eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #21  Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration)  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  What will I lose ? It's like 1600 ISO - It's there, when I need it: less quality, faster shutter.  In the same way 16 bits at ISO 160 *when I need it* will mean slower write times, smaller buffer, but maybe more hilite and shadow detail and the possibility of ONE DAY IN THE FUTURE massaging this data to get even more out of the images by noise reduction or fractals. DNG is a negative, and I WANT THE BEST NEGATIVE. 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!
baloo Posted March 23, 2007 Share #22  Posted March 23, 2007 Table of colour gamutsColor 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  Hi!  May I ask where did you get those number about analogue proof, digital color proof and specially the printing press?  Thanks, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 23, 2007 Share #23 Â Posted March 23, 2007 I echo Edmund's suggestion. Â These are the best lenses. Let's have the highest quality dng possible. Â So, that gives us the following: Â 1. 16-bit files, 2. the need for a bigger buffer, 3. the need to send the M8 back in the future for a hardware upgrade. Â I am ready to pay for all three! Â C'mon Leica, this is not how you build a lens! After all, I don't hear your customers asking you to make things less expensive. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 23, 2007 Share #24  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  I agree that the DMR still has an edge in image quality. It might not be in sharpness but the DMR files just, the colour looks richer than the M8 files. The M8 is almost a couple stops better image wise when it comes to noise though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eronald Posted March 23, 2007 Author Share #25 Â Posted March 23, 2007 I agree that the DMR still has an edge in image quality. It might not be in sharpness but the DMR files just, the colour looks richer than the M8 files. The M8 is almost a couple stops better image wise when it comes to noise though. Â Exactly, I don't think noise will be an issue to limit getting more out of the M8 by grabbing more data. Â Edmund Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 23, 2007 Share #26 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Question has been sent to Leica. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joern Posted March 23, 2007 Share #27  Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi! May I ask where did you get those number about analogue proof, digital color proof and specially the printing press?  Thanks, Steve  Hi Steve,  Sorry, don´t remember the source exactly. I collect those things over the years. I think they are from 1997, because this was the year when i have to learn much about color separation, UCR, GCR etc. Maybe these values need an update because of new technology. I know they look strange. What is your opinion?  jørn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
baloo Posted March 23, 2007 Share #28  Posted March 23, 2007 Hi Steve, Sorry, don´t remember the source exactly. I collect those things over the years. I think they are from 1997, because this was the year when i have to learn much about color separation, UCR, GCR etc. Maybe these values need an update because of new technology. I know they look strange. What is your opinion?  jørn  I’m curious about it I know your right about color monitor but I thought that the offset printing system was able to produce about 65000 color and the digital system was able to do more but I’ve got to check my note about that.  Thanks, Steve Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hankg Posted March 23, 2007 Share #29  Posted March 23, 2007 Hi! May I ask where did you get those number about analogue proof, digital color proof and specially the printing press?  Thanks, Steve I owned a prepress shop and retouching studio in the 80's. We did all of L'Oreal and Revlon's US haircolor packaging, Cartier jewelers ads and catalog, the Pepsi Annual Report, etc., really color critical applications. I can tell you that for most web press applications you will get less then 2,000 colors more like 1600.  If you want to see for yourself take a white card and cut a little square out of the center, place it over what looks to you like a bright orange in a CMYK printed page -you will see when the color is isolated it's actually a dirty mustard color. You can't actually reproduce pinks, oranges, deep blues and a whole range of colors with CMYK offset printing. The inks are not pure enough. Your eye is fooled into thinking you are getting a full range of color when you look at a photo reproduction but if you looked at isolated flat tints of say a CMYK reproduction of the Macbeth Color Checker chart and did a side by side comparison with the original you would be horrified.  On the subject of 16 bit. It would be great if it where a menu choice like jpg, dng, etc. There maybe situations when you know you will have to do a lot of post-processing manipulation because of impossible dynamic range. In a circumstance like that 16 bit tends to hold up better where 8 bit might begin to posterize and show nasty artifacts from over correction. Even if the real world differences are minimal the marketing value would be priceless Plus you never know what inventive users and developers can do with the data if it's made available to them.  Of course when you choose 16 bit you would accept the performance trade off's of bigger files in the camera, and on your computer. I don't think Leica should make the camera more expensive for a feature that is not likely to add value to 90% of users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #30 Â Posted March 23, 2007 There're lab tests proving the DMR is superior to the M8 from various (image quality) aspects ... don't have the numbers now but will post as soon as I find them out. If my memory serves correct, Color Foto gives the DMR 61.5 points for image quality at base ISO and 59.5 to the M8. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 23, 2007 Share #31 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Same here - 16bit (14bit stored in 16bit) are what I want as choice. Then it is possible to go either way. Â BUT - Leica is so convinced lately they are doing the right thing and always go the wrong way. A professional camera, for that price and you do not have the choice of uncompressed and compressed DNG is simply a nightmare. Â Also the argumentation of some users that they are perfectly happy is not the solution - there might be some other 1000 - 2000 potential users out there, who would buy an M8 if it offered both. Â This way is just the wrong approach to the loyal M customers and also to new ones! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 23, 2007 Share #32 Â Posted March 23, 2007 ... I don't think Leica should make the camera more expensive for a feature that is not likely to add value to 90% of users. Â The change in cost is surely in the low 3 digits. All of this occurs in the software and firmware(buffer). If this were done right the first time, we would only have seen the cost related to a larger buffer. Â The lenses already set the standard for image quality. It makes no sense to constrain the image that is being captured. Â Even if this increased the cost of the camera by $500 -- and that seems unlikely -- I would be willing to pay it. I have purchased a set of god-awful expensive lenses with the anticipation of using them over many, many years. Gimme all 14 bits. Â Would you put retreads on your Porche? Would you wear sneakers to the prom? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 23, 2007 Share #33 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Okay i did get a answer on this. i work fast. Leica is going to do a FAQ on the M8 and will cover this topic there and also maybe Stefan can incorporate that in the laundry list which BTW he is working on to answer all the questions that we had on fixes and such that list is coming any day that he said he will comment on everything we have talked about. I can say there is light at the end of the tunnel though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 23, 2007 Share #34 Â Posted March 23, 2007 What a guy! Â On behalf of me, at least, many thanks. It's so nice to have our people speak to their people. Â Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #35 Â Posted March 23, 2007 All I want to hear is a yes or no ... a FAQ is good but not exactly what I expect. Â Memories are cheap by any standard today, Sony built 2 gig memory into the G1 and the whole camera would cost less than 600 bucks, how much will it cost Leica say for example ... give us 512 meg, supposing the 16-bit DNG will take 20 meg each, and that's a 26 frame RAW buffer roughly? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #36 Â Posted March 23, 2007 By the way, Guy ... if Leica is going to do such a FAQ, could you ask them at least include a 16-bit DNG for comparison purposes so anyone in doubt can be convinced? Otherwise it's not going prove anything. Â Thanks a lot for your effort. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stunsworth Posted March 23, 2007 Share #37 Â Posted March 23, 2007 A professional camera, for that price and you do not have the choice of uncompressed and compressed DNG is simply a nightmare. Â A nightmare??? Come on, be realistic. That implies that the current files are seriously flawed, and they're not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 23, 2007 Share #38 Â Posted March 23, 2007 By the way, Guy ... if Leica is going to do such a FAQ, could you ask them at least include a 16-bit DNG for comparison purposes so anyone in doubt can be convinced? Otherwise it's not going prove anything. Â Thanks a lot for your effort. Â Already done. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #39 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Thanks again, Guy ... let's hope your effort is paying off. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 23, 2007 Share #40 Â Posted March 23, 2007 A nightmare??? Come on, be realistic. That implies that the current files are seriously flawed, and they're not. Â Well, there are diferent views on this subject, if the current implementation is ok for some (like you) then just be happy, if it is not for others (like me) then needs also be accepted. Â We cannot change this today - for sure - but why not be able to leist what one expects for the future? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.