M240 firmware tweaks

[bencoyote]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As the Leica continues to elaborate the M240 derived cameras with the M-D and a new M on the horizon. I started going through my list of things that I would actually like to see on the next M. I don't want to start a new 1100 post thread of all the things that would be nice in the next M but as I went through my list and sorted them I realized with just a few tweaks in the current firmware, Leica could solve many of my issues:

 

1. ​I would like some kind of warning when I cross the 1/FD threshold for shutter speed. I think that an easy way to do this is when the option is on, flip the frame line color. For example say your frame lines are set to white, and you have a 50mm lens. When the shutter speed goes from 1/60 to 1/45 change the frame lines from white to red. That way I just know without looking at the top, I'm in the be careful zone.
2. Add an option to turn off dark frame subtraction. Yeah I know there will be noise. I'll deal with it. I'm doing something special.
3. Synthetic bulb mode. If you're on bulb mode and exceed the max exposure for that shutter, temporarily ignore dark frame subtraction write the frame and start the next frame. It would be nice if it labeled the shots differently so that I knew to merged them - for example: L1002123A.dng L1002123B.dng
4. Low priority: Work on the algorithm which makes the previews in playback mode. It just seems too slow. I can't believe that the algorithm can't be optimized and sped up some.
5. Low priority: Embed the lens profile data in the DNG when we have a 6-bit encoded lens. That way we don't have to always select it in LR.
6. Low priority: fix the unique photo ID bug. I think that we almost all have worked around it. It would just be nice if it were fixed.
7. Extremely low priority: In the 262 they replaced the LV button with WB. The DELETE button always seems to me to be superfluous in shooting mode. I think when you are in shooting mode vs playback mode, it should be WB and work like the ISO button where you have to hold it to change anything.

That's it. A couple minor tweaks and we're good. It is shocking to me how after I've spent time learning the camera and how to use it in various situations, how functionally complete it is. How little I really thinks needs to be added or changed.

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Adam]

I would like some very trivial improvements that should have been done ages ago, but are ignored by the Leica software team.

 

- File numbering. Leica M can automatically count to: 1009999 then it resets itself to L1000001. It is a computer for God's sake!

 

- Shutter exposure information in OVF in Manual mode. It is there in A mode, but not in M mode. I know I can look at the dial, but sometimes I need to adjust on the fly. There should be an option to set this up in the menu for those who prefer to know the concrete exposure, as opposed to just knowing you are over or under exposing.

 

- Automatic ISO increase when shutter goes below specific speed (like 1/focal length)  

 

These are trivial tweaks. Should have been done ages ago. But I doubt if Leica will even bother with a firmware update. 

[Exodies]

I believe the file names are an industry standard.

[Adam]

I believe the file names are an industry standard.

True. I was told by Cheshire Cat that this is an implementation of an industry standard. But that standard, I believe can be implemented in way that creates a new directory automatically thus having 1009999 + 1 = 10100000, instead of 1009999+1= 1000001. I can do it manually. But if a computer is good for anything, it should be good at precisely doing that. Other cameras can.

[Poki]

Leica told the users who had wondered about the "Check battery age" warning that it will release a firmware update before the end of march. Well, obviously they didn't quite hit that deadline. Maybe this update will bring some other nice features too? The only thing I'd really like to see is some kind of quick lens change option in the "Set"-menu. It would be great if I could just choose the lenses I own and quickly switch between them without having to have all my lenses 6-Bit coded.

[azuled]

"

1. Low priority: Embed the lens profile data in the DNG when we have a 6-bit encoded lens. That way we don't have to always select it in LR.

"

 

strongly disagree.  I don't use the lens profiles and having them embedded is a mess.  You can import them with develop settings in Lightroom, but if we take the Q as an example having the embedded profile means it is always enabled in Lightroom.  I don't want the profile, I suspect others don't want it as well. 

[Echo63]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I agree with most of these, and would like to see them implemented.

 

I would certainly like the 1/FL warning, switching the frameline colour, but would like an additional option added too - if a flash is sensed in the hotshoe, the framelines change colour if the shutter speed is set above sync speed.

 

the ability to turn off dark frame subtraction, and extended bulb times (60 sec at all ISO would be fine with me) would be nice.

If I turn it off, I need the ability to shoot frames continuously - I will shoot a dark frame at the end....

 

delete/WB option sounds good too, although I wouldn't mind having the ability to select a setting to apply to the M and front buttons as well - like the ability to shortcut to "set custom WB"

[jaapv]

"

1. Low priority: Embed the lens profile data in the DNG when we have a 6-bit encoded lens. That way we don't have to always select it in LR.

"

 

strongly disagree.  I don't use the lens profiles and having them embedded is a mess.  You can import them with develop settings in Lightroom, but if we take the Q as an example having the embedded profile means it is always enabled in Lightroom.  I don't want the profile, I suspect others don't want it as well. 

Agree 100%. I find we don't have to select corrections in LR - period. If there is any improvement in the file except for some subtle distortion correction in highly critical situations I fail to see it. i would not have the camera messing with my files any more than absolutely needed.

[jaapv]

 

1. Add an option to turn off dark frame subtraction. Yeah I know there will be noise. I'll deal with it. I'm doing something special.

You won't. The type of noise removed in the camera is impossible to address in postprocessing.

[Exodies]

Wouldn't it be nice if Leica could be persuaded to convince us of that!

[jaapv]

Actually, the M8 is slow enough to let you see it happen on the LCD. I can assure you that you do not want to switch it off.

As for the impossibility of doing the same in post-processing, that has been firmly established years ago, I even seem to recall an LFI article, and confirmed by Leica. Logical too, as it is black-frame noise reduction, one needs a second frame with the relevant pixels subtracted from the image.

Should you want to reduce the noise generated by a hot sensor by conventional algorithms, you will lose detail and colour accuracy. The original 5D is one of the most striking examples of that happening.

[Adam]

If this is classical dark frame noise reduction via subtraction then it can be done at any moment in time inside the camera, or in post-processing provided you have a valid algorithm.  All you are doing is subtracting non-random noise generated by the sensor.

 

Obviously there is a valid algorithm that can be executed inside the camera, which means it can be executed on a regular computer. There is no inherent requirement to do it in the camera, and there is no inherent need to do right after the shot is taken. The current set up just doubles the time you need to allocate for night shots.

 

Leica should allow users to select which images need dark frame noise reduction, and it should allow users to apply the process later in time, if not on their computers, then at least inside the camera. That way I can take my shots, and apply noise reduction afterwards as needed.  There is nothing wrong in allowing user flexibility.

[pop]

...  All you are doing is subtracting non-random noise generated by the sensor.

 

Obviously there is a valid algorithm that can be executed inside the camera, which means it can be executed on a regular computer. ...

Don't you think that the noise generated by the sensor depends on its temperature?

[Adam]

Don't you think that the noise generated by the sensor depends on its temperature?

Sure it does. Don't you think the sensor temp will change after I am exposing for 60 sec.?   It is impossible to replicate the temp of the sensor during an exposure, it varies non-linearly anyway.

Question is what variance in temp between the actual exposure and the control black frame (which translates into non removed or over removed noise) are you willing to accept. Most of us take pictures in fairly standard temp ranges that are not hard to replicate. For cases where they would be hard, one could always leave the current setting on.

 

In most cases, I would have no problem in taking a bunch of shots at night and having the option to take control black frame exposures at the end of the session, which I could then use to remove noise at my own leisure. Exposure info is stored in the camera anyway, replicating it is not a problem. Moreover, many exposure times would repeat, meaning I could re-use the same control frame for different shots and save time. Temp replication would not be an issue either. It is my workflow, I'd rather be in charge of it. Others, who prefer to take a break after each exposure would be welcome to do so. 

 

Either way, there is no justification for the current setup. The M is supposed to be a professional camera, it would be good for Leica to cede more control to users over its noise algorithms.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

- The ability to see the shutter speed in the viewfinder in manual mode.

- Exposure times up to 15 minutes.

- User selectable dark frame subtraction (ie: a single dark frame at the end of a sequence of shots. then P.S. can apply it in post)

- High quality embedded jpeg preview in DNG files.

 

Gordon

[jaapv]

If this is classical dark frame noise reduction via subtraction then it can be done at any moment in time inside the camera, or in post-processing provided you have a valid algorithm.  All you are doing is subtracting non-random noise generated by the sensor.

 

Obviously there is a valid algorithm that can be executed inside the camera, which means it can be executed on a regular computer. There is no inherent requirement to do it in the camera, and there is no inherent need to do right after the shot is taken. The current set up just doubles the time you need to allocate for night shots.

 

Leica should allow users to select which images need dark frame noise reduction, and it should allow users to apply the process later in time, if not on their computers, then at least inside the camera. That way I can take my shots, and apply noise reduction afterwards as needed.  There is nothing wrong in allowing user flexibility.

It needs a dark frame taken shortly after the image at approx. the same sensor temperature. The longer one waits before generating the subtraction frame, the less precise the operation gets. Leica will need a lot of persuasion to drop what they perceive as the best method for optimum image quality.

[Rick]

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!

 

 

Rick

[Adam]

It needs a dark frame taken shortly after the image at approx. the same sensor temperature. The longer one waits before generating the subtraction frame, the less precise the operation gets. Leica will need a lot of persuasion to drop what they perceive as the best method for optimum image quality.

 

Taking the dark image shortly after, does not mean forcing the user to do it... immediately after each shot. The degree of precision loss due to waiting is debatable, and in many cases considered negligible by people who know what they are doing.  What is crucial is replicating the environmental conditions of the shot and exposure.

 

I hope that Leica is not the company you describe, and it does not impose what it perceives to be the only one true way of taking pictures, but actually considers the photographer to be mature enough to know how to effectively use their camera.  Dark frame subtraction techniques carried out after the completion of an intended session, and not after each image, have been used widely, and are actually recommended in many situations where it is absolutely nonsensical to take a dark frame after each shot. By denying this option Leica is crippling the camera.

 

 

FYI:

from: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/microsite/astrophotography/finishing/

 

(Note the use of plural indicating that we do dark frame subtraction after taking the intended series of shots, and not after each shot)

 

"In contrast to daytime shooting where there is abundant light, astrophotography exposes the faint light from astronomical subjects with a long exposure time, making 'dark noise' such as long-exposure noise within the frame very apparent. Usually, such effects can be reduced using the camera's noise-reduction function, however, this also requires the same amount of time as the actual exposure, making it impractical for astrophotography, where each frame is exposed for a long duration and a large number of frames is shot in a single shooting. Dark-frame subtraction in post-processing using a PC has become a common practice for reducing dark noise for this reason.  

Dark-frame subtraction employs a special 'dark frame' taken separately. This can be produced using a series of dark images, which are usually taken immediately after your intended shots, with the same ISO sensitivity, exposure time and environmental temperature with the lens cap closed, so that nothing but dark-current noise is in place

The dark frame itself is usually composed from multiple frames (in a process called compositing) so that its S/N (signal-to-noise ratio) is increased. For example, the same number of ‘dark’ images as the actual shots can be used to compose a single dark frame.

The dark frame exhibits the same noise distribution as your intended shot, therefore, subtracting this information from the image frame results in reduced fixed-pattern noise."

 

And some advice from CCD imaging for doing it in Post Processing

 

From Sky and telescope:

 

http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-resources/astrophotography-tips/the-abcs-of-ccd-imaging/

 

Dark frames are exposures made with the camera or telescope objective covered, so that no light reaches the detector and only the camera’s thermal signal is recorded. To be effective, dark frames must be taken with the same conditions — exposure duration, detector temperature, and pixel binning mode — as the light frames they are meant to calibrate. When many dark frames are recorded and combined to make a master dark frame, and that master is subtracted from each individual light exposure, it removes the majority of the snowy dots of thermal signal.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[bencoyote]

It needs a dark frame taken shortly after the image at approx. the same sensor temperature. The longer one waits before generating the subtraction frame, the less precise the operation gets. Leica will need a lot of persuasion to drop what they perceive as the best method for optimum image quality.

 

My justification is this:

 

The times when I want long exposures like that, I'm doing something unusual like astrophotography. The little pin pricks of light of stars are arranged in a noise like pattern anyway. If there are a couple more dots from noise, no one will notice. Without the ability to disable dark frame subtraction it is hard to connect the dots in star trails. You get little gaps.

 

Or if I'm doing something in near darkness like light painting a shape with a LED.

 

I can probably come up with three or four other scenarios where minimizing noise is less of a concern then having frames that have no time gap between them. In the scenarios when I want to turn dark frame subtraction off, I'm off the reservation of normal photography. I know that, I'll accept the consequences.

 

I love Leica's great image quality but there are times when I am willing to accept lower image quality to achieve a goal. It is just like when I'm zone focusing, I'll accept some not tack focus images as a trade off for the time advantage of being able to get a shot off quickly.

[Exodies]

My justification is this:

 

The times when I want long exposures like that, I'm doing something unusual like astrophotography. The little pin pricks of light of stars are arranged in a noise like pattern anyway. If there are a couple more dots from noise, no one will notice.

<snip>

 

 

Oh but they might...

There is a cartoonist, XKCD, on the web with a following of very demanding fans. He had a series of drawings, updated every hour, telling a story of two stick men but it wasn't possible to place their world in time - the dialogue and artefacts were not consistent with our time or history. At a certain point in the story we stayed with our heroes as they slept and the night sky circled over them. Knowing our artists obsession for detail the astronomers in the forum tracking this comic set to work and managed to identify the constellation  movements as being from ten thousand years from now and based on calculations of the angles the stars made with the horizon they  located the action in the Mediterranean basin. They also noticed a missing star; it was one which is expected to go dark in the next 10000 years.

 

If you are going to add stars to the sky, expect some folk to turn up their noses