aveshvather Posted February 27, 2014 Share #1 Posted February 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Folks, Imports into Lightroom from my M are showing some strange resolutions. I shoot RAW + JPEG. RAW files are showing as 5976 x 3992 The same image as JPEG has a resolution of 5952 x 3968 This seems a little odd, anyone else with similar experiences? Is it too simplistic to think that the resolution should be 6000 x 4000? Or that the JPEG and RAW file should have the same dimensions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 27, 2014 Posted February 27, 2014 Hi aveshvather, Take a look here Resolution not 6000 x 4000?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
wattsy Posted February 27, 2014 Share #2 Posted February 27, 2014 Is it too simplistic to think that the resolution should be 6000 x 4000?Or that the JPEG and RAW file should have the same dimensions? JPEG and RAW dimensions are often slightly different and this has been the case with the M8, M9 and now M240. Yes, I think it is a little simplistic to expect the resolution to be exactly 6000 x 4000. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2014 Share #3 Posted February 27, 2014 Not one sensor will use its nominal resolution. A certain number of edge pixels are reserved for other functions, like black-point setting, reference, readout, etc, which differs between raw and JPG. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 27, 2014 Share #4 Posted February 27, 2014 Hi Folks, Imports into Lightroom from my M are showing some strange resolutions. I shoot RAW + JPEG. RAW files are showing as 5976 x 3992 The same image as JPEG has a resolution of 5952 x 3968 This seems a little odd, anyone else with similar experiences? Is it too simplistic to think that the resolution should be 6000 x 4000? Or that the JPEG and RAW file should have the same dimensions? Exactly as for specs written in the manual : Auflösung DNG™: 5976 x 3992 Pixel (24MP), JPEG: 5952 x 3968 Pixel (24MP), 4256 x 2832 Pixel (12MP), 2976 x 1984 Pixel (6MP), 1600 x 1072 Pixel (1,7MP); bei Video-Aufnahmen: 640 x 480 Pixel (VGA), 720P, 1080P. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
StephenPatterson Posted February 27, 2014 Share #5 Posted February 27, 2014 Imports into Lightroom from my M are showing some strange resolutions. RAW files are showing as 5976 x 3992...Is it too simplistic to think that the resolution should be 6000 x 4000? Holy crap!!! Class Action Lawsuit or should I just go get my shotgun? How dare those Bastards!!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted February 27, 2014 Share #6 Posted February 27, 2014 You wouldn't even see the difference... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tonki-M Posted February 27, 2014 Share #7 Posted February 27, 2014 Advertisement (gone after registration) You wouldn't even see the difference... i don't think that's the point of it... Leica could also sell a 50 Summicron and pass it off as a 50 Apo summicron, and 95% of the people out there would be none the wiser. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 27, 2014 Share #8 Posted February 27, 2014 Hmmm. not sure about that analogy...Better to say no 50 mm is exactly 50 mm and no two lenses the same- yet nobody notices. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted February 27, 2014 Share #9 Posted February 27, 2014 Holy crap!!! Class Action Lawsuit or should I just go get my shotgun? How dare those Bastards!!! More to the point, what are they doing with the pixels they've stolen? Are they selling them on the black pixel market?! I bet if you laid all the stolen pixels end to end they'd reach … Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted February 27, 2014 Share #10 Posted February 27, 2014 Pssst - wanna buy some Leica pixels mister? Only ever used by an old lady to take photos on a Sunday. Wilson (aka Flash Harry) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted February 27, 2014 Share #11 Posted February 27, 2014 More to the point, what are they doing with the pixels they've stolen? Are they selling them on the black pixel market?! Pete. Clearly they're no better than a dodgy pub landlord who never pours a full pint. Leica save up all the missing pixies until they can make another M with them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohanS Posted February 27, 2014 Share #12 Posted February 27, 2014 The M has (5976 x 3992) / 1024^2 = 22,751 Mpx. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 27, 2014 Share #13 Posted February 27, 2014 The M has (5976 x 3992) / 1024^2 = 22,751 Mpx. ?? M referred to a physical entity (one pixel) stands for 1.000.000 exactly...(see "megaton" "megaparsec" etc...) : only in IT, referring to bits (or bytes) you have Kilo=1024 - Mega = 1024^2 (and Tera, and Peta... ) The real problem is that 3992 x 5976 is NOT the classical 3/2 ratio !!! I bought my M to enjoy the classic "Leica Format" and feel defrauded !!! Ok.. they did A BIT better than M8 (1,496994 vs. 1,496578)....and the JPG is spot on (1,5)... but is still annoying... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CheshireCat Posted February 28, 2014 Share #14 Posted February 28, 2014 Leica save up all the missing pixies until they can make another M with them. Indeed, but they will use the missing pixels to fix the M firmware first. I heard their missing pixels containment silos exploded in december (missing pixels are very unstable), and this is why the promised firmware was not delivered by the end of January. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gerard Posted February 28, 2014 Share #15 Posted February 28, 2014 I always thought anyone buying the M must be missing a few pixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted February 28, 2014 Share #16 Posted February 28, 2014 I always thought anyone buying the M must be missing a few pixels. Can be.... ... for instance, I am deeply convinced that Mpixels are not trivial Mpixels... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chito Posted February 28, 2014 Share #17 Posted February 28, 2014 Ok, first off, why does it even matter that it's not 6000 x 4000 exactly? Mega actually means million, "Kilo" is only 1024 for computers because of the binary system (2^10 = 1024). How about the fact that the 50 Summilux ASPH is actually a 51.6mm lens? That's a 3.2% difference! Don't start checking the technical data of your lenses! And the framelines! How do you even manage? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted February 28, 2014 Share #18 Posted February 28, 2014 Can be…. … for instance, I am deeply convinced that Mpixels are not trivial Mpixels… I understand Leica sells them to the M&M factory. They are lovely, chocolate-coated. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lenicolas Posted February 28, 2014 Share #19 Posted February 28, 2014 What did you just do??? If Leica finds out we're getting 3,2% more summilux than we paid for they're gonna increase the prices again! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted February 28, 2014 Share #20 Posted February 28, 2014 What did you just do???If Leica finds out we're getting 3,2% more summilux than we paid for they're gonna increase the prices again! Leica knows that already, we are actually getting the lens at discounted price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.