Jaybob Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3861 Posted December 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) That's how the M9 uses it, as quoted from to the manual. pg 160 M9 manual Working With DNG RAW DATA If you have selected the standardized and futureproof dNG (digital Negative) format, you require highly specialized software to convert the saved raw data into optimum quality, for example the professional Photoshop® Lightroom® raw data converters from Adobe®. It provides quality optimized algorithms for digital color processing, delivering exceptionally low noise photographs with incredible resolution. during editing, you have the option of adjusting parameters such as white balance, noise reduction, gradation, sharpness etc. to achieve an optimum image quality. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 21, 2013 Posted December 21, 2013 Hi Jaybob, Take a look here The Sony A7 thread [Merged]. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
pop Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3862 Posted December 21, 2013 None of which gives any hint on how much processing has been done in the camera. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3863 Posted December 21, 2013 What? RAW files are RAW files, they are "RAW" by their very nature. The standardized DNG (Digital Negative) format is used for storage of completely unprocessed raw picture data. Err…no. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3864 Posted December 21, 2013 Thanks Philipp and Jaap for confirming my understanding as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3865 Posted December 21, 2013 My recollection (if you do a bit of searching on "coding" in the M9 threads), is that the Leica firmware applies a lot of correction to the raw file for wides - colour shift, vignetting and distortion. That's the Leica approach - apply as much correction in camera as necessary to provide a relatively uniform raw file, regardless which Leica lens you use. That's rather the point of the A7 cameras - no correction in camera - just raw (with the exception of white balance). That's been the challenge, and also why we're getting odd results with different Leica lenses. The fatal issue for me will not be pixel peeping the edges, but distracting smearing in normal use. So far, with my lenses,it hasn't been a problem, but to be honest the year end has been hectic and I have hardly taken a photo in weeks (Monochrom and Noct carried from pillar to post, unused). So far, the camera has performed okay. I was considering ditching it, but felt I had not really explored it properly. I don't have an M(240) and have no intention of getting one; this was always a small addition to the cameras I have. So, I will play some more, and I will perhaps try one of the new Zeiss lenses next year - a ZE mount Otus would be appealing, or an Otus style 28? The idea, however, of a fine sensor, producing pure raw files, for correction in post, is interesting (and I suspect, the future, as it provides a level, stable platform for any lens). The difficulty seems to be that the CMOSIS sensor handles the edges better. This surprises me, as I had thought that Sony would do a better job. My task is to see which of my lenses are unworkable - the Distagon 2.8/15 is the leading candidate, at this stage. Cheers John Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
3D-Kraft.com Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3866 Posted December 21, 2013 I made the point that your example didn't make the point very well if at all. Certainly not to me. Perhaps the downsized jpegs don't allow me to see the problem. If the Summilux is all you are setting out to deal with there are still plenty of problems with the A7r sensor that your point doesn't cover. The extensive smearing and lower resolution in the corners. If you were interested in that point and the given example, you would have seen the hint directly under the image saying that you can click in the image to see other resolutions (including full size). The question adressed there has nothing to do with the sensor although it is obvious that here are several people whishing so. I recall examples with the voigtlander 21/1.8 which showed similar curvature, which it apparently doesn't show on film, so it's a ' feature' of the camera? Quite strong field curvature of the Ultron 21/1.8 was also reported by Leica M users. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3867 Posted December 21, 2013 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thanks John. Isn't one difference between the approaches of the two companies which problem they consider to be worse? Corner smearing versus residual infrared contamination? Apparently one cannot avoid both completely for all M lenses. BTW I don't mind at all being corrected if I state something that isn't correct. Actually I thrive on correct factual feedback. Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gyoung Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3868 Posted December 21, 2013 Ummm, I think so... I wouldn't want any camera's "processor" be it Nikon, Sony, or Leica, to apply anything to a RAW file. It's not really RAW at that point. I want to take it out of the camera and look at it. Not to be blatantly argumentative, but I don't want an effing "smile sensor" either. My Nikon's NEF's aren't corrected by the camera, but they do have the EXIF lens info inserted into the file when I shoot with an AF lens or an unchipped Ai or Ai-S lens. Programming an adapted lens choice into the menu is something Sony cameras don't have the ability to do. They SHOULD be able to do at least that, with the earlier mentioned, semi worthless, lens compensation APP. Snip.... Are you sure? I have always assumed that the NEF files I get are corrected for chromatic abberation and light fall off at least. I don't believe the motley collection of nikon fit lenses I have produces such marvellous results any other way. Gerry Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
viramati Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3869 Posted December 21, 2013 Well my understanding is that ever since the M8 leica have had to manipulate the RAW/DNG files in some way otherwise why would we have coded lenses which give info to the camera so that corrections can be added, also why all the firmware upgrades to try and improve the corrections for various lens issues. Surely we all take it for granted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3870 Posted December 21, 2013 Are you sure? I have always assumed that the NEF files I get are corrected for chromatic abberation and light fall off at least. I don't believe the motley collection of nikon fit lenses I have produces such marvellous results any other way. Gerry Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk Nikon is well known for applying (very good) noise reduction to their raw files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3871 Posted December 21, 2013 Nikon is well known for applying (very good) noise reduction to their raw files. Thanks Jaap. I agree. But can't one undo that for .NEF files in CNX2? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3872 Posted December 21, 2013 Thanks John. Isn't one difference between the approaches of the two companies which problem they consider to be worse? Corner smearing versus residual infrared contamination? Apparently one cannot avoid both completely for all M lenses. BTW I don't mind at all being corrected if I state something that isn't correct. Actually I thrive on correct factual feedback. Thanks. True. I don't really think m lens can be improved over wha the M9, Monochrom and M(240) can achieve. The interesting thing will be Zeiss ZE lenses on the A7r. My plan is only to get one, so I want to make sure it's a good one. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozkar Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3873 Posted December 21, 2013 What? RAW files are RAW files, they are "RAW" by their very nature. By its very nature, RAW (not being an acronym) should be raw. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3874 Posted December 21, 2013 Thanks Jaap. I agree. But can't one undo that for .NEF files in CNX2? Nope. Just compare the files out of a Sony DSLR with Nikon files from the same sensor. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3875 Posted December 21, 2013 None of which gives any hint on how much processing has been done in the camera. Err…no. Nikon is well known for applying (very good) noise reduction to their raw files. who's talking about noise reduction? Go on... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3876 Posted December 21, 2013 Nope. Just compare the files out of a Sony DSLR with Nikon files from the same sensor. Thanks Jaap. Interesting. Does that also apply for sharpening? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3877 Posted December 21, 2013 its not the camera DNG updated to allow RAW corrections: Digital Photography Review it's the machine reading the file. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaybob Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3878 Posted December 21, 2013 How about this, as Raw as the highest setting on the camera will allow me to go. I can split hairs all night too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted December 21, 2013 Share #3879 Posted December 21, 2013 To be quite clear:The DNG format allows cameras to store the raw - unprocessed - image data, along with instructions to any downstream software on how to enhance the images. The same format also allows the camera to store processed image data. It may be worth knowing that the DNG format is merely an application (or "extension") of the well known TIFF.This does not imply that any cameras will actually store raw data. The format just allows the cameras to do so. Leica state nowhere that I'm aware of that the DNG files written by any of the digital M cameras contain raw image data. In fact, they seem to carefully avoid doing so. Several discussions about imaging problems are worded as if the image corrections were applied in-camera (as opposed to "hinted at" in some instructions to the downstream processing entities).One possible reason for doing the processing in-camera and not downstream is, of course and strictly IMO, the ease of reproducing the possibly tricky post-processing by third parties if it's specified in plain view within each image file.It seems that one of the earlier digital Ms (some copies of the M8, IIRC) even boasted an option to save the image in a RAW format, in addition to the then provided DNG format. I can't recall the statistics, but they were briefly discussed in one of the subforums here.Hence: There's no evidence which supports the notion that Leica's DNG format as written by the digital M cameras contains raw image data; to the contrary, there's every reason to assume that the image data in the DNG files is subject to processing within the camera.I don't think that continuing this debate is fruitful without citing any new sources which directly support one or the other side of the debate. Merely pointing out capabilities of a very flexible file format will not help, I think. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
daure Posted December 22, 2013 Share #3880 Posted December 22, 2013 Aren't the answers be given by MJH in his two articles in the last two issues of LFI ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.