an M9, which from experience I knew could not be easily corrected in post. So unless Jono was going for a slot in the Guinness Book, I fail to see what good it did for him to spend months taking 10,000 shots, given his quite errant conclusion that the M9's IR contamination can be corrected with a simple batch action. There were a few lads did the same pre-production testing of the M8, and we all know how accurate and reliable their conclusions were. Bottom-line, I fail to see why any photographer needs to default to someone else to test his equipment. It's a bit like having to call your girlfriend's ex-lover to ask if she's good in bed

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

. . . .and in which software did it look like that? Even the difference between LR2.5 and LR3 beta is pretty astonishing.

 

Just tell me which software can differentiate between an IR-contaminated black magenta and a real magenta, and I'll reconsider that you know what you're talking about. I can borrow an M9 and give it another go.

[jonoslack]

I had no idea my sarcasm would cut through his skin and yours. It took me all of a few hours to produce 200 or so IR-contaminated files with an M9, which from experience I knew could not be easily corrected in post. )

 

. . . . . . or you could be wrong :D:D

 

It's okay Earl - you didn't offend me, I just thought you were extremely rude.

 

You still haven't said what you looked at them in (converter?)

[jonoslack]

Just tell me which software can differentiate between an IR-contaminated black magenta and a real magenta, and I'll reconsider that you know what you're talking about. I can borrow an M9 and give it another go.

 

Well the difference in the conversion between the (now) colour calibrated LR3 and the (then) uncalibrated LR2 was immense. Personally I use Aperture, but if you don't know that colour calibration tables in raw software have an effect on such things . . .

 

So - tell us how you converted the files!

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

 

You still haven't said what you looked at them in (converter?)

 

Whatever LR version came with the M9...was on the chap's laptop who lent me the M9. Also tried Capture 1 back home, as well as ACR in CS4. I quite realise that raw developpers and profiles make a huge difference in overall colour rendering. But I reiterate:

 

 

Just tell me which software can differentiate between an IR-contaminated black magenta and a real magenta, and I'll reconsider that you know what you're talking about.

 

...hmmm, do I detect the sound of crickets chirping?

[Jamie Roberts]

I'm baffled as to how that could be. TTBOMK software does not recognise the difference between a subject area that should've been rendered black but was contaminated by IR, and one that is actually magenta. I recall several shots of an actress wearing a purple sash over a black gown, and the result from the M9 rendered it all almost the same colour. How would a profile have distinguished the sash from the gown and rendered only the latter black?

 

It's actually simpler than you're making it, Earl: the extreme saturation of magenta (especially of a narrow range of magenta) by the RAW converter will make conditions that look sort of like IR contamination, but are not the same.

 

The right color profile correction will make exactly the right difference: render something gray as gray and still render something magenta as magenta (not, of course, as overly-saturated magenta). It's certainly true IMO that LR prior to the newest beta had much too much magenta all over digital M files, and the M9 was simply "unsupported" in my view. Same goes for C1 v4 till the latest update release.

 

It's exactly the same problem seen in other digicams that have not been properly profiled: as I mentioned, the Canon 1d2 had a cyan problem in C1, and it seemed impossible to correct overly-cyan-saturated skies, as that would render someone with a blue coat in the scene with the wrong colour I remember people thinking it *was* the actual camera when it came out, but DPP proved them totally wrong, and so did C1 when they updated their profiles.

 

The truth is that there's a lot of leeway in color correction, and not one single digital camera I've ever owned has ever been totally colour neutral. The M9 is not, but from what I've seen it's certainly as good as any high-end Nikon out there right now (it certainly seems as good as my D3 in this regard).

[Jamie Roberts]

Whatever LR version came with the M9...was on the chap's laptop who lent me the M9. Also tried Capture 1 back home, as well as ACR in CS4. I quite realise that raw developpers and profiles make a huge difference in overall colour rendering. But I reiterate:

 

 

Just tell me which software can differentiate between an IR-contaminated black magenta and a real magenta, and I'll reconsider that you know what you're talking about.

 

...hmmm, do I detect the sound of crickets chirping?

 

No--because the M9's IR contamination is so low what you're seeing IMO is a profile error. Sorry. So you're asking the wrong question: the question you should be asking is "what IR converter can correct a magenta spike and over-saturation (contrast) issue?" Answer: all of them.

[jonoslack]

Whatever LR version came with the M9...was on the chap's laptop who lent me the M9. Also tried Capture 1 back home, as well as ACR in CS4. I quite realise that raw developpers and profiles make a huge difference in overall colour rendering. But I reiterate:

 

 

Just tell me which software can differentiate between an IR-contaminated black magenta and a real magenta, and I'll reconsider that you know what you're talking about.

The difference in the response to magenta between LR2 and LR3 beta (and of course, LR2 - which is the version which ships with the camera- is the same as ACR in CS4) is extremely noticeable. If you were using C1 version 5 then that should have been an improvement (did it have the leica specific files at that point?).

 

Without seeing those files, who can tell - but, especially if they were at high ISO, I would have expected to have seen that the waitress's dress was almost black and her sash a little less purple . . . but neither of us can possibly tell without the files.

 

Nobody is claiming that the M9 is entirely free of the effects of IR - all I'm saying is 3 things:

 

1 that in every case I have seen it HAS been possible to fix in post processing

2 that recent raw converters with proper colour calibration for the M9 do much better

3 that if people like Chris Tribble who do the same sort of work as you don't find it a problem then . . . it's just possible . . . that you're wrong!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Guest EarlBurrellPhoto]

Thank you Jamie. You sound like a photographer who knows what he's talking about when it comes to profiling. I might point out however that your original colour profile to be used with an un-filtered M8, whilst quite good considered the magnitude of the M8's contamination, nonetheless did have some global effect on colour. Are you saying that now you could profile the M8 so that one could toss the front filters? Or are you saying that the M9's IR contamination is so much less that the effect on other colours (eg, true magenta) would be minimal? If so, I'm still rather puzzled, because in the shots I made the black was just as magenta as it would've been with an un-filtered M8.