I’m a computer science engineer who has been working, as a hobby, the last three years in a new, more precise, way of recreating film look with digital cameras.
I’m posting here for feedback, in case anybody of you would like to test the application (with the M9) and show the results and your opinions.
I usually shoot film photography but also I like the comfort of digital. The problem is that I’ve never been happy with existing film emulations. Mainly because of that, because they are emulations instead of simulations.
For doing so, instead of doing a generic conversion for every camera, I’ve done a specialised conversion for the Leica M9 based on simulating the chemical process and spectrum response, instead of applying curves and other stuff.
In the end, I thought, if analog and digital are just two instruments which capture light, I thought, maybe is there any mathematical conversion to make the digital to look like film?
I mean, if I take the same photo with analog and digital, under exact same conditions (light / aperture / exposition /…) could I make them look exactly the same?
It’s based on chemical simulation and the Leica M9’s response to spectrum. Then LUTs and finally some extra calibration. I think that it could be improved because I’ve used home made or open source tools for calibrating and so on, which are far from perfect.
EXAMPLES (Analog vs Converted Digital)
Following are some examples of Superia 200 and TriX 400.
Click in each photo to see high resolution.
DNGs shoots taken with Leica M9 (left), and FILM shoots taken with Minolta CLE (right) at same conditions (aperture / exposition / ISO).
All shoots taken with Zeiss Biogon T* ZM 35mm f/2.
The examples show several photos, which are the following:
| original DNG | |
| converted DNG | scanned FILM |
| developed DNG | developed FILM |
For the generated simulated negative TIFF file and the scanned TIFF file I’ve applied exactly the same develop parameters.
TriX 400 - 1
TriX 400 - 2
TriX 400 - 3
Superia 200 - 1
Superia 200 - 2
Superia 200 - 3
Superia 200 - 4
Superia 200 - 5
Superia 200 - 6
Tonal range - Biggest difference between digital and film
Dynamic range - Digital is faaar more detailed in the blacks, film never gets burnt, meanwhile digital gets burn quite fast.
Film has more microcontrast, it's more sharpen
Digital is a little bit more contrast after developing, I imagine it’s because it reach white level faster, then, when doing autolevels with the developing program, as a result, it’s a more contrast image.
I'm having a console application ready, if interest is shown it will be ready quite soon!
CAVEHEATS / LIMITATIONS
The program only accept DNG, because I need all the light captured by the camera, instead of a JPG already converted and really dependent on camera self made adjustments.
The program only accepts photos taken at the ISO of the certain film that is gonna be used. For example, for TriX400 it will accept only Leica M9 DNGs at 400 ISO. I’ve also done tests with ISO 200 and 800, and the results were quite satisfactory but, for complexity reasons, I prefer to let it be native film ISO for the moment.
Highlights are not always correct, and sometimes they look weird, mainly in color film. This is due to bayer sensor pattern and its different intensity response (for Red, Green and Blue channels).
FUTURE (& PAST) WORK
Super thanks to the creator of LibRaw, a wonderful C++ library for working with RAW files.
Any questions I’m open to answer 🙂
Best regards everybody.
Tomás AKA “Camalogica”
Over the span of about six years I went from an M9-P to an M240-P and recently an M10-P. What struck me immediately was how similar the M10 and M9 files were in terms of color and contrast. The M240 files reminded me of Kodak Portra film whereas the M10 output just reminded of the M9. I thought i was alone in this observation until i read this article today.
My Leica M10 and some lenses got stolen yesterday in Gothenburg. If anyone sees them, I would be grateful. To moderator, if this is the wrong place to post, please move it.
In the bag was:
3824764 Leica Elmarit-M 90
4081227 Leica Elmar-24-M
4112250 Leica Summilux 35 ASPH
5152626 Leica M10 Black
Leica E46 filterx2 (on the lenses)
Leica M10 Battery
Charger for Leica M10
HP Zbook 2017
I will also report to Leica.
By Dennis Berti
I had a hunch! And I made a lens exchange with a colleague. I changed my Elmarit 28mm for a Zeiss C Biogon T 35mm F2.8. Of course, I got also some very good money because of the difference in price ($2,300 vs $900 approx).
I tested already and I'm incredibly happy with the result. I'm new in the world of Rangefinder, I only owned an Elmarit for one year, and now this one. I always used lenses for SLR and DSLR. So I'm very newbie.
I was so surprised (in a very good way) about the Zeiss contrast, details, sharpening and almost the lack of imperfections... Wow... so light, small but soooo powerful. I'm a 35mm guy, I always have been. I got a 28mm with my first Leica (M10) because my plan was a 28+50 combo. One lens first, then later the 50mm. I didn't resist and I made the change. And I was 100% happy about it.
I like the 35mm frames better than the 28mm. And the focus ring range is better, shortest. I like 1/3 aperture stops etc....
But the lens comes with a detail... check the videos here
... you will understand it better.
Check also this video at 1'08"
The little four screws are tight. And of course, most important... The lens performance is almost perfect, better than any Nikon I ever had 🙂 It works great. But it feels like is weak or more delicate, do you know what I mean
Thanks in advance for your time
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.