Eoin Posted March 2, 2007 Share #61  Posted March 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now looking at this Aperture one it looks deadly to me and just about perfect. This is tough stuff  LOL, I'm going to complicate matters for you now in a moment,.....  Leica made some changes in the firmware that updated the EXIF info with the correct colour calibrations, I noticed this with your image of this lady shot on v1.091.  Before the firmware update the colours reported in the exif were  Color Matrix 1 : 0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775 -0.3086 1.139 0.1921 -0.0971 0.2791 0.6609 Color Matrix 2 : 0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775 -0.3086 1.139 0.1921 -0.0971 0.2791 0.6609  Every time I tried to amend the profile in Aperture with these colour codes I got wildly skewed tones.  The new firmware v 1.091 updated exif to read,  Color Matrix 1 : 1.0469 -0.5314 0.128 -0.4326 1.2176 0.2419 -0.0886 0.2473 0.716 Color Matrix 2 : 0.7675 -0.2195 -0.0305 -0.586 1.4118 0.1857 -0.2425 0.4007 0.6578  When I input these values in to the profile we are using I'm finding a much more saturated initial decode of the DNG.  If you'd like to try this at home folks the segments are M1 for matrix 1 and M2 for matrix 2. Just replace the values with these values, you may have to go to the lower pane of PlistEdit Pro to get decimal accuracy, I'd also suggest you change the MC section as well to read 1's and 0's.  Here is a cut n paste of my sections, all you aperture lovers should give it a try and see if you like the results. If you don't just delete the M8 profile, duplicate the Nikon-D200 again and rename Nikon-D200 2 to Leica Camera AG-M8 Digital Camera and your back where you started. I think it's a big improvement but you be your own judge.  <key>m1</key> <array> <real>1.0468999999999999</real> <real>-0.53139999999999998</real> <real>0.128</real> <real>-0.43259999999999998</real> <real>1.2176</real> <real>0.2419</real> <real>-0.088599999999999998</real> <real>0.24729999999999999</real> <real>0.71599999999999997</real> </array> <key>m2</key> <array> <real>0.76749999999999996</real> <real>-0.2195</real> <real>-0.030499999999999999</real> <real>-0.58599999999999997</real> <real>1.4117999999999999</real> <real>0.1857</real> <real>-0.24249999999999999</real> <real>0.4007</real> <real>0.65780000000000005</real> </array> <key>mc</key> <array> <integer>1</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>1</integer> <integer>0</integer> <real>0.0</real> <real>0.0</real> <integer>1</integer> </array>   Image 1 is the original profile and image 2 is the profile updated with info from the exif of the v1.091 firmware 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188056'>More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 2, 2007 Posted March 2, 2007 Hi Eoin, Take a look here New Raw converter test. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 2, 2007 Share #62 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Just wondering if just playing in the saturation slider would do the samething Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted March 2, 2007 Share #63 Â Posted March 2, 2007 There are more subtle changes taking place that are not really showing on your image due to the almost flat histogram, I'm noticing changes not only in saturation but also the colours themselves. As to which are the right colours ..... well let's put it this way all the profiles in aperture have matrix1 (M1) and matrix2 (M2), it just so happens that every raw file I process through the DNG converter and then read with exiftool the M1 & 2 in aperture match the file exif matrix 1 & 2. But before v1.091 the Leica DNG had a matrix1 and a exact duplicate matrix2. If I used these values the colours were skewed. This was changed in the firmware update and I suspect this is where people are reporting that they are getting better colour or AWB results with the new firmware. I think it might be coming from the DNG decode by what ever application they are using. Â This of course is all speculation on my part but the decode info is held in these 2 strings for every application that knows how to handle DNG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 2, 2007 Share #64  Posted March 2, 2007 Really jumped off the beaten path . Did this in lightroom but not sure i got exactly the look i want yet , nice grain. LOL 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188108'>More sharing options...
passion Posted March 2, 2007 Share #65  Posted March 2, 2007 I tried a slightly different workflow: linear 16bit tiff from CaptureOne with M8 generic profile which then was passed through DxO Optics Pro, DxO Lighting set to medium. How do you like it? Cheers Looks somehow flat... compared to Guy's last result 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188176'>More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted March 2, 2007 Share #66  Posted March 2, 2007 What profile are you using in LR? The full version apparently just uses the one in ACR. I don't know if that's standard ... but if it is, then ARC has to be set up correctly.  However, if the M8 reds are hot in LR ( which IMO both the M8 and DMR seem to be in comparison to all my other digital cameras ), then just tweak the Camera Calibration in LR.  Since I don't shoot high voIume with the M8 and DMR think I will use LR for those files exclusively with the Camera Calibration set for them, at least until I get a lot faster at it.  1st pic through LR with a slight adjust to the Red Primary, 2nd one through ACR with it's default as set for my Zeiss stuff which is a bit cool (so I warm it a touch) 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188261'>More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 2, 2007 Share #67 Â Posted March 2, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Marc i am really seeing no difference between the two myself . LR is using 3.6 and my Raw is 4.0 so they look identical almost. I agree LR has a thing for the reds on the M8 and that certainly needs to be calibrated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 2, 2007 Share #68  Posted March 2, 2007 LOL, I'm going to complicate matters for you now in a moment,..... Leica made some changes in the firmware that updated the EXIF info with the correct colour calibrations, I noticed this with your image of this lady shot on v1.091.  Before the firmware update the colours reported in the exif were  Color Matrix 1 : 0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775 -0.3086 1.139 0.1921 -0.0971 0.2791 0.6609 Color Matrix 2 : 0.6863 -0.1407 -0.0775 -0.3086 1.139 0.1921 -0.0971 0.2791 0.6609  Every time I tried to amend the profile in Aperture with these colour codes I got wildly skewed tones.  The new firmware v 1.091 updated exif to read,  Color Matrix 1 : 1.0469 -0.5314 0.128 -0.4326 1.2176 0.2419 -0.0886 0.2473 0.716 Color Matrix 2 : 0.7675 -0.2195 -0.0305 -0.586 1.4118 0.1857 -0.2425 0.4007 0.6578  When I input these values in to the profile we are using I'm finding a much more saturated initial decode of the DNG.  If you'd like to try this at home folks the segments are M1 for matrix 1 and M2 for matrix 2. Just replace the values with these values, you may have to go to the lower pane of PlistEdit Pro to get decimal accuracy, I'd also suggest you change the MC section as well to read 1's and 0's.  Here is a cut n paste of my sections, all you aperture lovers should give it a try and see if you like the results. If you don't just delete the M8 profile, duplicate the Nikon-D200 again and rename Nikon-D200 2 to Leica Camera AG-M8 Digital Camera and your back where you started. I think it's a big improvement but you be your own judge.  <key>m1</key> <array> <real>1.0468999999999999</real> <real>-0.53139999999999998</real> <real>0.128</real> <real>-0.43259999999999998</real> <real>1.2176</real> <real>0.2419</real> <real>-0.088599999999999998</real> <real>0.24729999999999999</real> <real>0.71599999999999997</real> </array> <key>m2</key> <array> <real>0.76749999999999996</real> <real>-0.2195</real> <real>-0.030499999999999999</real> <real>-0.58599999999999997</real> <real>1.4117999999999999</real> <real>0.1857</real> <real>-0.24249999999999999</real> <real>0.4007</real> <real>0.65780000000000005</real> </array> <key>mc</key> <array> <integer>1</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>0</integer> <integer>1</integer> <integer>0</integer> <real>0.0</real> <real>0.0</real> <integer>1</integer> </array>   Image 1 is the original profile and image 2 is the profile updated with info from the exif of the v1.091 firmware   Ian i forgot were that rawplist resides to edit Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJL Posted March 2, 2007 Share #69  Posted March 2, 2007 Ian i forgot were that rawplist resides to edit Guy, System/Library/Frameworks/ApplicationServices.framework/Versions/A/Frameworks/ImageIO.framework/Versions/A/Resouces/Raw.plist  That should get you there.  LJ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwilliamsphotography Posted March 3, 2007 Share #70 Â Posted March 3, 2007 Marc i am really seeing no difference between the two myself . LR is using 3.6 and my Raw is 4.0 so they look identical almost. I agree LR has a thing for the reds on the M8 and that certainly needs to be calibrated. Â Â That was the point Guy, They pretty much match ... which is good when processing using multiple programs ... although a closer look will reveal just a slightly warmer cast to the second one which I didn't adjust out. Â I find the reds hot in every program when just using the native set-ups done to cover all the other digital cameras I've used: Canon, Kodak, Hasselblad, Leaf, and my old Contax (now gone). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 3, 2007 Share #71 Â Posted March 3, 2007 I did something wrong on the 3rd section I think would not take it. Starting to feel like a engineer guys, not a good moment. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 3, 2007 Share #72  Posted March 3, 2007 That was the point Guy, They pretty much match ... which is good when processing using multiple programs ... although a closer look will reveal just a slightly warmer cast to the second one which I didn't adjust out. I find the reds hot in every program when just using the native set-ups done to cover all the other digital cameras I've used: Canon, Kodak, Hasselblad, Leaf, and my old Contax (now gone).   Okay great were on the same page there. Yes you can go back and forth and work basically the same in both in case you want to move around and in your case with multiple systems this may be the best options for you. At first i thought i was seeing double. yes i think someone at Adobe has a thing for RED. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eoin Posted March 3, 2007 Share #73 Â Posted March 3, 2007 Okay great were on the same page there. Yes you can go back and forth and work basically the same in both in case you want to move around and in your case with multiple systems this may be the best options for you. At first i thought i was seeing double. yes i think someone at Adobe has a thing for RED. LOL Â Â The MC section, you can use the upper pane to enter the values as there is no decimal accuracy needed, just 1's and 0's. These will need to be fine tuned over time Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 3, 2007 Share #74 Â Posted March 3, 2007 Great I will try that later the little lady in the house has me cooking on the grill. All this work and a workout is getting me hungry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 3, 2007 Share #75  Posted March 3, 2007 Wow!  Ian--I don't see anything like moire at 100% in Photoshop--nothing at all, but maybe I'm not looking in the right place.  Care to post a 100% crop?  Talk about your totally different experience! What noise settings are you using in C1?  Don't get me wrong, if it is moire that I am seeing, it is far from obvious and would be a non-issue when printed. I really only made the comment in passing. Here's a couple of crops where I can see something that looks like moire in the hair. (If it's not classic moire, the crunchiness is presumably a 'bayer' effect of some sort?) The first is with the sharpening set to the C1 LE default of 25, 3 and standard look. The second is 25, 3 using (my generally preferred) soft look. For this particular image it would obviously be preferable to convert the RAW with a much lower sharpness setting in C1 (possibly disabling it altogether) and carry out the 'capture sharpening' stage using a more selective approach in Photoshop. 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188489'>More sharing options...
wattsy Posted March 3, 2007 Share #76  Posted March 3, 2007 Incidentally, the attached crop from an early M8 snap of mine is the only time I have seen truly serious moire effects. In general, I've been very surprised by how little moire has been an issue with the M8. 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188493'>More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted March 3, 2007 Share #77 Â Posted March 3, 2007 Ian--thanks for the posts. Â I don't think what you're seeing is moire in Guy's shot, though I guess it might be on the verge. For printing, definitely a non-issue, since any shift in patterns here seems beyond resolution extinction. Talk about pixel peeping--I'm getting tired just looking for it! Â Course, in that other snapshot, it's pretty darned obvious! Â Interstingly enough, I made a C1 convert with regular sharpening (standard look) and settings of 200/3 and I'm still not seeing moire. just more fine detail. Â Personally, though I think that's overkill, I think somewhere in the neighbourhood of 100/3 to 150/3 is the right setting in C1. Â So I don't sharpen so much in PS anymore --I only output sharpen at the very end of the process. But while it's true the M8 RAW file is relatively sharp, I still think it can take quite a bit (now all this is assuming you've got C1 noise control on the defaults, too. If they're turned off, well, then YMMV with sharpening). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fotografr Posted March 3, 2007 Share #78  Posted March 3, 2007 What amazes me most here is the wide range of renditions. I'm not sure if it should be mostly attributed to software differences, monitor calibrations or just each person's different way of seeing color. Here's a PS CS2 version using ACR 3.6 (I didn't even know 4.0 was out until I saw it in this thread).  BTW, nice portrait, Guy!  Cheers, 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/17570-new-raw-converter-test/?do=findComment&comment=188529'>More sharing options...
sandymc Posted March 3, 2007 Share #79 Â Posted March 3, 2007 Interesting, Ian is right, definitely moire, but in in Lightroom, you have to have the color noise filter set to zero to be able to see it. With the color noise filter setting at the default 25, the moire is entirely removed, without (to my eyes anyway) losing anything else in terms of image quality. I now officially very impressed with LR's noise filter:) Â Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted March 15, 2007 Share #80  Posted March 15, 2007 What amazes me most here is the wide range of renditions. I'm not sure if it should be mostly attributed to software differences, monitor calibrations or just each person's different way of seeing color. Here's a PS CS2 version using ACR 3.6 (I didn't even know 4.0 was out until I saw it in this thread). BTW, nice portrait, Guy!  Cheers, Actually ACR 4.0 is not officially out yet. It is part of Photoshop CS3 beta. But so far I am pretty impressed with how it handles the DNG files. Very similar to LR  Woody Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.