lct Posted June 28, 2011 Author Share #61 Posted June 28, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Froggies must be specially sensitive to placebo, Henry. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted June 28, 2011 Posted June 28, 2011 Hi lct, Take a look here Cleaner fw 2.014?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
darvin2138 Posted June 28, 2011 Share #62 Posted June 28, 2011 Cleaner or not, at least we have an updated firmware... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drz1959 Posted June 28, 2011 Share #63 Posted June 28, 2011 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_livsey Posted June 28, 2011 Share #64 Posted June 28, 2011 However it would be nice for Leica to explain what is "optimization". . See this post in another,related thread. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/leica-m8-forum/188056-new-firmware-m8-online-3.html#post1747424 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squarenegs Posted June 29, 2011 Share #65 Posted June 29, 2011 Will there even be a next update? I've heard rumors of this being the last one. There is a FW update on every April 1st that gives improved noise reduction and full placebo effect. S.F. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted June 30, 2011 Share #66 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) 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 June 30, 2011 by hoppyman 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites 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 ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/155170-cleaner-fw-2014/?do=findComment&comment=1719163'>More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 30, 2011 Share #67 Posted June 30, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Wow, this thread is still going on (just checked back after a few days) ! I finally came around updating my M8.2. I think the brassing looks different now. I have heard, you can't go back to the old firmware, so I am stuck :-( 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
squarenegs Posted June 30, 2011 Share #68 Posted June 30, 2011 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 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted June 30, 2011 Share #69 Posted June 30, 2011 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 30, 2011 Share #70 Posted June 30, 2011 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. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
framestore Posted June 30, 2011 Share #71 Posted June 30, 2011 Cleaner or not, at least we have an updated firmware... +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted June 30, 2011 Share #72 Posted June 30, 2011 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" 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted June 30, 2011 Author Share #73 Posted June 30, 2011 ...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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erik Gunst Lund Posted June 30, 2011 Share #74 Posted June 30, 2011 ...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... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted June 30, 2011 Share #75 Posted June 30, 2011 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. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted June 30, 2011 Share #76 Posted June 30, 2011 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted June 30, 2011 Share #77 Posted June 30, 2011 (edited) 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 June 30, 2011 by hoppyman Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted July 1, 2011 Share #78 Posted July 1, 2011 I think reordering/organising of processing steps was mentioned briefly? Some unspecified internal optimizations were mentioned. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted July 1, 2011 Share #79 Posted July 1, 2011 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. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
john_newell Posted July 2, 2011 Share #80 Posted July 2, 2011 I believe the internal optimization needs further work. When I press "menu," the screen displays "Program Alarm 1202." 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.