jonoslack Posted May 7, 2015 Share #41 Posted May 7, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi Everyone I have permission to post some dng files - I'll get it done as soon as I can push them up through our dismally slow internet connection! All the best 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 Hi jonoslack, Take a look here Monochrom M246 DNG technical analysis. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jonoslack Posted May 7, 2015 Share #42 Posted May 7, 2015 Here is a link to the files that Lenshacker has been looking at: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3808779/LowIsoMonochrom246.zip 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted May 7, 2015 Share #43 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Great Jono ! You're a very talented photographer and i'm sure everyone will be more than delighted so see your wonderful DNGs... Can you post some more 3200, 6400 and 12 500 iso DNG please (i'm sure people would like to see what it really looks like) ? Edited May 7, 2015 by MOZ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 7, 2015 Share #44 Posted May 7, 2015 HI There Moz I'm not sure if these will help - they include MM shots of the same scene for comparison purposes. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3808779/dng_iso.zip Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share #45 Posted May 7, 2015 Now a whole other question. I thought lossless affected nothingin the image. However, in the quote above, Mr. Puts is indicating something else, yes? Mr. Puts is not correct on this. However, we should remember that any conversation that Erwin had with Leica on this was probably not in English - something may have got lost in translation. Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted May 7, 2015 Author Share #46 Posted May 7, 2015 Hi Sandy Perhaps the proof of the pudding is in the eating. I'm not alone in finding the DNG files from the 246 to have more highlight detail and to be generally more processable than those of the MM. 12 bit notwithstanding (and we have known about this and started out sceptical). Of course, ther must be an effect, but if I can't see it in a 40" print then I'm not worried. Jono, Yes, that may be the case. A number of people have commented on the propensity of the MM to blow highlights relative to e.g., the 240. However, that may be post processing rather than the camera itself. LR (and a number of other raw converters) apply highlight recovery by default, which will make the image appear quite "tractable". However, highlight recovery is much easier in a color sensor, because while one channel may be blown, data can be recovered from the other channels, and used to recover the highlight. This is not possible on a monochrome camera - with only one channel, blown is blown. In response to this Leica may have adjusted the 246's exposure to offer more highlight space. But I'd need to compare images with the same exposure from an original MM and the 246 to be able to tell for sure. Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted May 7, 2015 Share #47 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) The M Monochrom, and any digital camera will "saturate". On the M Monochrom the level is "3FFF'x which is 16383- 14 bits. The low-noise and bit depth allow the details in the noise to be preserved, I have pushed an M Monochrom ISO320 image by 6 stops to see what is in the noise. At some point, "almost white" might as well be white. I've never minded getting a few saturated pixels, as they should be white anyway. The compressed NEF doesn't, either- lumps them together. Edited May 7, 2015 by Lenshacker Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted May 7, 2015 Share #48 Posted May 7, 2015 Mr. Puts is not correct on this. However, we should remember that any conversation that Erwin had with Leica on this was probably not in English - something may have got lost in translation. His comment, as I mentioned, came from him to me (exactly as written, typos and all) in an email. We know from his blog that Erwin's phrasing can sometimes be less than perfect. I think he'll write more once he investigates further, especially with his own M246 sample that he recently received. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkP Posted May 7, 2015 Share #49 Posted May 7, 2015 Lou, From my POV I find it rather disappointing that Leica is still using an Epson/Olympus EVF that Olympus replaced two years ago with the far better VF-4. There was no need to change the plug or physical dimensions of the body/shoe, as my VF-4 fits on an M240 (but does not of course, work). It would just be the video suite and/or the software that would have needed updating from the M240 electronics. The VF-2 is marginal for accurate focusing of fast long lenses. The VF-4 is far superior with a 50% larger area screen, better diopter adjustment, brighter illumination, faster refresh and double the pixels. Leica has really missed a trick with this. The viewer on the T is also better than the now very elderly VF-2. Wilson I was really hoping, probably unrealistically, that the EVF would be updated. It may well have required more modification but unfortunately perpetuates inferior technology in what is supposed to be a state-of-the-art camera. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MOZ Posted May 7, 2015 Share #50 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) HI There Moz I'm not sure if these will help - they include MM shots of the same scene for comparison purposes. https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/3808779/dng_iso.zip Yes it does for me (!). I see MM246 at 10 000 looking like MM at 3200, and that is "quite" impressive in fact :-) Edited May 7, 2015 by MOZ 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted May 7, 2015 Share #51 Posted May 7, 2015 I'm not sure if these will help – they include M Monochrom shots of the same scene for comparison purposes ...Thank you very much, Jono, for providing these! As far as I can tell, the new M Monochrom has slightly better dynamic range at base ISO and much better at high ISO, despite the lower bit depth. And boy, look at all those M.Zuiko lenses ... my other camera also is an OM-D 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 7, 2015 Share #52 Posted May 7, 2015 Lou, From my POV I find it rather disappointing that Leica is still using an Epson/Olympus EVF that Olympus replaced two years ago with the far better VF-4. There was no need to change the plug or physical dimensions of the body/shoe, as my VF-4 fits on an M240 (but does not of course, work). It would just be the video suite and/or the software that would have needed updating from the M240 electronics. The VF-2 is marginal for accurate focusing of fast long lenses. The VF-4 is far superior with a 50% larger area screen, better diopter adjustment, brighter illumination, faster refresh and double the pixels. Leica has really missed a trick with this. The viewer on the T is also better than the now very elderly VF-2. Wilson Agree with what you say. Perhaps Leica just wanted to get many M240 users also buying the M246 since all accessories would be swappable. I know for me that is very helpful since I own EVF and MF grips which will be the perfect "up and running" solution for me.As far as the new EVF, that would have been the most logical step since they sell more EVF. I have about given up on trying to figure out why Leica does certain things. Remember my trip to Solms when I discussed for over 2-3 hours and got no resolution on cable release problems (which eventually they replaced due to a bad batch) as well as lockups (which they said they never heard of before my inquiry). Sending you a PM. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted May 7, 2015 Share #53 Posted May 7, 2015 Agree with what you say. Perhaps Leica just wanted to get many M240 users also buying the M246 since all accessories would be swappable. I know for me that is very helpful since I own EVF and MF grips which will be the perfect "up and running" solution for me.As far as the new EVF, that would have been the most logical step since they sell more EVF. I have about given up on trying to figure out why Leica does certain things. Remember my trip to Solms when I discussed for over 2-3 hours and got no resolution on cable release problems (which eventually they replaced due to a bad batch) as well as lockups (which they said they never heard of before my inquiry). Sending you a PM. Hi Lou well, with respect to the EVF, they certainly tried to make it work with the M240 but as I understood it the performance simply wasn't acceptable - this wouldn't change with the new camera. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
algrove Posted May 7, 2015 Share #54 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Well now Jono, it all fits into place then. I for one have little problem with the original M240 EVF. When I am in the zone and concentrating on my work while using the EVF, I am so used to it, I just carry on. I actually do not have the tunnel vision feeling that many say they get when using it. Guess I use to the EVF so much that I am more used to it now than many others. It is very strange when I use the Sony RX-1 with its supposedly better EVF, I never really to say to myself that it seems so much better than the Leica EVF or conversely when using the Leica with EVF that it seems worse than the Sony EVF. That's just me I guess. I'm the odd bird in that I am pleased to have EVF's for most of my work. Wilson, I seemed to have very good luck using than EVF even with the R APO 180/2.8 with 2x APO extender. 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 May 7, 2015 by algrove 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/244450-monochrom-m246-dng-technical-analysis/?do=findComment&comment=2812454'>More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted May 8, 2015 Share #55 Posted May 8, 2015 (edited) This is with the M Monochrom, shot at base ISO320. I am using this as an example of "peering in to the shadows" with the 14-bit image. Full-scale image as exposed, direct export from LR4. outside_building by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr This is a mask showing saturated pixels, blown highlights. Most of the roof is within range of the camera, those that are blown: "not by much". Building_Saturated_pixels by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr This is almost a 6-stop push of the shadows. The histogram of just this section is fairly well populated. A 6-stop push of the ISO320, 14-bit image still leaves you with 8-bits. doorway_5p5stops by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr The Crop: Sharpening turned off, NR 30 Luminance, 30 Detail. Anyway- just an example. One could construct an algorithm to restore small numbers of blown highlights as present here based on density of the blown pixels in an area. It would just introduce a little more contrast in the highlights. Edited May 8, 2015 by Lenshacker Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thompsonkirk Posted May 8, 2015 Share #56 Posted May 8, 2015 After viewing Jono's Dropbox downloads, I posted this elsewhere. Several people replied to say it was what they'd have expected: "Pixel-peepin' for tonality: "I've been looking at the ISO 320 files of the cabinet, and the first thing I noticed is that the densities (some combination of meters/sensors) weren't quite the same. So I adjusted the Joseph Conrad book in both images to the same density. "The main thing I notice is not a significant difference in resolution at base ISO, but a difference in contrast. The M9M/CCD image is contrastier than the M246/CMOS one, and the 246 seems gentler in the highlights. "Judging from this enormous sample of one (1), the 246 'native' tonality is more pleasing to me." Kirk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 10, 2015 Share #57 Posted May 10, 2015 (edited) FWIW, I decided to email Mr. Puts and ask if he had any thoughts on the 12 versus 14 bit issue. Here's part of what he briefly replied... "Basically the change from 14 to 12 bits is already implemented in the regular M with its uncompressed and compressed option. The compression is losless and effects only the high lights." Compression in the M or M-P (Typ 240) is truly lossless and doesn’t affect the highlights (or anything else for that matter). Regardless of whether you store compressed or uncompressed files the raw converter gets the full 14 bits of data to process. Edited May 10, 2015 by mjh 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 10, 2015 Share #58 Posted May 10, 2015 Nikon's compressed NEF scheme which is advertised as "Lossless" is "visually lossless", I stopped using it after finding out it does not recover all intensity levels. Nikon offers two different compression methods, a ‘visually lossless’ (i.e. lossy) method that is similar to the one employed by Leica in the M8, but also a truly lossless method. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenshacker Posted May 10, 2015 Share #59 Posted May 10, 2015 https://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/NikonInfo/NEF_Compression.htm This is the article that I was going by. I will test this with the Nikon Df. The camera offers 12-bit and 14-bit mode, compressed NEF, lossless compressed, and uncompressed NEF. I was using lossless-compressed, file-size is about 1/2 that of uncompressed. The latter appears to be storing raw values, big-endian Motorola format. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted May 10, 2015 Share #60 Posted May 10, 2015 https://home.comcast.net/~NikonD70/NikonInfo/NEF_Compression.htm This is the article that I was going by. To quote from that article: “Some Nikon DSLR models offer lossless compression that is accomplished by skipping the encoding table.” The Df, D7200, D810, D750, D610, D4s etc. all offer this lossless option. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.