M8raw2dng - Tool to convert Leica M8 RAW files to DNG

[B_K_]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 minutes ago, tom.w.bn said:

The website is available on archive.org. Found the help page with the paramters. use it as a command line tool and the first command in the examples section should do the job.

https://web.archive.org/web/20190819224647/http://m8raw2dng.de/help/tool-parameters/

 

Oh wow, that's perfect.. thanks so much!! Ignorant me wasn't even aware of the web archive, brilliant! 🙏🍻

[BrianS]

I've used M8RAW2DNG since Arvid introduced it.

 

Some comparisons of post processing M8 RAW files converted to DNG using M8RAW2DNG Here:

https://cameraderie.org/threads/leica-m8-set-to-iso-ludicrous-speed.38677/

For comparison: ISO 2500 shot using standard (crippled) DNG file from M8,

and 4-stop underexposed RAW file converted DNG using M8RAW2DNG, then boosted in Lightroom.

 

The compression scheme used on the M8 and M9- and what it throws away. The compression scheme is chaotic.

https://cameraderie.org/threads/i-dont-like-lossy-image-compression.38716/

 

I find it worth using.

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!

Edited October 30, 2020 by BrianS

[Advertisement]

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

[BrianS]

I wrote some instructions for post-processing underexposed M8RAW2DNG converted RAW files, put them on dropbox.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/39gdsi55jgpa2h4/LeicaM8_High_ISO.pdf?dl=0

I wrote this up 5 years ago.

 

I also found one of my first 4-stop processed images, shot at base ISO and then boosted 4 stops. ISO2500 equivalent.

From my notes of 7 years ago-

 RAW format, converted using V1.1 of m8raw2dng, colors adjusted using Photoshop CS2. I normalized the histograms for each of the RGB channels then used "auto-level". No noise reduction in post processing.
 

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!

[B_K_]

Thanks so much @BrianS! Just starting to play around with it...

Cheers

[CGarrard]

Just giving some attention to this thread. Is the M8raw2dng tool still available?

 

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I used the M8raw2DNG protocol for a while. I didn't notice a big difference, admittedly I wasn't looking atthe photos really big, there may be a difference for a big print, but on a screen I didn't see it. I may have used it more, but the button dance you have to do isn't sticky, as soon as the camera goes to sleep you have to do the button dance again, a little annoying. What the button dance does is put the camera into a diagnostic mode, not necessarily desirable.

[CGarrard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is the sequence posted on this thread somewhere?

[tommonego@gmail.com]

Here is the button dance

The Button Dance: Using the buttons,

Right Arrow: 4 presses

Left Arrow: 3 presses

Right Arrow: 1 Press

Special modes are now unlocked.

Press SET, select "Compression",

there is now a new choice: Jpeg + RAW.

[markc2]

What was the final evaluation on this process and dance 😉

 

[chris_livsey]

14 hours ago, markc2 said:

What was the final evaluation on this process and dance 😉

 

From my point of view the "dancing" and the processing required were no longer giving a noticeably superior end result than conventional processing engines, that have evolved and improved in the 10 years since M8raw2dng was released, with "straight" Leica RAW files. 

Your evaluation may of course differ.

[TDCNY]

On 12/22/2023 at 1:06 PM, chris_livsey said:

From my point of view the "dancing" and the processing required were no longer giving a noticeably superior end result than conventional processing engines, that have evolved and improved in the 10 years since M8raw2dng was released, with "straight" Leica RAW files. 

Your evaluation may of course differ.

Having read through all eight pages of this string, I am really no clearer on this question of uncompressed DNGs than when I started. I have about the same computer savvy of the average humanities major, which is to say none to speak of, so all the technical discussion here is over my head. The M8raw2dng software does not seem applicable to Mac and the link to the tutorial is dead. The "button dance" on this topic is inscrutable—I've used this technique to get shutter count, but do not understand how it addresses the problem of converting from native 8-bit files to 16-bit files—is this a fix in itself, or a preliminary step to using M8raw2dng?  Finally, is any of this necessary in 2024, given the advances in software, including AI—is there a simpler, more straight-forward method of achieving the desired results? I'm an artist and work in the nonprofit sector; I use my M8 for work and am consistently stymied by the marginal value of files shot above ISO 320. Upgrading even to an M240 is a hardship for me, one I'd like to avoid if I can coax better result from my M8 (which I love and would hate to part with to upgrade). So, in the plainest, M8raw-for-Dummies language possible, can anyone offer guidance to the current state of the question and recommendations on how best to proceed?     

[84bravo]

17 minutes ago, TDCNY said:

Having read through all eight pages of this string, I am really no clearer on this question of uncompressed DNGs than when I started. I have about the same computer savvy of the average humanities major, which is to say none to speak of, so all the technical discussion here is over my head. The M8raw2dng software does not seem applicable to Mac and the link to the tutorial is dead. The "button dance" on this topic is inscrutable—I've used this technique to get shutter count, but do not understand how it addresses the problem of converting from native 8-bit files to 16-bit files—is this a fix in itself, or a preliminary step to using M8raw2dng?  Finally, is any of this necessary in 2024, given the advances in software, including AI—is there a simpler, more straight-forward method of achieving the desired results? I'm an artist and work in the nonprofit sector; I use my M8 for work and am consistently stymied by the marginal value of files shot above ISO 320. Upgrading even to an M240 is a hardship for me, one I'd like to avoid if I can coax better result from my M8 (which I love and would hate to part with to upgrade). So, in the plainest, M8raw-for-Dummies language possible, can anyone offer guidance to the current state of the question and recommendations on how best to proceed?     

I've come to the conclusion that this is more trouble than its worth. I gave it a try early on, but the latest RAW converters work great. Given the latest software tech such as Topaz Gigabit and DeNoise I see no reason to jump through the hoops that M8raw2dng requires.

An M240 body is dirt cheap right now and provides exponentially better files than the M8 can. Almost any digital APS-C or full frame camera of the last 10 years will run circles around the M8. (I love the M8 BTW, so I feel ya)

[chris_livsey]

1 hour ago, TDCNY said:

 So, in the plainest, M8raw-for-Dummies language possible, can anyone offer guidance to the current state of the question and recommendations on how best to proceed?     

 

I am somewhat at a loss here, you kindly quote my post: From my point of view the "dancing" and the processing required were no longer giving a noticeably superior end result than conventional processing engines, that have evolved and improved in the 10 years since M8raw2dng was released, with "straight" Leica RAW files. 

Can I ask what is not clear here for the answer to the "current state of the question and recommendations on how best to proceed? "

Perhaps more simply then: No, there is no advantage these days to using  M8raw2dng over the current RAW processing options. 

Almost exactly what I said before and also what 84bravo states, although I would take issue with "dirt cheap" for an M240 😂 

As Scotty said "I can't change the laws of physics." You are "stuck" with that sensor performance and can only push the output to the limits of the current software. 

Now "how best to proceed":

Leica M fit lenses, which you obviously have, are adaptable to many digital bodies with superior high iso performance and a considerably lower "ticket" price than an M240 if that, high iso, is the absolute priority and increasing the available light in some way is not possible that is the lowest cost option.

The B/W and native colour rendering are what most of us M8 diehards love and we accept the iso limitations, perhaps with a heavy heart but we do. 

Edited April 11 by chris_livsey

[markc2]

8 hours ago, chris_livsey said:

 

 

The B/W and native colour rendering are what most of us M8 diehards love and we accept the iso limitations, perhaps with a heavy heart but we do. 

Ive been working with only iso50/100 for a very long time, so having a working iso around 640 is high end to me! I did compare some M240 images that I took at the camera store compared to the M8 at the same store, and the noise from the M8 was less. Probably the same reason the new camera's lower their MP count so they can deal with the noise better. The B&W of the M8 really makes me really curious about a monochrome camera and I NEVER thought I would ever want one.

For me the only place the M8 becomes more of a chore is the ease of use at higher ISO. Less MP means I shoot with INTENTION.

Mark

Edited April 12 by markc2
more words

[TDCNY]

On 4/11/2024 at 12:24 PM, chris_livsey said:

Perhaps more simply then: No, there is no advantage these days to using  M8raw2dng over the current RAW processing options. 

Many thanks, Chris. Very helpful. I have an SL that I use with M lenses. I appreciate its virtues, but have never learned to love it as I do shooting with the rangefinder. I feel exactly as you do about the M8's "B/W and native color rendering" and appreciate what you say about accepting the limitations, "heavy heart" and all.  In the right light, my M8 and '70s-era 35 Summilux never fail to blow me away. I'm so close to being a diehard myself already I may as well just embrace it and happily join the club!

Edited April 15 by TDCNY

[TDCNY]

On 4/11/2024 at 8:44 PM, markc2 said:

I did compare some M240 images that I took at the camera store compared to the M8 at the same store, and the noise from the M8 was less.

Mark, this surprises and interests me. I'd understood the CMOS sensor in the 240/262 to have improved performance above the 320/400 ISO level. I'm an old 35mm film shooter; if I can get quality files up to 1600, I'm satisfied. I've read where others get usable results from the M8 at ISO 640, but I've never gotten anything that high that I could publish.  

[markc2]

8 hours ago, TDCNY said:

Mark, this surprises and interests me. I'd understood the CMOS sensor in the 240/262 to have improved performance above the 320/400 ISO level. I'm an old 35mm film shooter; if I can get quality files up to 1600, I'm satisfied. I've read where others get usable results from the M8 at ISO 640, but I've never gotten anything that high that I could publish.  

It's only a sample size of one, but when I went back to the same camera store, and they had a 35mm lens to put on the M8 I took mostly the same shot I took with the M240, and then I cropped out the Han Solo trying to shoot C3PO, and it was a bit cleaner on the M8. It wasn't in the category of OMG the M8 smokes the M240 how could anyone not see this, it was more like hmm it's a bit better, interesting. It was during the 14 days return policy I had for the M8, so I thought I would go back and compare what I took on the M240 and see if the differences were big enough for me to return the M8.

I took one picture of Daisy at ISO 1250, which is the camera's highest ISO, the camera has an auto ISO function, and I was trying it out. I really thought I was going to get a pixel cat, but this is really good to me.

The camera store that sold me the M8 also sent me a DNG file. I went down to my local camera store, and had it printed out in 8 by 11, and it looked really good. So once again good enough for me. I kept on feeling like if I'm going to spend that much money I should by an M10 which I've held, and it feels like an M6 which to me is an awesome thing! 

If I really needed the 1600 ISO then I would probably save my pennies for an M10, and after the M8 experience, I am really close to selling my Hasselblad to help fund an M10. 

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!

Edited April 15 by markc2

[chris_livsey]

I think the issue here is the M8 stops there the M240 heads off to the dizzy heights of 3200 but it's the dynamic range you need to look at, the M8 will show itself to be the weaker performer in poor light where the shadows are very noisy very quickly. A well lit shot, as posted, even at top M8 iso isn't stressing the M8 to show that, the dynamic range of that shot is very limited even Kodachrome 25 would have worked well there, for that use it's fine under low light with heavy shadows it's not.

The M240 has two stops greater dynamic range so the shadows that drop off the into the dark noisy void  with banding on the M8 have two more stops left in the M240 before suffering the same fate. So yes M240 shadows can drop into noise and banding  but two stops later at the same iso and the M240 can still go higher but again you will probably be better underexposing in camera and pushing in post, as I don't have an M240 that is conjecture of course.

If you search the forum for M8 banding and M8 v M240 comparisons you will see quite clearly the limits of both sensors, don't take my word for it.

[farnz]

5 hours ago, markc2 said:

It's only a sample size of one, but when I went back to the same camera store, and they had a 35mm lens to put on the M8 I took mostly the same shot I took with the M240, and then I cropped out the Han Solo trying to shoot C3PO, and it was a bit cleaner on the M8. It wasn't in the category of OMG the M8 smokes the M240 how could anyone not see this, it was more like hmm it's a bit better, interesting. It was during the 14 days return policy I had for the M8, so I thought I would go back and compare what I took on the M240 and see if the differences were big enough for me to return the M8.

I took one picture of Daisy at ISO 1250, which is the camera's highest ISO, the camera has an auto ISO function, and I was trying it out. I really thought I was going to get a pixel cat, but this is really good to me.

The camera store that sold me the M8 also sent me a DNG file. I went down to my local camera store, and had it printed out in 8 by 11, and it looked really good. So once again good enough for me. I kept on feeling like if I'm going to spend that much money I should by an M10 which I've held, and it feels like an M6 which to me is an awesome thing! 

If I really needed the 1600 ISO then I would probably save my pennies for an M10, and after the M8 experience, I am really close to selling my Hasselblad to help fund an M10. 

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!

I think it's important not to compare apples with knife sharpeners.  The M8 has a CCD sensor whereas the M240 is a CMOS sensor and the two technologies behave quite differently and exhibit different properties.

Pete.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[markc2]

30 minutes ago, farnz said:

I think it's important not to compare apples with knife sharpeners.  The M8 has a CCD sensor whereas the M240 is a CMOS sensor and the two technologies behave quite differently and exhibit different properties.

Pete.

I was very careful to say sample size of ONE. and to me it was a small difference on one picture. I posted one photo of one example of my M8 at 1250 ISO. I just didn't think that the price difference between the two was worth it for a camera that most of its photos were going to end up online and not blown up to super large or even very large sizes. At the time I was very skeptical of using a rangefinder and an M8 I thought if I didn't like it, there were enough people who loved it that I could sell it or in the fourteen-day trial I could return it, if it wasn't my thing. So far, I really love the camera, it's been all that I've hoped for, and I'm happy. I would like to share that but temper it with reason :-). Or at least try to. 

 

1 hour ago, chris_livsey said:

I think the issue here is the M8 stops there the M240 heads off to the dizzy heights of 3200 but it's the dynamic range you need to look at, the M8 will show itself to be the weaker performer in poor light where the shadows are very noisy very quickly. A well lit shot, as posted, even at top M8 iso isn't stressing the M8 to show that, the dynamic range of that shot is very limited even Kodachrome 25 would have worked well there, for that use it's fine under low light with heavy shadows it's not.

The M240 has two stops greater dynamic range so the shadows that drop off the into the dark noisy void  with banding on the M8 have two more stops left in the M240 before suffering the same fate. So yes M240 shadows can drop into noise and banding  but two stops later at the same iso and the M240 can still go higher but again you will probably be better underexposing in camera and pushing in post, as I don't have an M240 that is conjecture of course.

If you search the forum for M8 banding and M8 v M240 comparisons you will see quite clearly the limits of both sensors, don't take my word for it.

That's why I mentioned to him that if he needed 1600 and above, he more than likely might need to look elsewhere. One of the shots that I did at the camera store I screwed up with the M240, had it on manual, had lots of wonderful green pixels when I tried to bring it up, instead turned the green to black and had a nice B&W photo. For me the M240 would have annoyed me to be so close to a M10 and then not have one. This is my first digital camera, after shooting iso100 forever. So having a working iso620 is amazing to me. The M8 has really shown me the beauty of B&W and would love to try a monochrome. I didn't want to come across as a Zealot for the M8, but for me it works really well.