Riley Posted February 13, 2007 Share #41 Posted February 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Richard the D system is separate, its 4/3 Robert yes I understand that, and I know that its possible my feeling is the logic is somehow deeper you could still buy the R9 right? thats not discontinued so your choice for digital in an SLR becomes a dSLR Leica sell more cameras I wonder just what the takeup rate of the digital back was it was a phenomenal piece of design but I suspect with all honesty it is somehow less than a complete pro solution for digital SLR all they have to do is scuttle some castings for R9 and they have the basis for the dSLR this has been common in other designs already Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 13, 2007 Posted February 13, 2007 Hi Riley, Take a look here DMR and R line. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
dhsimmonds Posted February 13, 2007 Share #42 Posted February 13, 2007 Riley Frankly I would say that the DMR is very definitely a serious piece of Pro camera accessory. In fact, every bit as serious as any other pro back for Hassies and other m/f and l/f cameras, but with the added bonus of being able to fit to the superb Leica R8/9 system and lenses. It is not just the engineering that is excellent, so is the file quality with 20mb files. I would definitely vote for a DMR-2 having used the DMR/R9 for some time now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted February 13, 2007 Share #43 Posted February 13, 2007 Well, given the choice between an integrated all-digital R10 or another compatible "back" solution, I'd personally prefer the integrated R10. The mechanical nature of fitting back to camera body opens up all kinds of issues, particularly in fitting the back properly, as well as relies on the extra winder, etc. not to mention a film camera isn't optimal for digital in terms of metering, etc... The fact the current DMR is as great as it is, well, that's a testimony to the dedication and engineering skill at work. At one point, IIRC, all the major manufacturers looked at hybrid 35mm cameras with "digital backs"--but only Leica pulled it off. But times have changed, so I'd rather see weight diminish in a better overall digital package. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted February 13, 2007 Share #44 Posted February 13, 2007 The answers to these question have no bearing on the issue. You are talking about the colour depth of an RGB TIFF or JPEG file when Jamie is is concerned about the bit depth of the raw data – two completely different issues. You may be content with an 8-bit TIFF eventually, but you would still want as many bits per pixel in the raw data, if only for preserving tonality in the shadows. The number of raw bits per pixel and the dynamic range of the image are strictly related: drop one bit and you lose one f-stop of dynamic range. Having said that, one could argue that the DMR’s 16 bit data are contaminated with noise to some extent, so not all 16 bits are really significant. That is why Leica chose to drop the two least significant bits from the originally 16 bits in the M8. But the remaining 14 bits still equate to two additional f-stops compared to 12 bit raw formats. I think you will need a lot more than 16 bit to get happy. Not much of the additional bits will be left for your beloved shadows, they are needed for the highlights and midtones. So no one can answer my initial question? Shall we ask the moderator to start a survey? reality check for maths 1. How many colours can an average human beeing perceive theoretically? 2. How many colours can be differenciated in typical changing natural environments where we usually watch pictures, prints, magazines etc.? 3. Which area is most important for the average human eye (and brain) to get happy with many beautiful colours? shadows? midtones? highlights? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
netexpress Posted February 13, 2007 Share #45 Posted February 13, 2007 I don't see why Leica couldn't take the R9 design and add a proper digital back mount just like the Hassy H or V mount for a nice snug fit. I don't mean literally like a Hassy mount but something smaller using the same general design ideas they use to attach medium format digital backs. Something simple that clicks into place accurately and easily for any end user in the field. Just gut out all the legacy film stuff from the R9 and replace it with a proper mount. I doubt that would be a major R&D venture for any competent machine shop. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 13, 2007 Share #46 Posted February 13, 2007 I think you will need a lot more than 16 bit to get happy. Not much of the additional bits will be left for your beloved shadows, they are needed for the highlights and midtones. Indeed, most bits are wasted for resolving highlights (see my article “The Nuts and Bolts” in LFI 2/2007); that’s why we need 14 bits for resolving shadows. But once we have reached a bit depth matched to the sensor’s dynamic range, there’s nothing to be gained by increasing the bit depth beyond that point. Unless you care about an ever finer resolution of mere noise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riley Posted February 13, 2007 Share #47 Posted February 13, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) It has been estimated that humans can distinguish roughly 10 million different colors Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted February 13, 2007 Share #48 Posted February 13, 2007 Indeed, most bits are wasted for resolving highlights (see my article “The Nuts and Bolts” in LFI 2/2007); that’s why we need 14 bits for resolving shadows. But once we have reached a bit depth matched to the sensor’s dynamic range, there’s nothing to be gained by increasing the bit depth beyond that point. Unless you care about an ever finer resolution of mere noise. Film is better with this shadow issue, isn't it? I'm happy that you have placed your article in the LFI. I will have a look at it at the newsstand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 13, 2007 Share #49 Posted February 13, 2007 Indeed, most bits are wasted for resolving highlights (see my article “The Nuts and Bolts” in LFI 2/2007); that’s why we need 14 bits for resolving shadows. But once we have reached a bit depth matched to the sensor’s dynamic range, there’s nothing to be gained by increasing the bit depth beyond that point. Unless you care about an ever finer resolution of mere noise. Hi, Michael. If you still have access to the 16-bit enabled prototype camera in Solms, can you try something like this? ... this is what I found on dpreview where someone was demonstrating the differences in highlight retention between 100% D range and 400% D-range modes of a Fuji S5. 100% D range 400% D range Thanks a lot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
like_no_other Posted February 13, 2007 Share #50 Posted February 13, 2007 It has been estimated that humans can distinguish roughly 10 million different colors Thanks for posting this. Really impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 13, 2007 Share #51 Posted February 13, 2007 Film is better with this shadow issue, isn't it? Not really. See, for example: Clarkvision: Dynamic Range of an Image. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted February 13, 2007 Share #52 Posted February 13, 2007 I don't see why Leica couldn't take the R9 design and add a proper digital back mount just like the Hassy H or V mount for a nice snug fit. I don't mean literally like a Hassy mount but something smaller using the same general design ideas they use to attach medium format digital backs. Something simple that clicks into place accurately and easily for any end user in the field. Just gut out all the legacy film stuff from the R9 and replace it with a proper mount. I doubt that would be a major R&D venture for any competent machine shop. Roland, how would you look through the finder? The LCD on the DMR sticks out enough... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted February 13, 2007 Share #53 Posted February 13, 2007 Hi, Michael. If you still have access to the 16-bit enabled prototype camera in Solms, can you try something like this? ... this is what I found on dpreview where someone was demonstrating the differences in highlight retention between 100% D range and 400% D-range modes of a Fuji S5. Unfortunately, the 16-bit-M8 went back to Solms. Anyway, whatever can be done to squeeze the maximum dynamic range out of a raw file – any raw file – cannot match the results you would get with Fuji’s S5 Pro. A couple of weeks ago, I got an S5 Pro for a review and I did a comparison between the S5 Pro and the Nikon D200 – based on JPEGs as Fuji’s HS-V3 converter wasn’t available yet. Here’s how both cameras fare in reproducing highlights in a high contrast scene: Nikon D200: Fuji FinePix S5 Pro (with dynamic range increased to 400 percent): Quite impressive, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted February 13, 2007 Share #54 Posted February 13, 2007 Thanks a lot for the charts, Michael. They really look very impressive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.