Kaufman interview

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

From Focus Numerique

 

Various interesting nuggets....more 'monochrom' variations, more M features (sure to be debated), admission of mistake on 'mini M' program (no s**t), new products in Fall and Spring, etc.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[KanzaKruzer]

Leica sees the black and white market growing and "...it would make sense to develop monochrom devices... as it is the best way to shoot B&W."

 

That sounds really interesting. I was not comfortable starting my rangefinder experience with a B&W sensor, but by the time I get familiar with my Leica M (still waiting) I may be ready to try out a B&W sensor.

[Guido]

"More and more photographers use black&white"

 

Indeed, but... returning to film!

[masjah]

What Leica really should do is develop a camera with an interchangeable sensor, so you could have one sensor specifically and exclusively designed for black and white, or one specifically designed for colour.

[Phil U]

 

Au final, la plupart des appareils sont construits au Vietnam ou aux Philippines et la qualité finale n'est pas excellente.[/Quote]

 

Given that Leica had to recall most of their flagship release because the bloody strap lugs were falling off, i have a mental image of Dr. Kaufman throwing stones around his greenhouse.

[Lee Martin]

It may be that there's a black and white X3 on the cards then. I think that would generate a huge amount of interest .

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is interesting:

 

But I can tell you we are working on many different solutions for the full format.

[toyfel]

I am pleased to hear that they seem to work on new cameras with BW sensors. A BW type240 would be my absolute dream camera by far!! Go, Kaufman, go!

[jaapv]

Or a Monochrome XVario Might be very nice

[Alberti]

What Leica really should do is develop a camera with an interchangeable sensor, so you could have one sensor specifically and exclusively designed for black and white, or one specifically designed for colour.

 

That was the venture into the Leica-R replaceable back, wasn't it?

Could be possible on a mechanical-M though. But an uncontrolable product range I'm afraid.

[masjah]

That was the venture into the Leica-R replaceable back, wasn't it?

Could be possible on a mechanical-M though. But an uncontrolable product range I'm afraid.

 

I was in part making an ironical retrospective reference to a miechanical M, where you can already easily change the sensor from colour to monochrome. A monochrome DMR would indeed have been fun though!

[Angora]

mais selon nous, les asiatiques voient légèrement les couleurs différemment que les Européens. C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi certains films argentiques ou certains capteurs ne sont pas calibrés de la même manière en Europe et en Asie.

 

The real interesting bit of this interview.

[Paul J]

The real interesting bit of this interview.

 

I was fascinated by this also.

[Rick]

mais selon nous, les asiatiques voient légèrement les couleurs différemment que les Européens. C'est d'ailleurs pourquoi certains films argentiques ou certains capteurs ne sont pas calibrés de la même manière en Europe et en Asie.

 

The real interesting bit of this interview.

 

That may well be true, but why wouldn't they want true color reproduction? Maybe, a certain color rendition is just more popular and it has nothing to do with how they see color.

[adan]

On the off-topic: back when Fuji first introduced their color films to the US in the mid-70's under their own name, they ran a print ad showing two apparently identical pearls on a black background.

 

The headline was "Can you see the difference in these pearls? Japanese eyes can!" - and then went on to make the case that the Fuji films captured subtler color distinctions than Kodak's then-dominant films.

 

There is some scientific basis to the idea: Are ethnic differences in the F-M 100 scores ... [Clin Exp Optom. 2002] - PubMed - NCBI

 

RickLeica - how do you define "true color reproduction?"

 

Same wavelengths out as came in? Not really possible by any color process except (theoretically) Lippmann Plates, which use wavelength interference to "embalm" the exact wavelengths exposed, in the silver structure of a photographic plate emulsion: Gabriel Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

"Same color as I saw?" But then you get back to the question of who is doing the seeing.

[Paul J]

Surely, by numbers and measurements, we can have pure colour though?

 

How we perceive these colours on a personal level is entirely different. Physiology, even psychology will have it's say in the perception of it.

[mjh]

Surely, by numbers and measurements, we can have pure colour though?

If we could see wavelengths we might, but we cannot. Colour is something created by our brains.

 

Anyway, the fact that Europeans, Asians, and Africans have different colour preferences – especially with regard to skin tones – has been well known for decades. I think it was 10 years ago when a Fujifilm representative told me about those preferences: Europeans want darker skin, Africans like lighter skin, whereas Asians prefer their skin tones to be more purplish. Fuji adjusted their mini labs accordingly so everyone would get prints in the colours they preferred.

[adan]

"Pure colour?" Not really.

 

Colo(u)r only exists in the mind - it is nothing BUT "perception".

 

In researching my previous post, I explored the question of "magenta" - which is a color (or range of colors) not represented in the spectrum. The color halfway between red and violet in the spectrum is "green" - and none other. There is no wavelength (number to be measured) for magenta.

 

I left it out as a red herring, but there is an internet debate over whether "magenta" counts as a color or not: one side arguing that it is not, since it doesn't appear in the spectrum and is only a "figment" of our perception, and the other arguing that ALL colors are only figments of our perception.

 

The one thing both sides agree on is (in one article's phrasing): "The truth is, no color actually exists outside of our brain's perception of it. Everything we call a color—and there are a lot more than what comes in your box of Crayolas—only exists in our heads."

 

cf:

Magenta Ain't A Colour

Yes, Virginia, there is a magenta | Ars Technica

 

If you paint a board with red and green chequers, and then view or photograph it from a distance where the individual chequers are not visible, your eyes or the film will still receive a mix of red and green wavelengths, and record or perceive "dark yellow."

 

See attached example - you can download it and zoom in to see it is made up only of "pure" red and "pure" green pixels (within the realm of jpg compression effects) and no yellow pixels at all - yet appears as neither red nor green, but as yellow.

 

"By numbers and measurements" - how would you describe this situation? What is the "pure color" of that square - numerically?

 

Read up on James Clerk Maxwell's experiments on color perception, which showed that using only three "pure" colors, the perception of any color can be induced. James Clerk Maxwell, "Experiments on Colour as Perceived by the Eye"

 

Measure a "Maxwell photograph" with a spectrometer, and you'd get three monochromatic spikes at red, green, and blue. The picture would contain no yellow light, yet yellow would be visible if it was present in the subject.

 

And a good thing, or else color films would need an infinity of layers, and Bayer patterns would need an infinity of differently-colored pixels, to reproduce all colors. Fortunately, just as the human brain is able to add 24 still photographs together in a second and get "continuous motion," the human brain is capable of adding 0+1+1 and getting 1/2 (in the case of yellow) or adding 1+0+1 and getting "undefined" (in the case of magenta).

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[dkCambridgeshire]

Interesting to read that he says the 'Mini M' name was not his idea and that lessons have been learnt ... i.e. don't mess with the M.

 

Also, "Today we have technology without a mirror that can do everything a DSLR can do"

 

This suggests there are bound to be future non-rangefinder 'Leica R lens' compatible cameras ... not pure 'R' solutions but better solutions than using e.g. Canon DSLRs and other manufacturers' mirrorless ILCs. 'Better' because Leica Camera AG can 'tweak' their cameras, and specify CMOSIS sensors, to produce images with the Leica look.

 

dunk

[120]

...

Also, "Today we have technology without a mirror that can do everything a DSLR can do"

 

...

 

I think this paragraph is interesting, and apparently says there will be no more reflex cameras? (Could be my French.) Including S line?