eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Share #1 Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would like an option in the firmware to write 16 bit files. Because the data is there. Because I may be able to create profiles or software that use it. Because I paid for those 16 bits. Because Nanny doesn't *always* know best. -Some people on this forum may be convinced like Leica that the current format is sufficient. And indeed quality from the M8 is very good. But democaracy is all about choice, no ? I just want the option available. And indeed if there were just two added features I want from future M8 firmware, they are: - Stability. - 16 bit file option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Hi eronald, Take a look here 16bit DNG Please -Nanny does not always know best.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted March 23, 2007 Share #2 Posted March 23, 2007 I would like an option in the firmware to write 16 bit files. Because the data is there. Because I may be able to create profiles or software that use it. Because I paid for those 16 bits. Because Nanny doesn't *always* know best. -Some people on this forum may be convinced like Leica that the current format is sufficient. And indeed quality from the M8 is very good. But democaracy is all about choice, no ? I just want the option available. And indeed if there were just two added features I want from future M8 firmware, they are: - Stability. - 16 bit file option. me too!!!!! Highlight tones is one of the weaker things of digital photography and every small potential succes in this area will be highly appreciated. Having the option would keep both sides happy (the fast-write-times-small-files-people and the I-want-maximum-tonality-in-highlights-people) So PLEASE LEICA.... Cheers, Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterv Posted March 23, 2007 Share #3 Posted March 23, 2007 ... Having the option would keep both sides happy (the fast-write-times-small-files-people and the I-want-maximum-tonality-in-highlights-people) ....Cheers, Tom I think that if this is technically possible, it would be a smart move. I'd like to see if people like Edmund, Jamie, Pascal and others can make interesting new profiles that work even better with this IMHO already fantastic camera. (BTW, I'd pay Edmund ) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joern Posted March 23, 2007 Share #4 Posted March 23, 2007 What for? I am very happy with the file quality. I trust in exposing to the left much more than exposing to the right. Thats what the M8 DNG perfectly delievers. The Original M8 profile is very, very good. It holds the complete spectral range of the chip. There is a difference in profiling a camera or applying a style/look to a profile. If someone uses the Gretag Macbeth Colochecker with 24 color patches for profiling than there is a lot of inter- and a lot more extrapolation. The 16bit - or better 14bit - file will show no advantage. You will place the spectral data of the camera elsewhere in the LAB spectrum. Those profiles aren´t true ICC profiles. They are nothing more than a special look for a special light setup. And you will need a lot of them and you will end up with trying every pseudo profile to get the things right. If you have the time, fine. And good luck to your decision. Even if you use the Colorchecker SG you are generating a profile that is not true because of the mixed color pigments used with the colorchecker family to avoid metamerie. But there is allways metameri with camera chips because of the spectral interpretation. Completly different to film. Much more important than a custom profile is the white/gray balance. Look at the camera profile as an emulsion and at the custom profile as a developing process. BTW, Capture One Pro is very good for applying styles. You can save your complete settings for later use. The C1 Pro color editor seems to be the best kept secret for editing ICC profiles. It is intuitive and powerful. jørn P.S. :The > I-want-maximum-tonality-in-highlights-people < are than complaining about to much noise in the shadows... Table of colour gamuts Color monitor = 16.7 million colors. Human eye = detects 10 million colors. Color slide = 6 million Color print = 3 million Analogue proof = 6 thousand Digital color proof CMYK = 2-4 thousand Printing press coated stock = 4 thousand Printing press newsprint = 2 thousand Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 23, 2007 Share #5 Posted March 23, 2007 I want the option as well. However small the difference, I want (and I am convinced that Leica needs to offer) every available option to optimise IQ. No, I am not going to use every option for every picture, but I WANT THE OPTION! For the last couple of days I have been banging on in the customer forum about how Leica dont seem to be interested in letting their customers optimise total system quality. Worryingly I seem to be in a minority. Why pay Leica prices if all you want is 'good enough'? Guy p.s. the same people who are telling us that their 8bit solution is the best solution are the very same people who said that a digital M is 'impossible', even while Epson wer just getting on with the RD1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #6 Posted March 23, 2007 It's interesting to note that almost every dentist just LOVE the M8 ... now I understand why people invented the word "teething" problems. 8 bit ... not a problem, your health insurance will cover it. LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #7 Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) What for? I am very happy with the file quality. I trust in exposing to the left much more than exposing to the right. Thats what the M8 DNG perfectly delievers. Joern, I like sugar with my coffee- you don't, so I'm not allowed to suggest that a restaurant serve sugar or sweetener with coffee ? Leica already had a prototype with this function. I see that quality in my friend's files from digital backs with Kodak chips and would want it too. So, I'm just saying please, I would like that function finalized and delivered. Even if only works well at ISO 50. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 23, 2007 Share #8 Posted March 23, 2007 p.s. the same people who are telling us that their 8bit solution is the best solution are the very same people who said that a digital M is 'impossible', even while Epson wer just getting on with the RD1 Leica were seeing it in terms of a full frame solution, which is still impossible as far as I know. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pascal_meheut Posted March 23, 2007 Share #9 Posted March 23, 2007 p.s. the same people who are telling us that their 8bit solution is the best solution are the very same people who said that a digital M is 'impossible', even while Epson wer just getting on with the RD1 Same old and wrong story: Leica never said it was impossible. They said that at the time being, no sensor was able to give the image quality one expects from a Leica M. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 23, 2007 Share #10 Posted March 23, 2007 You're right Pascal, I shouldn't have used the word 'impossible' in my response. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #11 Posted March 23, 2007 Same old and wrong story: Leica never said it was impossible. They said that at the time being, no sensor was able to give the image quality one expects from a Leica M. Existing wide angle lenses would not work at present because of the proximity of the exit pupil to the film plane. But I think anything above 50 would be ok on any current full-frame sensor. Add a couple of *new* retrofocus wides and bang! you have a full-frame M9 system based on existing technology. And those 90 mm summicrons get back to work, together with their 135mm cousins But PLEASE, can we move this old issue to a new thread and talk about 16 bit DNG files here ? Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 23, 2007 Share #12 Posted March 23, 2007 What for? ....... I am happy with file quality but I still think that the transition in the highlights could be even smoother. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woody Campbell Posted March 23, 2007 Share #13 Posted March 23, 2007 I would like an option in the firmware to write 16 bit files.. . . - 16 bit file option. Amen!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted March 23, 2007 Share #14 Posted March 23, 2007 Same old and wrong story: Leica never said it was impossible. They said that at the time being, no sensor was able to give the image quality one expects from a Leica M. Talked to a guy from Leica at a Leica-presentation and he mentioned a ff-M would be possible, but too expensive for the market today. I assume its just a question of time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joern Posted March 23, 2007 Share #15 Posted March 23, 2007 Joern, I like sugar with my coffee- you don't, so I'm not allowed to suggest that a restaurant serve sugar or sweetener with coffee ? Leica already had a prototype with this function. I see that quality in my friend's files from digital backs with Kodak chips and would want it too. So, I'm just saying please, I would like that function finalized and delivered. Even if only works well at ISO 50. Edmund Edmund, No, i don´t like sugar in my coffee. Fresh hot milk instead. Hope the restaurant you mentionend could serve this, too ;-) I have had the P1 H20 / P25 MF backs. Before these i used the Leaf DCB II live. I started digital photography in 1994. Am i qualified to make a comparsion? If so, then i can tell you that the M8 DNG are as good as the P25 files. Dynamic, tonal range, etc. The size is the difference. And for some studio shots where i need the size i rent a P25/45. I am not sure what you have seen. But i am sure that the Leica developing team have had their reasons to give us this kind of a file. With 160 ISO and a straight 14bit file you will have noise from the start. That is what you have paid for then? jørn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #16 Posted March 23, 2007 Edmund, No, i don´t like sugar in my coffee. Fresh hot milk instead. Hope the restaurant you mentionend could serve this, too ;-) Yes, I agree you're quite qualified to compare. My friends in fashion send me files, they are so far away from the fashion files I make with my own 1DsII and 1Ds that it blows me away. Clean, superb skin tone, excellent detail even in highlights. Some shadow noise for Leaf, though. I am not sure what you have seen. But i am sure that the Leica developing team have had their reasons to give us this kind of a file. With 160 ISO and a straight 14bit file you will have noise from the start. That is what you have paid for then? jørn Of course, hot milk, and apple pie too please ! Now it's becoming a nice restaurant ! 8 bits means smaller files, which means significant savings on the buffer RAM, quicker write-out to file, fewer processing bandwidth concerns etc. It's a good cost and speed optimisation (a win-win) and I won't dispute that it works. I'd say that for consumer cameras Jpeg compression is a similar win-win and serves its purpose well. But I 'd say users deserve the option to get the maximum quality when they need it. And I'm not sure about the 160ISO noise either - on the P25 sure, but this is a recent sensor, and I wonder whether it's not ok at that ISO, or maybe 100 ? Under studio flash conditions when you have lots of light in all channels (r,g, ? Actually, if I may say so, the ONLY thing which makes me angry at my old Canon 1Ds is the economy of buffer RAM which means the camera locks up after a few Raw shots. And this in a camera that cost A LOT. For some reason the camera engineers always want to economize on buffer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
marknorton Posted March 23, 2007 Share #17 Posted March 23, 2007 Of course, the more RAM you put in the camera, the most expensive it is, the more power it uses, the hotter it runs, the shorter the battery life, the more space it takes up. It's a design compromise. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #18 Posted March 23, 2007 I did a test once of the DMR, and it *really* had 1/2 stop more usable info on each side, highlight and shadow, at first impression, over my Canon at the time (cannot remember which). I like the DMR shots a lot (ask Guy!) and the M8 doesn't strike me as being quite in the same league even if it's very good. Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
larry Posted March 23, 2007 Share #19 Posted March 23, 2007 I won't be happy until the M8 can produce 64-bit files -- no particular reason, I just gotta have it and I don't care if it constipates the camera, the computer and the printer. A reality check: the M8's configuration is a compromise between performance (speed) and quality, given the limitations of today's technology. If you're looking for ultimate image quality, the M8 is not the best platform. It is, however, better or equal to anything in its class, regardless of the file output. There's no harm in wishing for more, but you'll lose something by getting your wish. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #20 Posted March 23, 2007 Compromises are good ... only when they're made by wise guys for good reasons. This with regards to the M8 however, is plain STUPID. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.