doubice Posted February 27, 2010 Share #21 Posted February 27, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) ......... tell me just 'yes' or 'no' Does the setting of lens coding in the camera apply to the info written into DNG file (apart from exif)? Tom Yes. Jan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2010 Posted February 27, 2010 Hi doubice, Take a look here Lens coding is a myth and Leica are ripping us off .... I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted February 27, 2010 Share #22 Posted February 27, 2010 Please [a reputable M9 user only ] tell me just 'yes' or 'no' Does the setting of lens coding in the camera apply to the info written into DNG file (apart from exif)? Tom Yes, the firnware corrections are applied before the DNG is written. Even if you have the lens coding " off" there is quite a bit of processing going on before RAW data is written. This applies too all digital cameras btw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 27, 2010 Share #23 Posted February 27, 2010 Does the setting of lens coding in the camera apply to the info written into DNG file (apart from exif)? If you are asking whether lens coding affects the image data stored in a DNG file, then yes, it does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted February 28, 2010 Share #24 Posted February 28, 2010 Yes or no. Provocateur! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted February 28, 2010 Share #25 Posted February 28, 2010 My dealer also told me that having the lenses coded is not really required for my M8 although UVIR filter is a definite need. Accordingly I have all of my lenses permanently protected by their UVIR filter (excluding the 2 where I am trying to still source a filter!). I do not have any of my lenses coded and from what I can see, and read it does not much matter above 35 to 50mm. Indeed I have seen no bad effects with a 35mm (f2), 50mm (f1) 50mm (f2). I have used my own 21mm lens and again I have not experienced any obvious degradation of image.....so frankly I am reconsidering what advantage I would get if I take my lenses and get them coded. I have also briefly used at my dealer the 18mm coded lens and the coded trielmar 16/18/21mm and I was impressed by the sharpness and contrast of these new lenses. Consequently I am drifting in the direction of NOT coding my older lenses and putting the cash towards new wide angle glass. (18mm, or Trielmar maybe) and the ASPH 35mm (f1.4) .... these of course come coded. My belief is that by coding the lenses I may achieve some advantage in exposure control as the firmware injects a more accurate adjustment if it knows which lens is on the camera. However the adjustment in real terms seems t be low and easily handled by a bit of bracketing anyway. Am I missing the plot here I just have not seen a burning need for coding, whereas for UVIR I have BBQ shots with white hot coals, landscapes with unreal green grass, black coctail dresses with a lovely magenta cast etc.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 28, 2010 Share #26 Posted February 28, 2010 The wider the lens the greater the need for coding if you are using a UV/IR cut filter. Without coding the wider the lens the more cyan there will be in the corners. I've used a 35mm uncoded, but I wouldn't ant to go any wider with an uncoded lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted February 28, 2010 Share #27 Posted February 28, 2010 Advertisement (gone after registration) The wider the lens the greater the need for coding if you are using a UV/IR cut filter. Without coding the wider the lens the more cyan there will be in the corners. I've used a 35mm uncoded, but I wouldn't ant to go any wider with an uncoded lens. Steve do you mean that you get cyan in each of the 4 corners, and that this is a gradually increasing thing as you move from the centre of the image? I have seen some cyan on an image in the top right corner using the 21mm but assumed that this was due to stray light that happened due to not using a lenshood. Is it not possible to remove cyan in post production with Photoshop or is that difficult?. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted February 28, 2010 Share #28 Posted February 28, 2010 Steve do you mean that you get cyan in each of the 4 corners, and that this is a gradually increasing thing as you move from the centre of the image? I have seen some cyan on an image in the top right corner using the 21mm but assumed that this was due to stray light that happened due to not using a lenshood. Is it not possible to remove cyan in post production with Photoshop or is that difficult?. Yes, the colour caste is in all 4 corners. A forum member has developed some software to correct this as a post production step - Google "Cornerfix" and "M8". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BigSplash Posted February 28, 2010 Share #29 Posted February 28, 2010 Yes, the colour caste is in all 4 corners. A forum member has developed some software to correct this as a post production step - Google "Cornerfix" and "M8". Steve many thanks for this. I have downloaded it and shall now see if it makes a significant difference. Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bybrett Posted February 28, 2010 Share #30 Posted February 28, 2010 The wider the lens the greater the need for coding if you are using a UV/IR cut filter. Without coding the wider the lens the more cyan there will be in the corners. I've used a 35mm uncoded, but I wouldn't ant to go any wider with an uncoded lens. I would agree with this advice for M8. And of course the paradox is if you do not use a UV/IR filter you do not need 6 bit coding. You just need a IR fix... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted March 1, 2010 Share #31 Posted March 1, 2010 I prefer, to shoot the M8.2 without any filters. I have less issues with ghosts and reflections and do color correct magenta casts in PP on the rare occasions, where it is necessary. The golf bag shot above is a nuisance indeed bud a quick and easy fix even in the PP compromised Lightroom (local color filter and color channel adjustments to magenta ). It is even easier of course in the full fledged Photoshop. I do need much more time and work, to fix ghost images in night shots or veiling flare during heavy backlight on sunny days. I too prefer, to sharpen images less in PP and have more acuity of the files, therefore, love the IR and AA filterless M8 sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
minhhich Posted March 2, 2010 Share #32 Posted March 2, 2010 Just read a post on Luminous Landscape, the guy say if you use C1 and use Phase one P30-Flash-easy black profile it will fix the problem except the overall sat of the image will slightly decrease. Will try myself a bit later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 2, 2010 Share #33 Posted March 2, 2010 Everybody is free to use the camera as he/she wishes, obviously, but non-filtered shots, despite all profiles and post-processing - I know, I have tried it often enough and the only method that works more or less is to use fairly complicated LAB procedures- are often spotted from a mile away. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.