Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 14, 2007 Share #41 Â Posted April 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks Vinay . Pano tools for me is just not a option, simply don't have time for that but if you do it is a good option. It's interesting thou in many lighting setups with the WATE and other lenses i seem to be coming up perfect and no under or over corrections being done . We also have to remember the IR filters block the IR light so if it is heavy or light it is blocking it . What the worry is is what leaks in to the visable light but the intention of the IR filter is to block or cut the IR light out to begin with. The one point you made about the firmware not taking into account the different amounts of IR light,well the camera knows the color temp being shot also and very well could be making that adjustment based on color temp. that is a very good distinct possiblity. i do know Leica told me this was a big thing to deal with and it was all done by computer animation and i bet the color temp may have been involved but of course we don't know this for sure but the camera does know the color temp and could be making adjustments based on that. Speculation of course but not sure I would rule that out . It would be interesting to see how they figured this all out Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 14, 2007 Posted April 14, 2007 Hi Guest guy_mancuso, Take a look here Update on Leica and 486 IR Cut Filters. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Guest tummydoc Posted April 14, 2007 Share #42 Â Posted April 14, 2007 My preliminary results don't suggest the camera is applying any different correction based on colour temp, or at least that it's effective. If the camera is taking colour temp into consideration, then either the colour temp measurement needs better calibration or the correction algorithms need more work. Â Even though by my amateur status I can deal with Panotools with less downside than you, I would much rather the camera do those corrections--after all, the need arises out of a chain of consequences arising from the camera's particular sensor. However it's also a hassle having to clone out odd filter reflections (and contrast loss from veiling flare is pretty much unrecoverable), which is just so much less with the Heliopan filters. Â What would really be awesome, would be if Leica had Phase One put the same cyan correction process into the C1 raw conversion, with an adustable level slider and numerical value control. That way with coded lenses we could quickly and easily adjust for any minute deficiencies in the cyan correction, either caused by the light quality or the use of a different brand IR filter. Not to mention, use it with uncodable lenses. Unless of course Leica thinks we can't handle that much decision-making, like their explanation for denying us an in-camera lens menu Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill W Posted April 14, 2007 Share #43 Â Posted April 14, 2007 Is it just me or are there others still waiting for their free filters. I ordered a 46 and 49. I know a lot of folks have recieved theirs already. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 14, 2007 Share #44 Â Posted April 14, 2007 ... does anyone have both the B+W and leica to run a side by side on the CV 15mm . Â Guy, I have both 39mm filters, but haven't coded up my CV 15 yet. So higher up in this thread I just compared them without invoking the firmware corrections. The answer is that the B&W is a bit stronger in heavy IR light, but I can't yet rule out just using it anyway. In fact I think most of us will be happy with the B&W 486. Â Â scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scho Posted April 14, 2007 Share #45 Â Posted April 14, 2007 Went to home depot for some supplies and brought along the M8 with CV 15 (coded as WATE) for some test shots. Setup was 39mm B+W 486 UV/IR cut filter reverse mounted in filter shroud. First shot was with lens enabled ON+IR at 16mm. Second enable OFF. Third interior with enabled ON+IR 16mm. No adjustments except conversion of DNG to jpeg and resize in Lightroom. I only managed the one shot inside berfore they asked me to leave. Home Depot store policy is NO cameras permitted in the store. Â Â Â Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scho Posted April 14, 2007 Share #46 Â Posted April 14, 2007 Is it just me or are there others still waiting for their free filters. I ordered a 46 and 49. I know a lot of folks have recieved theirs already. I'm still waiting for a 39 and 43 from Leica. Ordered end of February. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted April 14, 2007 Share #47 Â Posted April 14, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Is it just me or are there others still waiting for their free filters. I ordered a 46 and 49. I know a lot of folks have recieved theirs already. Â Â I'm still waiting for a 39 and a 49. and I've ordered another 49 for another lens from my dealer but he too doesn't know when he'll get them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 15, 2007 Share #48  Posted April 15, 2007 Guy, I have both 39mm filters, but haven't coded up my CV 15 yet. So higher up in this thread I just compared them without invoking the firmware corrections. The answer is that the B&W is a bit stronger in heavy IR light, but I can't yet rule out just using it anyway. In fact I think most of us will be happy with the B&W 486.   scott  Just got home from a little road trip with my wife. Looks like this maybe the case as I suspected the B+W will be very close indeed and I agree most will be happy with this. So most folks can go either way. The WATE is the one for some reason just will not work good with the B+W , I tried a 49mm with adapter and a 60mm filter held in place and I just get it clean in the corners as i do the Leica filter so if it is only one or two lenses that will demand the Leica's than were probably better off. But we really need some 49mm filters right away from leica and let's throw in those 55mm for the 21 if folks are getting issues there as well with the B+W . Overall things are really looking up Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mwalker649 Posted April 15, 2007 Share #49 Â Posted April 15, 2007 I'm still waiting for a 39 and a 49. and I've ordered another 49 for another lens from my dealer but he too doesn't know when he'll get them. Â Leica owes me (2) 39's. Don't have them yet, (Kentucky). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted April 16, 2007 Share #50  Posted April 16, 2007 Still waiting for my Leica filters (UK) but VERY happy with my coded 21 pre-asp and B+W IR cut. ... an example at: http://www.leica-camera-user.com/digital-forum/21702-one-day-washington-dc.html  The colour is warm, because that's the way it was. Possible to neutralise by taking a WB off the sheets, but that wasn't how it looked... funny things, photographs... Remember trying to correct scans from Provia 400 shot under mixed light? Never again!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
yoMammabot Posted April 16, 2007 Share #51 Â Posted April 16, 2007 M8... Check 21mm elmarit... Check Firmware 1.102... Check 486 filter... No Dice!! Â Oh well. I would love to comment on this set up but I'm having a heck of a time locating a 486 filter in Seattle. If i run into one Ill report promptly Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted April 16, 2007 Share #52 Â Posted April 16, 2007 My preliminary results don't suggest the camera is applying any different correction based on colour temp, or at least that it's effective. If the camera is taking colour temp into consideration, then either the colour temp measurement needs better calibration or the correction algorithms need more work. Â Even though by my amateur status I can deal with Panotools with less downside than you, I would much rather the camera do those corrections--after all, the need arises out of a chain of consequences arising from the camera's particular sensor. However it's also a hassle having to clone out odd filter reflections (and contrast loss from veiling flare is pretty much unrecoverable), which is just so much less with the Heliopan filters. Â What would really be awesome, would be if Leica had Phase One put the same cyan correction process into the C1 raw conversion, with an adustable level slider and numerical value control. That way with coded lenses we could quickly and easily adjust for any minute deficiencies in the cyan correction, either caused by the light quality or the use of a different brand IR filter. Not to mention, use it with uncodable lenses. Unless of course Leica thinks we can't handle that much decision-making, like their explanation for denying us an in-camera lens menu YES! This is where the vignetting color correction has been, and should be. Although the mighty Mr. Knoll of Adobe claimed IR could not be corrected post image capture('tis true), the cyan could be... and is so with Leica firmware anyway. Â Please stop hounding Leica about lens detection "effects", and get after the post-processors of your data! The DNG is just (nearly)raw data, vulnerable and malieable therefore. Â rgds, Dave Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JL2006 Posted April 16, 2007 Share #53 Â Posted April 16, 2007 ZM15 filer size is 72mm; does anyone know whether Leica has 72mm IR ? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 16, 2007 Share #54 Â Posted April 16, 2007 ZM15 filer size is 72mm; does anyone know whether Leica has 72mm IR ? Thanks. Â The FAQ (on the leicacamera.de or leicacamerausa.com sites) says that 55, 60 and 67 mm filters are promised in the coming months, but does not mention a 72mm. If no Leica lens needs a 72mm filter, I do not expect Leica to sell one. Â scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodyspedden Posted April 16, 2007 Share #55  Posted April 16, 2007 I agree Sean the 21mm is the one we are just on the fence about and for users of the 21mm and a B+W please try and give some feedback on this lens so we know where we stand on the 21mm. On the WATE it seems okay either way at the 21mm setting but the Elamrit 2.8 we need to know about , I don't have one to test. Thanks[/quote Guy  Lousy choice of subject matter but I thought that the sky would be a good choice for the 21mm. I didn't want to simply do the white wall shoot so I picked a landscape with sky to see the effects of the cyan cast.  My dimming eyes see the shot with no filter and the shot with the filter (b+w 486) and lens detection on + UV/IR as looking remarkably alike. When compared with the shot taken with the filter on and no filter correction the cyan is dramatic.  I haven't received my Leica filters yet so the 486 has to do for now. Personally I think it works fine. If the Leica turns out to be better then we all win.  Woody Spedden  Image one is filter on but no detection  Image two is filter on with detection +UV/IR  Image three is no filter 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 More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted April 16, 2007 Share #56 Â Posted April 16, 2007 Nice test Woody did you notice that with filter on and IR one the grass looks greener . Interesting and who says the IR filters don't work. I'm assuming that is the Leica 21mm Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.