thrid Posted April 2, 2015 Author Share #21 Posted April 2, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) You're right that a green shift in shadows ought not to have to be corrected, but I doubt Leica is going to do anything about it. Right out of camera is bound to confuse those who do not understand that RAW images need to be "developed". If you have been sending clients developed files, then you have been making other adjustments as well I presume. I am sure there are other things that people do not like about Leica's out of the camera DNGs but if they can be fixed in the raw developer (to individual taste), the problem is no longer unsolvable and that is probably why Leica is going to ignore it. I can't imagine anyone's taste would prefer greenish shadows but I think the reality is they are not going to address this. Very soon after converting my photography business from film to digital, I learned that the best practice was to never show RAW files to my clients. Invariably, they wouldn't understand that color, exposure and contrast could be adjusted in post to make an image shine and the best shots would get rejected on that basis. I would then be left in the position of trying to re-sell the client on a better selection, which often amounted to a lot of wasted effort. Just a thought. I do agree with you that Leica should have come up with a firmware fix for this by now. It's a problem we shouldn't have to be dealing with. Trust me, these people understand what RAW is and how to process the files accordingly. It's more an issue of having to answer the reoccurring question of 'what's wrong with your camera?". These are highly technical people of whom some could probably write the firmware in the 240 themselves, so they recognize a tech problem when they see it. Usually we shoot with Nikon/Canon and this is not an issue anyone has seen in many years. Unfortunately I think you are correct and it is unlikely that Leica will fix this anytime soon. I find this very disapointing and makes it difficult for me to continue to take them serious as a maker of professional camera gear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Hi thrid, Take a look here Green Shadows firmware fix?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
AlanJW Posted April 2, 2015 Share #22 Posted April 2, 2015 Trust me, these people understand what RAW is and how to process the files accordingly. It's more an issue of having to answer the reoccurring question of 'what's wrong with your camera?". These are highly technical people of whom some could probably write the firmware in the 240 themselves, so they recognize a tech problem when they see it. Usually we shoot with Nikon/Canon and this is not an issue anyone has seen in many years. Unfortunately I think you are correct and it is unlikely that Leica will fix this anytime soon. I find this very disapointing and makes it difficult for me to continue to take them serious as a maker of professional camera gear. If you are sending them corrected files, then why would they be saying there is something wrong? Or are you just handing over a card with files? Certainly if you sent them jpgs after correction they would never know the shadows had been green. What am I missing? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thrid Posted April 3, 2015 Author Share #23 Posted April 3, 2015 If you are sending them corrected files, then why would they be saying there is something wrong? Or are you just handing over a card with files? Certainly if you sent them jpgs after correction they would never know the shadows had been green. What am I missing? My workflow really isn't the issue here. The issue here is that this is a known problem in the firmware that Leica should address. Their customers should not have to bandaid over an issue that is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct. As a longtime user of their products I find this attitude disappointing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted April 3, 2015 Share #24 Posted April 3, 2015 My workflow really isn't the issue here. The issue here is that this is a known problem in the firmware that Leica should address. Their customers should not have to bandaid over an issue that is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct. As a longtime user of their products I find this attitude disappointing. You have a point (which I had agreed with earlier) but the problem you described was in having your clients see green shadows, so perhaps I was confused. It is obvious that Leica was concerned enough about white balance issues to issue a new firmware some time ago, and also obvious that they did not address this aspect of WB (or noise control). Now I think it is late in the life cycle for them to do what you want them to do, and I suspect your disappointment will not abate. You might try a profile, using high ISO in lighting similar to what has been giving you issues. If it works, you will get a fairly quick and easy way to deal with the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brusby Posted April 5, 2015 Share #25 Posted April 5, 2015 I agree with everything you've said Thrid. Leica's lack of firmware updates to address known problems like this one and the white balance issue has been a major disappointment to me. It's particularly shocking when Leica's customer can not only discover the problem but also document it in detail on public forums and then even craft a fix for it and disseminate it for free before Leica even acknowledges the issue. Now, in the case of the green shadows, here we are about a year after the issue became widely known and still nothing from Leica. As a result, I too find it harder and harder to take Leica seriously as a maker of fine, professional grade cameras. Sure they do some things fantastically well. But that's not enough. The most important qualities of a professional organization in my opinion are the willingness and ability to be responsive to customer needs, and in that regard Leica has been falling flat on their faces. I'm sure I'll get flamed by the many Leica apologists who have already chimed in on this thread to suggest it's not Leica's fault and that you should change your method of providing images to customers or refusing to acknowledge that the problem does exist. But at this point I frankly don't care. I still have a lot of Leica gear but I've already started transitioning to other makers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joshua Lowe Posted April 5, 2015 Share #26 Posted April 5, 2015 I would be curious to know if the green shadows thing is fixable via firmware or if it's more of a fundamental issue with the sensor and its implementation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
indergaard Posted April 5, 2015 Share #27 Posted April 5, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I would be curious to know if the green shadows thing is fixable via firmware or if it's more of a fundamental issue with the sensor and its implementation. When the issue is easily fixable with a Lightroom software plug-in, it is surely also fixable in the firmware of the camera. Software is software, it can always be changed and modified. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted April 5, 2015 Share #28 Posted April 5, 2015 My workflow really isn't the issue here. The issue here is that this is a known problem in the firmware that Leica should address. Their customers should not have to bandaid over an issue that is the responsibility of the manufacturer to correct. As a longtime user of their products I find this attitude disappointing. ........ but for the vast majority of users it is not a problem ..... so therein lies the crux of the matter ..... ...... how far should a manufacturer go in updating and correcting issues for a smaller and smaller percentage of their customer base ? you will never keep everyone happy ...... but if the vast majority are satisfied I would shelve any further work on the old product. If Leica software engineers spent all their time correcting minor problems in all their cameras there would be no-one left working on the next generation ..... when the previous issues will undoubtedly be addressed..... oh ........ and as an afterthought you can blame me and my fellow beta firmware testers ....... we had two rounds of this ..... and although a lot of issues were highlighted by us .... and Leica to their credit fixed the lot ..... the green cast at high iso when recovering shadows was not mentioned by any of us as a problem we wanted correcting ..... and it had been noted (... plus banding ...and I posted images in april/may 2013) within a few weeks of the cameras release .... and from what I recall no-one was surprised as it was present to some extent in other digital cameras..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted April 5, 2015 Share #29 Posted April 5, 2015 Just to add to Thighslapper's point, I don't think any digital camera out there produces "perfect" files right out of the camera. "Perfect" meaning there would be universal agreement on the color balance from highlights to shadows at all ISOs. The thing that interests me more than some theoretical perfection is whether the files are close enough to (or, put another way, malleable enough) in PP to produce results that are acceptable to a particular user (me). The fact is that getting a digital image is a process that begins with but does not end at capture. Look at the huge debates about how different cameras render flesh tones (there are of course myriad flesh tones). What looks okay to one person is unacceptable to another. IMHO the M(240) files are exceptionally malleable with minimal postprocessing (not no post processing, but that is my point), and the green cast, if it is there, is just not a urgent problem that needs an immediate firmware fix. The image I posted was at ISO 1600. If there is clamor for better high ISO performance out of M digitals, I will join the clamor, but let's keep things in perspective. My D800e requires postprocessing too. Those files aren't "perfect" either coming out of the camera, but they are very workable after minimal effort in ACR. Does that mean Nikon needs to fix something? There is a saying that applies here: "Perfect is the enemy of good". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted April 5, 2015 Share #30 Posted April 5, 2015 ... the green cast, if it is there, ... ... also obvious that they did not address this aspect of WB (or noise control).... You might try a profile, using high ISO in lighting similar to what has been giving you issues. This isn't easy to fix with a profile because its not a white balance issue - its a (possibly deliberate) roll-off in the raw gain at low signal levels, which combined with the different losses of each of the RGB colours in the Bayer filter means that the green channel is artificially enhanced at low signal levels. Fixing this by linearising the gain in camera or by manipulating the raw data is straight forward, but trying to use a profile after the demosaicing is much more work since the amount of green cast is light level dependant - you would need a whole bunch of profiles to do that. I'm not saying its not possible, but why do things the difficult way? Is it a problem that affects real images? I just came back from a few days in Venice - I had to fix about 5% of my images (all base ISO) that exhibited slight or significant green shadows when lifting them in higher dynamic range shots. It didn't take long to fix, so I'm not overly concerned about it. Seems a shame though that Leica can't be bothered to strive to at least achieve the same technical standards as other leading camera manufacturers. I suppose "good enough" is all that they aim for nowadays - its a slippery slope though, as soon the only thing that warrants the high prices will be the fancy packaging rather than the capability of the equipment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted April 12, 2015 Share #31 Posted April 12, 2015 The current version of my Lightroom plugin is only optimised for ISO200 since that was my primary motivation in developing it, however its clear that the performance at higher ISOs is not as effective. So I decided to setup some tests with a grey scale wedge chart to measure the non-linearity across all ISOs. This graph shows the results of comparing the raw pixel values for a 20 step wedge at 2 exposures for each ISO; normal exposure and with a 6 stop ND: 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! The horizontal scale is the DNG file pixel values, covering the lowest 5 stops of the cameras dynamic range. There's clearly different processing happening for ISO 1600 and above, which is one reason the current plugin doesn't do much for those ISOs. There's more noise impact on the higher ISO results - with measurements from just one camera I'm not sure how this will vary from camera to camera, but the low ISO curves look quite deterministic. I'm hopeful I can even improve the ISO 200 performance. I'm working on parameterising these curves and will hopefully have an updated plugin available soon with improved performance. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! The horizontal scale is the DNG file pixel values, covering the lowest 5 stops of the cameras dynamic range. There's clearly different processing happening for ISO 1600 and above, which is one reason the current plugin doesn't do much for those ISOs. There's more noise impact on the higher ISO results - with measurements from just one camera I'm not sure how this will vary from camera to camera, but the low ISO curves look quite deterministic. I'm hopeful I can even improve the ISO 200 performance. I'm working on parameterising these curves and will hopefully have an updated plugin available soon with improved performance. Jonathan ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/243018-green-shadows-firmware-fix/?do=findComment&comment=2796633'>More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted April 12, 2015 Share #32 Posted April 12, 2015 When the issue is easily fixable with a Lightroom software plug-in, it is surely also fixable in the firmware of the camera. Software is software, it can always be changed and modified. A raw file is a direct output of the read out of the sensor, you are therefore bypassing any post processing by the cameras image processing system. The raw file is pure electronic read out data from the sensor, the whole concept of raw is to bypass the cameras firmware and get the pure sensor data into Photoshop and Lightroom. In other words, even if Leica fixes this in camera for JPEGs we still will need a fix for raw files in Lightroom. And we should perhaps be directing our questions towards Adobe rather than Leica, because it is Adobe who is decoding the raw files. Leica has no control over how Lightroom handles their files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JonathanP Posted April 12, 2015 Share #33 Posted April 12, 2015 A raw file is a direct output of the read out of the sensor, you are therefore bypassing any post processing by the cameras image processing system. The raw file is pure electronic read out data from the sensor, the whole concept of raw is to bypass the cameras firmware and get the pure sensor data into Photoshop and Lightroom. In other words, even if Leica fixes this in camera for JPEGs we still will need a fix for raw files in Lightroom. And we should perhaps be directing our questions towards Adobe rather than Leica, because it is Adobe who is decoding the raw files. Sorry but I disagree, the raw file doesn't contain pure sensor data - if that was the case this problem would not exist. The Leica lens calibration is directly applied to the raw data (DNG files have the option of encoding lens corrections in the DNG Exif extensions, but these are not used by Leica), and I am fairly confident that this non-linearity problem is introduced by raw data processing after the sensor A/D convertor. Fixing the non-linearity in the camera firmware would fix the problem both for JPEG and raw files since the problem occurs before the JPEG encoding. I don't think Adobe or any other raw processing engine should be baking in corrections to this sort of problem. Jonathan Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 12, 2015 Share #34 Posted April 12, 2015 A raw file is a direct output of the read out of the sensor, you are therefore bypassing any post processing by the cameras image processing system. The raw file is pure electronic read out data from the sensor, the whole concept of raw is to bypass the cameras firmware and get the pure sensor data into Photoshop and Lightroom. In other words, even if Leica fixes this in camera for JPEGs we still will need a fix for raw files in Lightroom. And we should perhaps be directing our questions towards Adobe rather than Leica, because it is Adobe who is decoding the raw files. Leica has no control over how Lightroom handles their files. Oh hell no. You don't get a RAW file with Leica M. What you get is a DNG file which is processed. You do bypass further processing but make no mistake, it is a processed image like it or not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 12, 2015 Share #35 Posted April 12, 2015 I am not aware of any current camera storing true raw files. There is always some kind of processing applied to the raw data. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 12, 2015 Share #36 Posted April 12, 2015 I am not aware of any current camera storing true raw files. There is always some kind of processing applied to the raw data. There are a couple But they are not for the public. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mornnb Posted April 12, 2015 Share #37 Posted April 12, 2015 I am not aware of any current camera storing true raw files. There is always some kind of processing applied to the raw data. Most cameras (i.e. Canon, Nikon) don't touch the data beyond averaging out faulty pixels. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted April 12, 2015 Share #38 Posted April 12, 2015 Most cameras (i.e. Canon, Nikon) don't touch the data beyond averaging out faulty pixels. You think so? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted April 12, 2015 Share #39 Posted April 12, 2015 Evidently he does. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alberti Posted April 13, 2015 Share #40 Posted April 13, 2015 Have a look at this: Fixing the Leica M240 green shadows thx Nice read; "The M240 exhibits nonlinear response at ISOs 200, 400, and 800, artificially depressing darker tones. The darker the tone, the greater the depression. In my previous noise floor tests, I saw the noise floor to be artificially depressed at these ISOs." and this points to the artificial blacks in the out-of-camera JPGs: shadows are deepened excessively up to the point that the output is not appreciated any more by me. For instance, at 2500-3200 asa at 3200 K walls under eyes turn up darker. Was this done to remedy a color cast? Comparing with the DNG's the latter turn out excessively flat sometimes under similar conditions. When I compare the output in adverse situations (more than 800 asa) then my wife's X100 files look clean/linear. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.