jaapv Posted January 5, 2007 Share #81  Posted January 5, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Jaap, to avoid vignetting on film, the WATE uses an over-size filter mounted on the lens using a step up ring and the standard lens hood and cap cannot be used. If you're using the lens on an M8, if you put an IR filter on all the time, the supplied hood and cap are redundant and there's no hood/cap solution. The cyan issue is that the lens doesn't tell the camera what the selected focal length is so unless they re-design the lens, the user will have to select this manually or else Leica will shoot for one-size-suits-all in their optimisation which, given the WATE is going to encounter the most extreme cyan, doesn't appeal. Personally, I'd like to see them pull the WATE for a mechanical redesign and offer a smaller IR filter for M8 use which retains the use of the hood and cap - even though it will vignette on film.  Bottom line is that if you are spending €3500 on a lens, these compromises should not be required. I did not realise that. It seems ironical that the lens released to complement the body is the only one that has problems with the filters required by the body. I must admit I was no fan of the WATE from the beginning as I thought it - as you may recall from my original Photokina post on RFF- a bit of a lump with a Rube Goldberg-ish viewfinder solution , but even so it should be usable on the camera it was designed for. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 5, 2007 Posted January 5, 2007 Hi jaapv, Take a look here New Band is Firmware Bug. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steve_l Posted January 6, 2007 Share #82 Â Posted January 6, 2007 Jaap - Well, it needs a 67mm so it doesn't vignette with film. They really need to understand that it isn't possible to make everything work for film and digital....with the crop factor.....but I think they still have a film mentality about a lot of things. We don't need it to work for both, we need two versions, one for each. And they aren't that hard to do, even if they keep the optics (which cover more than needed for a 1.33 crop), a simple mechanical solution for the filter/hood would solve it. Â And, well, they also need to add the mechanism to move hte frameline lever so that cyan can be corrected...but they also know how to do that, they do itn on the other Tri-elmar. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 6, 2007 Share #83  Posted January 6, 2007 Hi All, I'll look for the thread when I get more time but over the past week, Furrukh, Rex and others had been discussing a strange band that can appear in M8 files when a light source is outside the frame. I had contacted Leica about this and today heard back that Leica has identified the problem as one related to the firmware. That also means it can be fixed in firmware and the fix will be included in version 1.10.  I've been out of touch with the forum, mostly, over the past week and so will take a look to see if there's any more info. that I should pass on to Leica.  Cheers,  Sean  Thank you for this info. I was able to induce this phenomonon with the M8 I got last week. 2nd wave, FW 1.09. I was using an older 50 Summicron with an E. Leitz Wetzlar 39mm size IR transmitting filter, M8 at ISO 640, JPEG set to B&W, attachments are downsized JPEGS. Taken on flight from Cleveland to Wash., D.C.. I had the big light source in the sky on the 50mm frame-line. What is interesting is that the band shape varied from shot to shot and is thinner near clouds and over reflections from water. Interesting too is that the TTL meter works fine for IR, no need to guess exposure or bracket. BTW, I may have 'sold' the M8 to two prospective buyers while I was in Cleveland. One had a lot of previous M experience. The other found the M8 interesting because of its compact size compared to a dSLR. He also got used to RF focusing pretty quick. Tom Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here… Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/12609-new-band-is-firmware-bug/?do=findComment&comment=135451'>More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 6, 2007 Share #84 Â Posted January 6, 2007 Gosh, those pictures are pretty ugly. In that last picture, the light source is the glare off the wing. What's disturbing is that these are not punishing shots - how many of us have taken pictures like that I wonder? Â Interesting Rex that you think it's the 24 pixels around the edge, maybe that's where the 2 degrees comes in - panning the camera through 2 degrees is sufficient to move a "typical" bright light source in and out of the "sweet spot". Â I'm wondering whether it's a case of the masking of these reference pixels not being solid enough to exclude the light so that a very bright light makes it through to the pixels underneath and messes everything up. If so, it's a sensor design/fabrication problem and they better hope it can be fixed in firmware, somehow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted January 6, 2007 Share #85 Â Posted January 6, 2007 Mark, I also think so. The 2 degrees angle is probably the angle a light source has to be with respect to the normal to the front of the lens (same plane as the sensor) to cause this. I think that the people at Leica took a bright point light source and panned the camera with respect to it from the edge and discovered that the sweet spot is at 2 degrees. Â Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 6, 2007 Author Share #86 Â Posted January 6, 2007 panning the camera through 2 degrees is sufficient to move a "typical" bright light source in and out of the "sweet spot". Â Having spoken a little further with Leica last week, that's my understanding of what they meant with the two degrees comment. These are informal conversations with contacts at Leica and information is being translated to English, etc. - it not as precisely described as a formal statement would be and the information is relayed along via a small chain of people. In any case, they're aware of it and are trying to find a firmware fix. Â Cheers, Â Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 6, 2007 Share #87 Â Posted January 6, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Idly wondering whether it's the good old IR light which is making it through the sensor black masking which could be 100% opaque to visible light but not to IR... Do we know if this banding occurs with IR filters in place? Â Sean, they sounded confident of being able to fix the 58% vertical band but you're not giving me the same warm fuzzies that they're as bullish with this issue. The problem is that "trying" might lead to "can't" and that''s why I'm worried. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
khanosu Posted January 6, 2007 Share #88 Â Posted January 6, 2007 Yes Mark, this banding occurs with and without IR cut filters. Most of my tests were done with the filter on. A few were without the filter; made no difference. Â Furrukh Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 7, 2007 Share #89  Posted January 7, 2007 Gosh, those pictures are pretty ugly. In that last picture, the light source is the glare off the wing. What's disturbing is that these are not punishing shots - how many of us have taken pictures like that I wonder? Interesting Rex that you think it's the 24 pixels around the edge, maybe that's where the 2 degrees comes in - panning the camera through 2 degrees is sufficient to move a "typical" bright light source in and out of the "sweet spot".  I'm wondering whether it's a case of the masking of these reference pixels not being solid enough to exclude the light so that a very bright light makes it through to the pixels underneath and messes everything up. If so, it's a sensor design/fabrication problem and they better hope it can be fixed in firmware, somehow. I think nobody has reported anything as extreme as this with 1.06. Making it all the more likely that it is a firmware-solvable thing, not a hardware problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share #90  Posted January 7, 2007 Idly wondering whether it's the good old IR light which is making it through the sensor black masking which could be 100% opaque to visible light but not to IR... Do we know if this banding occurs with IR filters in place? Sean, they sounded confident of being able to fix the 58% vertical band but you're not giving me the same warm fuzzies that they're as bullish with this issue. The problem is that "trying" might lead to "can't" and that''s why I'm worried.  Hi Mark,  Right, they have said that the vertical band will be fixed with firmware 1.10. It is true that they're still working on a solution for the other problem but I think that second one is "newer" to them. We'll see. They fixed the light streaking with the hardware change and they tell me they've fixed the vertical band as of 1.10. So, I'm hoping they'll go 3 for 3.  At least they're listening to feedback and responding to it. I can think of some companies that don't do either very well. Of course, we'd rather all of this had been sorted before the first camera was sold but, as you know, new models of lots of things sometimes have teething problems. I think that they'll get better at this stuff with more experience.  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 7, 2007 Share #91 Â Posted January 7, 2007 I think nobody has reported anything as extreme as this with 1.06. Making it all the more likely that it is a firmware-solvable thing, not a hardware problem. Â Barely two months ago, but people were concentrating on the banding and ghosting when the light source was in the frame - mirror images, horizontal streaking and all. Anyone who saw this edge sensitivity probably just thought it was the same thing - after all, it fits the profile - a bright light at least (partially) in the frame. With the hardware fix and new firmware level, the original problem has gone and the new one can be seen in isolation. Â If the problem is to do with the reference pixels being corrupted by bright light sources, Leica can only truly solve the problem in firmware by no longer assuming the refererence pixels are usable for providing a reference black level. If so, where to they get their balck level from, how do they compensate for sensor ageing and drift, how do they compensate for changing temperature? Â Any attempt in firmware to say "we're going to use the reference pixels but try to identify ones which are corrupted" is going to be a nightmare. How do you catch all potential shooting situations? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 7, 2007 Share #92 Â Posted January 7, 2007 At least they're listening to feedback and responding to it. I can think of some companies that don't do either very well. Of course, we'd rather all of this had been sorted before the first camera was sold but, as you know, new models of lots of things sometimes have teething problems. I think that they'll get better at this stuff with more experience. Â Sean, I certainly accept new products have teething problems - my own do too - and that Leica are listening and responding to those in the M8, far better say than Epson who have shown a cynical disregard to their customers. Â The original banding and ghosting problems were put down to the sensor read-out electronics/firmware and this has been solved (if we believe the comment in LFI) by a relatively simple hardware change and updated firmware. As you said, Furrukh's/Rex's banding problem has lead to all sorts of speculation and we don't know what the root cause is. What worries me is that it might just be the first problem we have seen where the sensor is to blame. Â I agree with your last comment that Leica will be getting better at this stuff and whatever is next from them will benefit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted January 7, 2007 Share #93  Posted January 7, 2007 Barely two months ago, but people were concentrating on the banding and ghosting when the light source was in the frame - mirror images, horizontal streaking and all. Anyone who saw this edge sensitivity probably just thought it was the same thing - after all, it fits the profile - a bright light at least (partially) in the frame. With the hardware fix and new firmware level, the original problem has gone and the new one can be seen in isolation. If the problem is to do with the reference pixels being corrupted by bright light sources, Leica can only truly solve the problem in firmware by no longer assuming the refererence pixels are usable for providing a reference black level. If so, where to they get their balck level from, how do they compensate for sensor ageing and drift, how do they compensate for changing temperature?  Any attempt in firmware to say "we're going to use the reference pixels but try to identify ones which are corrupted" is going to be a nightmare. How do you catch all potential shooting situations?  Yes, I'm pretty sure its the reference pixels. I don't have Kodaks data sheet handy, but I remember that the reference band was 24 pixels wide on all sides. But maybe it wouldn't be that hard to exclude the blown highlight data in software. I have seen evidence that the blown highlights have to be REALLY blown to cause the banding. Like 4 F stops or so. It's some sort of gross overflow deal. Thats why it doesn't show up all that much. It has to fall in a very narrow band AND be really bright.  I am next on my dealers wait list. It has been torture doing all this forensic beta testing by induction. It's like doing field work in archeology, can't do any proper experiments.  Rex ...grrr Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 7, 2007 Share #94 Â Posted January 7, 2007 I think Leica should be bracing themselves for more issues once you do get your hands on a real camera! Â Would love to know what Kodak's take on this is... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhoelscher Posted January 7, 2007 Share #95 Â Posted January 7, 2007 Afaik all Leica lens hoods are designed to accomodate a filter. No "slim" filters are required for any Leica lens. ... Â Jaapv, Â Just to let you know, I just received a 55mm B+W 486 filter (the "non-slim" regular version), and with this filter screwed into my Leica 21mm f/2.8 lens, I cannot mount the supplied lens hood. So, for at least this lens, this isn't true. Â DH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted January 7, 2007 Share #96 Â Posted January 7, 2007 David, what's the problem? Is it that hood will not fit over the filter ring or that you cannot push the hood on far enough for the claws to engage with the filter slot. Â I sure hope the Leica filters are not going to have the same problem. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 7, 2007 Share #97  Posted January 7, 2007 Jaapv, Just to let you know, I just received a 55mm B+W 486 filter (the "non-slim" regular version), and with this filter screwed into my Leica 21mm f/2.8 lens, I cannot mount the supplied lens hood. So, for at least this lens, this isn't true.  DH   The hood on the 24, which is the same one as the 21, is a very tight fit over filters. Make sure the filter is screwed in all the way, the hood is on square, and push it in all the way. I was able to fit a standard B+W 486 on my 24 with hood OK. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
waterlenz Posted January 7, 2007 Share #98  Posted January 7, 2007 I think Leica should be bracing themselves for more issues once you do get your hands on a real camera! Would love to know what Kodak's take on this is...   Especially if this pixel arrangement (refernce pixels) is common to Kodak sensors. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted January 7, 2007 Author Share #99  Posted January 7, 2007 Jaapv, Just to let you know, I just received a 55mm B+W 486 filter (the "non-slim" regular version), and with this filter screwed into my Leica 21mm f/2.8 lens, I cannot mount the supplied lens hood. So, for at least this lens, this isn't true.  DH  True for the 21 and 24 and I believe that the filters Leica will be supplying will have a thinner ring. Can't confirm that for sure but that's my understanding. I was discussing this issue with them recently. One can mount the hood but not push it in quite far enough to engage the clips. The filter ring just needs to be a bit thinner.  Cheers,  Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dhoelscher Posted January 7, 2007 Share #100 Â Posted January 7, 2007 ...One can mount the hood but not push it in quite far enough to engage the clips. ... Â That's exactly my experience ... Â DH Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.