marknorton Posted January 28, 2013 Share #61 Posted January 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hello Michael - Do you have any comment on if it is possible for the M to have a 6db higher dynamic range from CMOSIS' sensor design? If it is anything close to this it will should be amazing. Rick Not sure what the units are in the DXO figures but i expect they are bits not dB. Dr Rohde's statement that there's a 6dB improvement means there's a full 1 bit improvement in resolution. The maximum resolution of a digital system is 6dB (6.02 actually) per bit, so that, for example, the maximum theoretical resolution of the CD replay system (16 bit) is 96dB. After that you run out of bits and are left with quantisation noise. In the real world, other sources of noise reduce that figure. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Hi marknorton, Take a look here First M240 RAW files released.. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
barjohn Posted January 28, 2013 Share #62 Posted January 28, 2013 Here is the M240 DNG in LR a 100% crop, first showing the extensive moire and then after moire removal in LR 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/197047-first-m240-raw-files-released/?do=findComment&comment=2226726'>More sharing options...
Rick Posted January 28, 2013 Share #63 Posted January 28, 2013 Hi Mark - DxO uses eV. I assumed he meant that because he thought the files were cleaner than any of his cameras and that would work on DxO scale of about 6 eV. That is why I asked Michael. The fact that he feels the M is less noisy than any of his other cameras is impressive. John - I like the first image with the moire. There seems to be more interesting color to the buildings in that first one that I really like like. You are going to have to work harder if you expect to be a buzz-kill on this party. Dr. Rhodes' statements are pretty encouraging. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cirke Posted January 28, 2013 Share #64 Posted January 28, 2013 CQ Dr. Ulrich Rohde - Thank so very much for providing your DNG files. I recognized your name instantly the first time these photos were posted here on the LUF. I think I have a QSL card from you buried in a box somewhere. I hope you are able to comment here. The irascible LUF forum members really are pretty decent, but I would understand if you don't have an interest to ever post here. I for one would welcome you and extend an apology from us to you for some of the QRM made here. Looking forward to your posts... 73, Rick - N7LHK +1000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaques Posted January 28, 2013 Share #65 Posted January 28, 2013 well it is at f1.7... and there could be some camera shake... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted January 28, 2013 Share #66 Posted January 28, 2013 A few quick comments on the technical aspects: 1. The files are DNG 1.1 compatible, and quite similar to M9 DNGs 2. Resolution is 14-bit, with white level at 15000 3. There are maker notes, but they don't appear to be in the same format as the M9 4. Somewhat interestingly, the file shows an aperture value, but no lens information. However, the file's been post processed; there are Photoshop "fingerprints" in it, so the aperture value may not have been in the original. 5. Also interestingly, the preview image is still small - 160x120; I would have thought that in a iPad world Leica would take the opportunity to put in a preview image that would give a better display on a tablet. As John (and others) point out, there is considerable moire evident. For reference, here's what AccuRaw beta 8 makes of the central part of the area that John posted, at default settings (so no post-demosaic filtering). So it's not just LR's processing. At a guess, this really is "no AA filter" rather than "light AA filter". Sandy 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/197047-first-m240-raw-files-released/?do=findComment&comment=2226771'>More sharing options...
IWC Doppel Posted January 28, 2013 Share #67 Posted January 28, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm glad Professor Ulrich R made it off the boat, still confused by Leica's tactics here. Nothing is making me consider changing my mind about keeping my M9-P for the foreseeable yet.... Just being honest Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mydarkroom Posted January 28, 2013 Share #68 Posted January 28, 2013 Interesting... those DNG files are already supported by Apple's Aperture. It does show the aperture guess on Aperture as well (as opposed to the M9) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
zlatkob Posted January 28, 2013 Share #69 Posted January 28, 2013 5. Also interestingly, the preview image is still small - 160x120; I would have thought that in a iPad world Leica would take the opportunity to put in a preview image that would give a better display on a tablet. I noticed this too; the preview is tiny, as with the M8 and M9. This causes delays for anyone editing in Photo Mechanic. With other cameras, Photo Mechanic will instantly show the built-in jpg preview at full screen size. With M cameras Photo Mechanic has to be set to render the raw file; otherwise the preview is a little thumbnail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 28, 2013 Share #70 Posted January 28, 2013 Well, I had had another go at the files this morning. It seems the moire I mentioned can be dealt with in LR very easily. Also, I'd rather have "honest" noise out of camera than heavy in camera plasticising algorithms. Again LR deals with the slight bitty 320 speckles very well. I do think there's a noticeable Rez gain here. Just seems the fine detail is more available. Some careful capture, creative and print sharpening makes for a very detailed print. It seems to take more capture sharpening than the M9 files. I'm pretty happy all things considered. For me a win would have been same IQ as M9 with higher ISO and faster operation (and removed recock sound). These files check all those boxes. Getting a bit excited now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 28, 2013 Share #71 Posted January 28, 2013 Also, I'd rather have "honest" noise out of camera than heavy in camera plasticising algorithms. Again LR deals with the slight bitty 320 speckles very well. Really ramping the shadows shows a regular grid pattern to the noise, even when aggressively noise-reduced in LR. Not often you'd need to lift shadow area this much, but at 320 I wouldn't expect to see such an ugly grid. In other respects, I'm really not sure what the raving is about. 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/197047-first-m240-raw-files-released/?do=findComment&comment=2226855'>More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 28, 2013 Share #72 Posted January 28, 2013 In other respects, I'm really not sure what the raving is about. To quote myself; "I'm pretty happy all things considered." That's not me raving, and I haven't seen anyone else doing hand stands either? Jury is out on the noise at 320 it seems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 28, 2013 Share #73 Posted January 28, 2013 Still one step to go to the first public firmware... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted January 28, 2013 Share #74 Posted January 28, 2013 Well, I've been taking a close look at the images - the color rendering, the noise patterns, and the way detail gets drawn. If someone had just handed these to me, and asked for my best guess as to what camera had produced them, I would have guessed a Canon 5D II with one on Canon's primes on it, and the AA filter removed. And no, that's not a really a compliment. My purely subjective opinion only of course, and these are from a camera still under development, etc, but that's the feeling I get. I'd really like to see a well lit portrait, preferably under natural light, to get a better feel for color rendering. Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 28, 2013 Share #75 Posted January 28, 2013 To quote myself; "I'm pretty happy all things considered."That's not me raving, and I haven't seen anyone else doing hand stands either? It struck me reading the thread that these images seemed to be enough to convince some people that the image quality was a significant advance over the M9. My phrase was probably ill-chosen if you object to it, and in any case it wasn't meant to refer to your posts in particular. I really want to get a hook on what people like about these images. My standpoint is that for the time being I'm opting-out of Leica's digital offering: I don't like what I've seen from the new camera so far - but I'm willing to change my mind. At some time in the future I'll need a good digital body for my Leica lenses again - and I'd prefer it to be a Leica body over a Fuji (say). But I'm not seeing anything compelling me in that direction. I particularly dislike the blown highlight transitioning in the bar shot, the overall color rendition (this is obviously subject to modification), the detail on any shots without bright daylight, the patterned noise, the apparent smearing of some objects (the way the shadows in the flowers render, for instance), and the overall look. I liked this shot though - which is also apparently taken with the new M. So obviously the skill of the photographer plays the largest part. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted January 28, 2013 Share #76 Posted January 28, 2013 I'd really like to see a well lit portrait, preferably under natural light, to get a better feel for color rendering. Hi Sandy - I just posted above about this shot: All sizes | MT-exhibition-leica-starhill-jan2013-002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! what do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted January 28, 2013 Share #77 Posted January 28, 2013 Hi Sandy - I just posted above about this shot: All sizes | MT-exhibition-leica-starhill-jan2013-002 | Flickr - Photo Sharing! what do you think? Can't tell from JPEGs - at least I can't, maybe others can - I need a raw.... Where's Jamie Roberts is my question - he's got a really good eye for color. Regards, Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 28, 2013 Share #78 Posted January 28, 2013 Well, I've been taking a close look at the images - the color rendering, the noise patterns, and the way detail gets drawn. If someone had just handed these to me, and asked for my best guess as to what camera had produced them, I would have guessed a Canon 5D II with one on Canon's primes on it, and the AA filter removed. And no, that's not a really a compliment. My purely subjective opinion only of course, and these are from a camera still under development, etc, but that's the feeling I get. I'd really like to see a well lit portrait, preferably under natural light, to get a better feel for color rendering. Sandy Is OOC colour rendering important to you? Do you not feel that's something you can control yourself on the post end? I do. To turn it around a bit. What would you like to see from these DNG samples? The no AA 5DII description, to me, doesn't sound like a negative. I'm not trying to attack you but what would float your boat? It's not going to be P65+, or S2-like is it? It's always going to be "good 35mm", which kind of means 5D / 1dX etc sans AA doesn't it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwbell Posted January 28, 2013 Share #79 Posted January 28, 2013 It struck me reading the thread that these images seemed to be enough to convince some people that the image quality was a significant advance over the M9. My phrase was probably ill-chosen if you object to it, and in any case it wasn't meant to refer to your posts in particular. I really want to get a hook on what people like about these images. My standpoint is that for the time being I'm opting-out of Leica's digital offering: I don't like what I've seen from the new camera so far - but I'm willing to change my mind. At some time in the future I'll need a good digital body for my Leica lenses again - and I'd prefer it to be a Leica body over a Fuji (say). But I'm not seeing anything compelling me in that direction. I particularly dislike the blown highlight transitioning in the bar shot, the overall color rendition (this is obviously subject to modification), the detail on any shots without bright daylight, the patterned noise, the apparent smearing of some objects (the way the shadows in the flowers render, for instance), and the overall look. I liked this shot though - which is also apparently taken with the new M. So obviously the skill of the photographer plays the largest part. Simplistically put, I like that they appear to be as good as my M9, in a hopefully much better body. Which puts my CMOS vs CCD fears to rest. Once that hurdle is jumped, it can only get better. As I posed to sandy, what would you want to see to start "raving"? Interesting observations about smearing etc. I'll review the samples again with that in mind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted January 28, 2013 Share #80 Posted January 28, 2013 Is OOC colour rendering important to you? Do you not feel that's something you can control yourself on the post end? I do. To turn it around a bit. What would you like to see from these DNG samples? The no AA 5DII description, to me, doesn't sound like a negative. I'm not trying to attack you but what would float your boat? It's not going to be P65+, or S2-like is it? It's always going to be "good 35mm", which kind of means 5D / 1dX etc sans AA doesn't it? I don't care about OOC color at all. I do care about the color rendering that's "baked in" by the sensor - the choice of dyes that defines the extent to which there's overlap between the red, green and blue photo sites, etc. Those overlaps define how good the basic sensor's color separation will be. What would I like? - cleaner colors, and not to see the kind of low level patterning that I associate with previous generation Canon sensors; something closer to what you get from the latest generation of Nikon/Sony sensors. But, like I said, that's my subjective view. Regards, Sandy Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.