jaapv Posted January 11, 2012 Share #41 Posted January 11, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Yes - but might that not be the more basic difference between CCD and CMos? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 11, 2012 Posted January 11, 2012 Hi jaapv, Take a look here Kodachrome. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pgk Posted January 11, 2012 Share #42 Posted January 11, 2012 It would be an intriguing coincidence if it was:). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 11, 2012 Share #43 Posted January 11, 2012 The sensor is not color calibrated at all - it delivers a B&W image. The color is imparted by the decoding of the pattern of the (Bayer) color filter over the sensor. A Jpeg - or raw conversion- intepretes those data into a color image, so the conversion algorithms determine the color information you get into your file. The only thing that is variable on the sensor are the actual color filters.You may have noticed the little pull-down menus in C1 that give you the camera type and texts like "film high contrast" those are the presets that determine the way you images will look on conversion - the boxes the images are out of so to speak. You can choose one of them or add a profile of your choice. Iirc Jamie had a "Kodachrome" profile for the M8. Jamie? Exactly, the sensor colour filters (as Andy mentioned too) as well as other sensor elements vary from manufacturer to manufacturer. And then there is, at least in Canon's case, standard colour interpretation through Canon's own raw processing software (some might call it "canonical" interpretation in this case ). In my case, I developed both the "magenta-limiting" standard and "chrome" profiles by beginning with a set of GM charts (standard and digital) and tweaking individual LAB-value colours in Profile Maker 5 and some other profile applications. The challenge in those M8 profiles were to map as many dark colours to non-magenta variants, since those profiles were trying to limit the IR response of the unfiltered camera. The "chrome" variant of the profile did a number of things on top of the re-mapping: increased contrast in shadows (a small change in gamma IIRC) increased contrast and saturation in reds and blues skin tone mapping to the brown side of things blue mapping to include more red than normal (a benefit of the unfiltered M8) They were anything but "neutral" according to the GM charts For Jaap--what I had in mind creating those "fantasy" profiles, and as a guide, was shots from Kodachrome 25. What people told me it reminded them of, more often, was Agfachrome It would not surprise me, given straight output from the DMR, M9 (and S2, come to that) to learn that Kodak used its considerable colour knowledge to make similar kinds of modifications with filter choices and other sensor physical elements... Having said that, the variability in RAW interpretation you can get from an M9 file is of course very wide. I have to say though, that when wb "snaps into place" in Capture One the files with the default M9 profile are still very chrome-like, without the saturation issues or colour shift artefacts I experience with Canon and (especially) Nikon. IOW, it takes a lot more work to get Nikon files where I want them 90% of the time than it does with M9 (or of course, DMR). The S2 was interesting. I'm still writing up a review of being able to use the S2 for a couple of weddings and--not surprisingly perhaps--I much preferred the output from custom C1 profiles than from LR (in short, way too much red in LR with the S2, though LR won for NR). But it *was* a lot of work to get to a working profile in C1. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted January 11, 2012 Share #44 Posted January 11, 2012 Jamie, How are you dealing with color temperature with your profiles? I ask because I use Eye-One Publish which uses a MB color chart as a basis for making profiles. I find that I end up having to make profiles for all of my lighting sets (ie HID, 5500K fluorescence, flash and north window light) when using my scanbacks or large format film. Even then I have neutral gray studio walls (my fail-safe M patch) and include a Kodak Q13 and a PhaseOne patch to fine tune my exposures. If I am speaking geek there is a downloadable PDF that goes over using the AMB patches for tonal control and color balance on my website How to Print the Perfect Gicl I never tried writing a profile for my M9 because I use it under every lighting I come across and rarely felt the need to correct colors. The response of the camera has always been pleasing. However if I were shooting weddings like you, I'd go the extra mile to get the fleshtones and color of the dresses perfect. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 11, 2012 Share #45 Posted January 11, 2012 Jamie -- your point on the chrome-like results in C1 from your m9 vs the work needed with Nikon, etc., goes to the point i was trying to make. because of your experience you made them much more elegantly. i have to believe than when a new camera comes out the manufacturer sends relevant default settings to the various raw converters (c1, lr, ps, etc). these companies simply put those into their software and then ask everyone to upgrade so the m9 is in the drop down menu. there is very little chance, in my mind, that the developers at these firms are building raw processors for each new camera from scratch. the camera company/sensor builders have too much at stake to give up control in how that first photo looks from the conversion. after that, as we all know, we are on our own to do as we please. i suspect this is where the "kodachrome" look comes into being. personally, i like the look but dial back the saturation. personal choice. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 12, 2012 Share #46 Posted January 12, 2012 Just as an aside, I originally created a camera profile for my 5DII to get a better starting point for skin tones. The profile largely removed the magenta blotchy rendering canon gives you. Then when I got th M9 I shot for a while at the default settings and found the reds to be far too saturated for most things. As a result I again created a profile. If I "click between" calibrated and normal on the 5DII the difference is large (and improved), if I click between the two on the M9 file it seems to be much less difference and mostly in the red range. No real point here other than it came from a perceived problem in my case, and not geek for geeks sake (which I do do also, and have no objection to!) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pgk Posted January 12, 2012 Share #47 Posted January 12, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) It would not surprise me, given straight output from the DMR, M9 (and S2, come to that) to learn that Kodak used its considerable colour knowledge to make similar kinds of modifications with filter choices and other sensor physical elements... Exactly. And to do so would require knowledge of, or adjustment of the spectral sensitivity of the sensor alongside careful choice of filters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 12, 2012 Share #48 Posted January 12, 2012 Agree. However knowledge of seems to be hard to obtain, so adjustment of is the thing to do - in your raw conversion profile. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted January 12, 2012 Share #49 Posted January 12, 2012 Ok, so I finally tested the X-Rite ColorChecker and I think my conclusion is that it doesn't change the colors considerably. In fact, the Leica M9 is so close to reality itøs not worth the work using the ColorChecker unless itøs a very color+critical shoot. In any case, I've made a video because I never really understood the principle (and how simple it actually is to use the ColorChecker and making a camera profile in Lightroom) when looking at the X+Rite videos and website. I then hope others understand it from my video (at least I now finally understand it myself ;-) Testing the X-Rite ColorChecker with Leica M9 on Vimeo Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 12, 2012 Share #50 Posted January 12, 2012 Thorsten, You've created a single luminance profile. I created dual luminance profiles. Dual luminance means you take one outside (daylight) and one tungsten shot. The software interpolates between the two based on the WB you choose. This is due to the sensors different response at different light kelvin temperatures. I agree (as I posted above) that clicking between the two in daylight is minimal difference, but when shot under tungsten the difference in the reds becomes more obvious. IMHO that is. Good video, does show how easy it is once it's integrated into LR. I've only go the old big studio card though.....not so portable! Slightly OT (as in canon) but here is a link to my old canon 30D calibration before and after on the card itself. Certainly wrath doing in that case. The 5D was very similar, the M9 most noticeable in the reds. 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/170014-kodachrome/?do=findComment&comment=1895909'>More sharing options...
Overgaard Posted January 12, 2012 Share #51 Posted January 12, 2012 Yes, I didn't do the different light settings. I did try to do one under the two halogen lamps I have in the kitchen and that usually troubles the white balance to hit. The X-Rite turned that location into desaturated almost Black & White. I don't see much value to use X-Rite with the M9, perhaps except that those few times I have included it in a photo it has convinced me that the colors were as accurate as could be, despite the location looked dull. So it has that value; that you know it's technically right in terms of color management. It doesn't necessarily make the result pleasing or satisfactory, hence one will have to adjust it from correct to what one actually would like. For some critical shoots of dresses or similar where the colors must match I would probably use the X-Rite with what I know now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 12, 2012 Share #52 Posted January 12, 2012 Jamie, How are you dealing with color temperature with your profiles? I ask because I use Eye-One Publish which uses a MB color chart as a basis for making profiles. I find that I end up having to make profiles for all of my lighting sets (ie HID, 5500K fluorescence, flash and north window light) when using my scanbacks or large format film. Even then I have neutral gray studio walls (my fail-safe M patch) and include a Kodak Q13 and a PhaseOne patch to fine tune my exposures. If I am speaking geek there is a downloadable PDF that goes over using the AMB patches for tonal control and color balance on my website How to Print the Perfect Gicl I never tried writing a profile for my M9 because I use it under every lighting I come across and rarely felt the need to correct colors. The response of the camera has always been pleasing. However if I were shooting weddings like you, I'd go the extra mile to get the fleshtones and color of the dresses perfect. Tom Hi Tom, For the M8 profiles, the GMB charts were checked against two separately measured light sources: daylight and tungsten. Ultimately, they were weighted towards tungsten--as carefully as I could--because that's where the IR problem with the M8 was the most problematic. As some people on the forum remember, in the daylight, the standard M8 unfiltered profile I created was consequently less than full gamut for sure, and the problem was predictably on the green / magenta axis. I could never quite get the greens to where they looked "right" because the lack of magenta made them a too saturated (and too yellow) in daylight. So they weren't for the landscape shooters, though the chrome one gave more interesting, less accurate, and, I think, more pleasing results for landscapes IMO. Though an IR filter was the way to go with the M8 and landscapes, for sure. For the M9, I haven't had to do any profiling with C1 to date, except for minor tweaks in the C1 colour editor for tungsten light from time to time. These are very, very minor and get me the skin tones I want pretty much out of the box. For the S2, I was back to daylight (which covers ungelled flash) and tungsten profiling again, which seemed to cover the full set of cases there with my limited use of the camera, since you do have a lot of flexibility in the RAW converter too. I have no experience with scanning backs, but plenty with film, and a little with printing, and so I understand what you're saying about creating separate profiles for different light sources or display temps. I'm mostly happy to let the lab handle the complexities of scanning, printing and display now, but for awhile it took a lot of my time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 12, 2012 Share #53 Posted January 12, 2012 {snipped}i have to believe than when a new camera comes out the manufacturer sends relevant default settings to the various raw converters (c1, lr, ps, etc). these companies simply put those into their software and then ask everyone to upgrade so the m9 is in the drop down menu. {Snipped} I'm not sure they cooperate that much generally I can't say for certain now, but certainly in the past both Canon and Nikon used proprietary white balance algorithms in their respective company raw converters (DPP and Capture NX). I don't know if they still guard that info the way they used to, but I remember a long time ago the delay in supporting new cameras from places like C1 was so they could "investigate" what the raw file was doing... A lot of raw converters were also built on common interpretation code, DCRAW for example, and then tweaked. Leica is an exception--by using a DNG their format is anything but proprietary, and I have to believe they've talked with Adobe on the M9 and S2 support. That I still prefer C1's approach to Leica files might be, I suppose, a result of Phase's experience with Kodak sensors... but it's true that LR / ACR takes its own approach to colour, contrast and blackpoint compared with other converters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 12, 2012 Share #54 Posted January 12, 2012 thanks jamie -- i have noticed that photoshop and c1 bring up photos from the m9 that do look a bit different and my preference is for the c1. could be habit, who knows, but my mind tells me the out-of-the-box default c1 conversion of the m9 does look a bit more like kodachrome. the key phrase here is "my mind" Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM-25 Posted January 12, 2012 Share #55 Posted January 12, 2012 This time last year, I was practically stationed in Kansas as I was given the honor of being the only person left in the world shooting the stuff as the deadline had passed nearly two weeks ago for everyone else. I had every intention of loading my F100 and shooting it along side a rented D700 ( left mine at home for two years ) and coming up with a form of calibration to get the Kodachrome look with digital later, god knows I had the interest. But then it dawned on me why I should not do that.... To try an emulate something as utterly self illuminating as Kodachrome with digital would be like Installing servos into a taxidermy version of a long lost pet in order to bring life to it.....simply pointless....and kind of disrespectful. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted January 12, 2012 Share #56 Posted January 12, 2012 {snipped}To try an emulate something as utterly self illuminating as Kodachrome with digital would be like Installing servos into a taxidermy version of a long lost pet in order to bring life to it.....simply pointless....and kind of disrespectful. Unless of course you're Kodak, and actually know how to bring that pet back From a d700 that would have been quite the trick IMO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 12, 2012 Share #57 Posted January 12, 2012 I had every intention of loading my F100 and shooting it along side a rented D700 ( left mine at home for two years ) and coming up with a form of calibration to get the Kodachrome look with digital later, god knows I had the interest. But then it dawned on me why I should not do that.... To try an emulate something as utterly self illuminating as Kodachrome with digital would be like Installing servos into a taxidermy version of a long lost pet in order to bring life to it.....simply pointless....and kind of disrespectful. Kodachrome had a distinctive, well-defined look, more so than black & white films like Tri-X that varied depending on the developer, dilution, temperature, agitation, etc. While digital can be said to have "a look" too, the beauty of digital is that it is incredibly manipulable. Unlike Kodachrome, digital can be molded and shaped by the photographer in Lightroom or other software, the digital version of chemical developers and darkroom processes. I think we can embrace the manipulable nature of digital, and rather than look to it for a certain "look", we can create any number of looks according to our needs and wishes. Creating a Kodachrome look is a valid and natural outcome of the maturation of digital, a sort of backward-compatibility that allows the new technology to represent something from the old technology. I appreciate the beauty of Kodachrome, but don't have an emotional attachment to it, so I don't see anything disrespectful about getting the Kodachrome look from digital. It's a bit like playing old music on a new instrument. If we depended exclusively on 18th century pianos to play 18th century music, we'd probably have very few options. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 13, 2012 Share #58 Posted January 13, 2012 As this thread has morphed into a raw conversion and postprocessing discussion I have moved it into the postprocessing forum Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eastgreenlander Posted January 14, 2012 Share #59 Posted January 14, 2012 How are the colors on the X1 vs M9. Is the X1 less kodachromemy becouse it's a cmos sonsor? I wonder if the X1 where designed with the same color look as the M9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sblitz Posted January 16, 2012 Share #60 Posted January 16, 2012 don't know but i would imagine they are different in that the x1 sensor isn't made by kodak -- type of sensor matters not at all, it is the software that counts here. now i gather that leica had something to say about the look of the x1 photo. whether that matches up to kodak's viewpoint, i have no idea. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.