stunsworth Posted March 23, 2007 Share #41 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) You might want 16 bits, but to describe the current files as 'a nightmare' is to imply they are terrible. And they are most certainly not, as even a casual look at a current file will show. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 23, 2007 Posted March 23, 2007 Hi stunsworth, Take a look here 16bit DNG Please -Nanny does not always know best.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 23, 2007 Share #42 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Guy, and others ... reading the last several posts, I am beginning to think that this can be changed in the firmware with the existing hardware. Is this a possibility? If so, and if Leica does it, they'll be the most responsive camera manufacturer in history. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted March 23, 2007 Share #43 Â Posted March 23, 2007 I don't think there is much to it. maybe we should wait for the FAQ's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 23, 2007 Share #44 Â Posted March 23, 2007 You might want 16 bits, but to describe the current files as 'a nightmare' is to imply they are terrible. And they are most certainly not, as even a casual look at a current file will show. Â Sorry, you misunderstood or maybe I formulated wrong - what I wanted to say is that the current DNG files are wonderful, but I would expect from such a camera the possibility to choose via FW if I use 16bit or 8bit - and not having this option in a professional camera like the M8 is a nightmare in my view. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted March 23, 2007 Share #45  Posted March 23, 2007 You might want 16 bits, but to describe the current files as 'a nightmare' is to imply they are terrible. And they are most certainly not, as even a casual look at a current file will show.  Actually I wrote  "A professional camera, for that price and you do not have the choice of uncompressed and compressed DNG is simply a nightmare."  so I did NOT say that the current DNGs are a nightmare, but the lack of choice is the nightmare....  you seem to be so focused on Leica M8 that you instantly jump on everything and anyone who does not praise all coming from Leica :-(((( Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 23, 2007 Share #46 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Guy, and others ... reading the last several posts, I am beginning to think that this can be changed in the firmware with the existing hardware. Is this a possibility? This may not be that easy, Bill. Â When I mentioned about the possibility of hacking the firmware to enable 16-bit processing, our "mjh" of this forum (Michael Hussmann, who wrote the LFI article) kindly pointed out that this specific "part" is actually not there. The original 16-bit prototype he had played with did not actually generate a full fledged DNG file ... the output was only a memory dump instead, from my understanding, Leica should have developed some in house program at the conceptual design stage to construct a picture from that. Â So this doesn't seem to be a memory capacity issue only, if the M8 engine doesn't have the horsepower to process 16-bit data, or the output channels on the motherboard don't have enough throughput for the data flow ... then it's going to be one heck of a REAL upgrade. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted March 23, 2007 Share #47 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) ... if the M8 engine doesn't have the horsepower to process 16-bit data, or the output channels on the motherboard don't have enough throughput for the data flow ... then it's going to be one heck of a REAL upgrade. Â Since I always shoot both dng and jpg, I will be perfectly happy to review using the jpg, if I can have the 16-bit dng at the cost of no review of the dng. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted March 23, 2007 Share #48 Â Posted March 23, 2007 Since it seems the buffer can take about 6-8 shots (the fps being limited really more by readout) it should be possible, as long as the firmware has access to the memory completely. Remember, they already process the equivalent of 2 frames per shot with jpg+DNG. Â The trade will be with frames per minute. Â The issue is also this; the color pallet will be larger, the source and target will be bigger and the write buffer may be bigger. Â I had raised this question when the first russian tests were done before the release of the M8. What is strange is that there have been few examples of where the DMR advantage actually shows up. I would like too the best IQ, but the trade in the noise department may be a wash for higher ISO. As someone pointed out, it may be something for the lower ISO (longer exposures) and those who need the color depth. Â regards Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 24, 2007 Share #49  Posted March 24, 2007 I'm also for the 16-bit option.  None of us has any way of knowing, but I'm with Bill thinking it could be built into a firmware update.  But Leica at the moment has a lot more on its plate, so the change ouldn't be till after a couple firmware upgrades.  A couple other points: First, restating what Jørn and others said above:  If I understand Hußmann's LFI article, the reason the M8 has such low noise is to a great degree the compression algorithm used. That is, if you switch to a linear encoding, you'll lose the shadow range; and since you're opting for more differentiaton in highlights, the attendant compaction in the low end will force the noise floor up.  He also says that although a 12-bit linear file (Canon, Nikon etc) offers better than 2800 grey levels at the right end, the M8 divides the brightest full stop into only 88 different levels. That is obviously a great difference on paper, but is it visible?  Second: Nikon offers a "virtually lossless" compression as the LFI article explains, albeit a less sophisticated one than that of the M8. I doubt that many Nikon shooters make use of it because the camera can deliver better (the same argument we are using for a 16-bit DNG from the M8)--but even though there's a web page devoted to showing what losses occur with the compressed NEF, I personally can't see any difference.  So my question is: If and when we see a 16-bit M8 file, if we can't see a difference, will we be satisfied that the current M8 file structure is adequate?  Thanks!  --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robsteve Posted March 24, 2007 Share #50 Â Posted March 24, 2007 It is funny, the DMR users are hoping for the option of the smaller compressed M8 style DNG, while the M8 users want the larger DMR style DNG. The grass is always greener on the other side of the fence Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted March 24, 2007 Share #51 Â Posted March 24, 2007 yes and we put hasselblad lenses on Laica's and now I have an adapter true! to use Leica lenses on a hasselblad! Â (image circle guess anyone! :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 24, 2007 Share #52  Posted March 24, 2007 I've posted the link to Jeffrey Friedl's blog before ... not sure all of you have seen it or were ever patient enough to go through it before hitting the reply button ... again.  Jeffrey Friedl’s Blog » A Qualitative Analysis of NEF Compression  Howard may be right on the complexity of Nikon's algorithm when compared to Leica's, I guess that's why Nikon only dare to try 12 bit down to 9-10 bit while Leica go straight from 14 to 8 LOL Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ho_co Posted March 24, 2007 Share #53 Â Posted March 24, 2007 Simon-- Thanks for the Friedl link! Â That's the page I mentioned above ("web page devoted to showing what losses occur with the compressed NEF") but couldn't find when I went looking for it. Â But that page drives me batty! Hold the mouse cursor here but only after clicking one of the three options above UNLESS the text is red in which case first doubleclick the green label under the second image that appears after right-clicking the darkest portion of the image at above left... Â I'm sure Friedl says something, but I can't figure out what it is. Â Still, I tried before and will try again, and I'm glad you pointed the rest and me there again. Â --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 24, 2007 Share #54  Posted March 24, 2007 Howard, check the screen capture below that's where you should place your mouse cursor to see the differences ... don't click just move the cursor over the buttons.  Compression is basically not a bad thing ... depends on how you implement it, Canon does compression to their RAW files too, unlike Nikon and/or Leica, their CR2 format is based on the 1995 LJPEG standard, which enables high-performance, bit to bit reproduction of data. The high end Leaf backs also use that algorithm.  The use of LUT is quite primitive and Kodak has a long history doing it and it's notorious in terms of highlight compression ... perhaps Leica got this from their American couterparts? 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/19557-16bit-dng-please-nanny-does-not-always-know-best/?do=findComment&comment=210606'>More sharing options...
joern Posted March 24, 2007 Share #55  Posted March 24, 2007 ... while Leica go straight from 14 to 8 ...  Simon, thats wrong. There would be no difference to a camera jpg then.  The use of LUT is quite primitive and Kodak has a long history doing it and it's notorious in terms of highlight compression ... perhaps Leica got this from their American couterparts?  So may you can tell me why the PhaseOne Backs (all with Kodak chip) work so well. And have you ever tried to push the shadows of a Canon file the same way you can do with the Leica DNG? The Leica DNG solution seems not to be perfect on paper - but it is outstanding if you know how to use it well.  jørn  "You can't depend on your eyes if your imagination is out of focus." Mark Twain Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 24, 2007 Share #56  Posted March 24, 2007 jørn with respect, you are missing the point. No one is saying that the files arent good. What we are saying is that they could be even better! Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joern Posted March 24, 2007 Share #57  Posted March 24, 2007 Guy,  With respect, i don´t think i miss the point.  What makes me wonder is why some people are thinking that more is the best and that this would offer more capabilities. For me that´s totally wrong. And it suggests me that they are not familiar with the potential of the camera or not willing to invest some time to learn.  If you are looking for smooth highlights after you exposed (wrong) for the shadows then a true 14bit file would change hardly anything. It only enables you to destroy the partitial contrast, the soul of a good picture. And i believe that this was the intention of Leica; to give the files soul. Well done Leica.  After you have "rescued" the highlights you will find a file that is flat in the midtones.Ok, now you are adjusting the midtones with a gradation curve to stretch them a little. Uuups. Where is the contrast gone. But you have another solution. And another. And so on.  The dynamic range of the original M8 files is internally so well corrected that if you take care of the highlights WHILE you are taking the picture you have about 2 stops reserve for the shadows. It is like an slightly underexposed slide which was scanned by a high end drum scanner with a Dmax of 4.4 or more. And the color spectrum they implemented in the camera profile is rich without being oversaturated. Take a look at the histogramm before and after adjustments. All classic correction tools in Photoshop are working well with these files. Workarounds are less necessary (except the IR problem).  This M8 DNG has character. You will get so much from these files when you are willing to learn and handle its peculiarities. The camera persuades me to be awake while making my photos. And it persuades me to make more than ever before. So leave it as it is please.  That is the reason why i like this little tool so much. And highly probable the reason why i am sounding harsh.  Sorry for that. Be sure i am a dear little boy ;-)  jørn Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
guywalder Posted March 24, 2007 Share #58  Posted March 24, 2007 jørn, thanks for your explanation. can you maybe explain why having the OPTION to save 16 bit files is such a problem for you? By definition: option means not having to. You seem to be telling me that because you like shooting velvia I should not have the choice to shoot provia.... Guy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
joern Posted March 24, 2007 Share #59  Posted March 24, 2007 Guy,  Velvia/Provia - not bad ;-)  Why i don´t like the option? Because it is another one. For most people the current options are to many. Then there will be a flood of new pseudo profiles/workflow examples/raw reciepts which will be confusing because it takes a lot of time and effort to understand and handle the whole raw and color managment workflow. And it is a science to generate good profiles. As explained above i belive that the current 8+6bit are extremly well balanced. This alone has cost Leica a fortune in time, nervs and money. And they did it well. So well that most everybody like the results. I believe it will not so with this chip and true 14bit.  I have seen early file samples, too. If they where true 14bit then be happy that they changed the concept. Don´t know what others have seen but for me they were bad. Never change a working system. That is what i have learned over the years. And paid for.  But - if they could change the technology to what you prefer without loosing the current look - Chappo.  I bet they could not. jørn  BTW, did i tell you that this camera rocks... :-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted March 24, 2007 Share #60  Posted March 24, 2007 Why i don´t like the option? Because it is another one. For most people the current options are to many. Then there will be a flood of new pseudo profiles/workflow examples/raw reciepts which will be confusing because it takes a lot of time and effort to understand and handle the whole raw and color managment workflow.  Then this sounds your own problem ... and Leica doesn't make the M8 for you exclusively, don't you agree? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.