cbretteville Posted March 1, 2007 Share #1 Â Posted March 1, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) First of all let me just say that I am aware that releasing 1.091 was a mistake and the update has been pulled. I still thought you would want to know about what I found this in case it is a bug you (or Jenoptik) whish to fix. Â Comparing DNGs shot with 1.09 and 1.091 I found a difference in the basic IFD tags. Â In IFD0 the X and Y resolution data for the thumbnail image are both set to zero in images recorded using 1.091. In 1.09 these were both 72 (recorded as 72/1). In IFD1 the X and Y resolution data for the primary image are also set to zero, in 1.09 they were both set to 300 (recorded as 300/1). Â Regards, - Carl Bretteville Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 1, 2007 Posted March 1, 2007 Hi cbretteville, Take a look here To Leica: Possible bug in M8 FW 1.091 exif tags. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
carstenw Posted March 1, 2007 Share #2 Â Posted March 1, 2007 In order to keep the bugs in this thread up-to-date, here is another one (also wrong in 1.09): Â "Menu"/"Auto Slow Sync" has an option "Lens Dependant". This should read "Lens Dependent". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted March 1, 2007 Share #3 Â Posted March 1, 2007 ... "Lens Dependant". This should read "Lens Dependent". Unless it refers to someone suffering from LBA (Lens Buying Addiction). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted March 1, 2007 Share #4 Â Posted March 1, 2007 Another 1.091 bug(let): Â When viewing images using PLAY, pressing the left and right arrows appears to sometimes advance the counter, flash the new image, and then re-display the old image. Going back and then forwards again the correct image appears. This may only be the case with the preview JPG, I am not sure. It doesn't happen so often, but it did happen to me a few times today. Â On the bright side of things, the white balance is *much* better: Nothing special about this shot, except that there is no way the 1.09 would have done anything useful with the white balance in this shot, whereas 1.091 nailed. I didn't even touch the white balance. I also have other shots with much better white balance. Greetings from Berlin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
isaac Posted March 2, 2007 Share #5 Â Posted March 2, 2007 At least one additional note to the EXIF-Tags: "LightSource" (tag 0x9208) has always the value 0 (unidentifed). It would be nice if there would be the 'real' value of selected color temerature in case the tag "WhiteBalance (0xA403) is 1 (manual). There exists well defined tag values for: 0 = Unknown 1 = Daylight 2 = Fluorescent 3 = Tungsten (incandescent light) 4 = Flash 9 = Fine weather 10 = Cloudy weather 11 = Shade 12 = Daylight fluorescent (D 5700 - 7100K) 13 = Day white fluorescent (N 4600 - 5400K) 14 = Cool white fluorescent (W 3900 - 4500K) 15 = White fluorescent (WW 3200 - 3700K) 17 = Standard light A 18 = Standard light B 19 = Standard light C 20 = D55 21 = D65 22 = D75 23 = D50 24 = ISO studio tungsten 255 = Other light source Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.