Jump to content

Cleaner fw 2.014?


lct

Recommended Posts

well, at least Leica did not forget all of the M8 users. :)

However it would be nice for Leica to explain what is "optimization".

I would too imagine that Leica would state the high ISO improvements as the highlight of the firmware improvement/update.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the subjective impressions that the M8 has become progressively less noiser. There is one genuine additional factor not mentioned as yet. Since the inception of the M8, Adobe have revised the processing engine in their Raw file converters (that is Camera Raw and Lightroom). So users of those converters are indeed seeing cleaner M8 files (at same NR and sharpening settings) now in comparison to the earlier conversions.

Readily demonstrable if you preview a suitable M8 DNG , toggling between 2003 and 2010 (current) processes in Lightroom 3.41 or Camera Raw 6.41 . Very informally with the this single example you can see differences in these 100% crops from 2500ISO (M8 FW was 1.201). First two are with zero noise reduction (frame initially under-exposed and interior lighting too.

2003 process 2010 process

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!

 

What is more significant is that with a few seconds sensible adjustment of Noise Reduction and sharpening working together, it looks like this.

 

2010 with quick NR and sharpening adjust

Edited by hoppyman
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the subjective impressions that the M8 has become progressively less noiser. There is one genuine additional factor not mentioned as yet. Since the inception of the M8, Adobe have revised the processing engine in their Raw file converters (that is Camera Raw and Lightroom). [ATTACH]265446[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]265447[/ATTACH]

 

 

 

Hoppyman

 

Yes, I updated from CS3 to CS5, a frightful expense but worth it for the much improved ACR control of sharpening and noise reduction. Though a great improvement with any camera file, I value it most when working with my M8 files.

Old, higher ISO images can be improved to the point where some noisy duds can become keepers. Now, I'm even willing to venture into 2500 ISO territory with the M8 and Adobe's improved RAW processing engine. An upgrade to CS5 or LR3 are certainly worth the expense.

 

Regards

 

Sam

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so some people here believe that PP software can change something in a RAW file and that the firmware can't... food for thought...

 

I can remember how bad the RAW files where from my Nikon D1 when it came out, horrible, a huge PP job for many of the files, the dreaded magenta cast and ISO noise - for each upgrade to ARC and Bibble the results where better and better in the end files where really good straight out of the RAW converters... Yes PP software can change, get better but IMHO so can firmware...

 

There where only a non official firmware upgrade for the D1 as I recall, for the following models there have been some downloadable upgrades also. but nothing major...

 

Since I have no chance to prove anything regarding the new M8 software compared to the old, I asked a well known pro photographer to have a look at some ISO 1250, 640 and 160 files in Bibble Pro while he was here for the weekend.

 

Our conclusion; Sharpness is retained, no serious roughness or artifacts, the noise present look similar to film grain, fully usable files given exposure is 'correct'

I'll stick with 160-640 for most situations, 1250 as an escape only...

 

I'm impressed by the performance and frankly don't care if it's the firmware, PP software or a miracle, the little M8 finally really rocks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmm, so some people here believe that PP software can change something in a RAW file and that the firmware can't... food for thought...

Firmware certainly could, only in this case it doesn’t. The CPU is already pushed to its limits; any significant improvement in this area would require faster hardware.

 

Iny any case, if Leica/Jenoptik did make the impossible possible after all, surely they would at least mention it? The notion that Leica would spend real money on incremental improvements of internal image processing and keep this a secret is ridiculous.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Firmware certainly could, only in this case it doesn’t. The CPU is already pushed to its limits; any significant improvement in this area would require faster hardware.

 

Iny any case, if Leica/Jenoptik did make the impossible possible after all, surely they would at least mention it? The notion that Leica would spend real money on incremental improvements of internal image processing and keep this a secret is ridiculous.

 

Michael, I really respect you as one of the best techies in the forum; but I too have the feel of some MARGINAL improvement at 1250... so that make this hipotesis : something has been done (marginal, I repeat) but they do not quote it, simply : imagine what would have happened HERE if in the specs they had declared squarely "improvement in NR at high ISO" ? This thread would have exploded with tons of heated discussions and GB of "tests pics" :D

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

...The notion that Leica would spend real money on incremental improvements of internal image processing and keep this a secret is ridiculous.

Less so that claiming that such improvements have been made if most people won't see them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

...The CPU is already pushed to its limits; any significant improvement in this area would require faster hardware...

 

Very interesting, where did you pick up this information?

 

By faster; do you mean powerful? surely it's not only about speed...

 

My uneducated guess is that it's a matter of finely adjusting parameters for the interpretation of the data in the process from raw data to the DNG file...

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but programmers are able to write code that execute the program faster than others - that is, ways of writing the actual code... also there are differences in compilers...

 

BTW I don't think they have installed a complete new noise reduction stage...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see any difference at all which is great because the M8 files are just the best IMO ....never shoot above 640 And at 640 the files are really special .

 

Best

Andy

 

Maybe the best thing about a new firmware version is that it makes me get reacquainted with the M8, which still produces truly beautiful files that need almost no PP. It remains a wonderful and very viable tool. :)

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

My uneducated guess is that it's a matter of finely adjusting parameters for the interpretation of the data in the process from raw data to the DNG file...

No, it isn’t. Whatever improvements could have been achieved that way would have been implemented years ago. Further improvements would require the implementation of new, more powerful algorithms. There’s nothing magical or innovative about that; superior algorithms do exist. They only required more CPU cycles than you could squeeze out of a CPU that wasn’t that powerful even by 2006’s standards, not within a reasonable time anyway.

 

(Remember that the M8 had been designed with a raw workflow in mind; it was never supposed to deliver the greatest JPEG image quality imaginable or possible.)

 

Correct me if i'm wrong but programmers are able to write code that execute the program faster than others - that is, ways of writing the actual code... also there are differences in compilers...

We are talking about firmware for an almost 5 year old cameras that has gone through quite a number of iterations. Whatever potential for improvements by streamlining the code there might have been must have been taken advantage of already.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I took this M8 speed improvement for previews and zooming as a collateral benefit from learnings with the M9 firmware update? I think reordering/organising of processing steps was mentioned briefly?

Edited by hoppyman
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Michael. Yes. However there was also a reference somewhere in one of the many posts on the new M9 firmware with a quote from Customer Service, I think. Someone had asked them what the optimisation meant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...