Jump to content

Homemade method of simulating FILM with Leica M9 - Testers & feedback welcome!


Recommended Posts

On 10/27/2019 at 12:34 PM, FTI said:

Many thanks for this.

 

Can you tell me how it's supposed to run on my windows 10? I can't seem to get it to run.


Usually with:

m9tofilm.exe -i "E:\DATA\LeicaM9\dng\160\02_CABANAL" -o "F:\DEV\output" -f superia200

Should work, being the -i the input folder with all the DNGs and -o the output folder. And -f the film type (superia200 or trix400)

Or maybe you get an error? Could you provide me more details?

Thanks for trying it!

Tomás

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, evikne said:

I am really looking forward to the Mac OS version. Do you have any plans for more film types as well?


Thanks for the interest! Unluckly I'm super busy at work... so it will take me some time to port it to OS X.

I've tested with Wine in OSX (and in Ubuntu) and the app works perfectly, so, in the meantime, if you want you can run it this way. 

The command is the same (with wine before). For example:

wine m9tofilm.exe -i "/Volumes/Nifty HD/CAMALOGICA_DATA/DATA/LeicaM9/dng/400/TESTS" -o "/Users/tgp/Documents/WIN7_DATA/DEV/output" -f superia200 -frame false

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!



About more films, at the beginning I did all the process with the HP5, mainly because it's more cheaper film than Trix400, and I did a few tries...

To answer your question: Yes, it's possible to add more films, but it takes some work to do all the tests shots (with real film) plus obtaining all the film calibration data in the laboratory.

Cheers! Edited by camalogica
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ianman said:

Macos users will need to install wine first. I've not done it yet but there seems to be a good set of instructions here: https://www.sysnettechsolutions.com/en/macos/install-wine-macos-mojave-10-14/

I've just done it (High Sierra, not Catalina, which seems not to have support).

I've installed XQuartz (https://www.xquartz.org/) and Wine (https://dl.winehq.org/wine-builds/macosx/download.html) "Installer for Wine Stable".

It has worked perfectly.

Kind regards!

Tomás

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

Tests with b1.02

 

 

Edited by Ko.Fe.
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Tests with b1.02

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!

 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Interesting project!

``brew cask install wine'' worked just fine for me on macOS Mojave; Wine takes a minute or two to install a few components, then everything appears to run as expected.

The TriX 400 simulation yields a very light image for me, whether with no flags (inverted using a system accessibility tool), with a -gamma 2.2 flag (inverted ditto), or with -autodevelop. I arrive at a comparable image in Capture One by adding 1.5 stops of exposure (along with commensurate highlight recovery). I think this aligns with your intent -- to create highlights with tons of headroom from a digital negative that has tons of hidden detail in the shadows -- but it would require some adjustment of my exposures to compensate for.

The Superia 200 simulation with the same ISO 400 file has the same exposure behavior with colors that I might call "richly muted." They really aren't rich in any way -- but, while they seem desaturated, they don't seem to lose their impact for it. This is an interesting look that, to my extremely inexperienced eye, more closely resembles Portra than Superia, and I think that's a good thing.

I suspect you are making unwarranted assumptions about how each recording medium responds to varying spectra. So I'm not highly confident that you could achieve your stated goal even if you had all the time and resources you wanted to dedicate to this project. But, I still like the output, and I especially like the idea of a command-line digital negative developer that is oriented toward photographers, not scientists or pixel editors.

Most digital-to-filmic tools I've tried seem to assume the user wants the curated chromatic distortion of different films but the punchy contrast of digital. I'm happy to say that this tool produces gentle tones that I might actually want to use. Basically, I'm held back by speed and ease of use (a lot of which is likely attributable to Wine), not necessarily by the results, so I hope this project continues to mature.

My only programming-related request is the ability to forgo grain simulation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 11/25/2019 at 9:01 PM, JonPB said:

Interesting project!

``brew cask install wine'' worked just fine for me on macOS Mojave; Wine takes a minute or two to install a few components, then everything appears to run as expected.

The TriX 400 simulation yields a very light image for me, whether with no flags (inverted using a system accessibility tool), with a -gamma 2.2 flag (inverted ditto), or with -autodevelop. I arrive at a comparable image in Capture One by adding 1.5 stops of exposure (along with commensurate highlight recovery). I think this aligns with your intent -- to create highlights with tons of headroom from a digital negative that has tons of hidden detail in the shadows -- but it would require some adjustment of my exposures to compensate for.

The Superia 200 simulation with the same ISO 400 file has the same exposure behavior with colors that I might call "richly muted." They really aren't rich in any way -- but, while they seem desaturated, they don't seem to lose their impact for it. This is an interesting look that, to my extremely inexperienced eye, more closely resembles Portra than Superia, and I think that's a good thing.

I suspect you are making unwarranted assumptions about how each recording medium responds to varying spectra. So I'm not highly confident that you could achieve your stated goal even if you had all the time and resources you wanted to dedicate to this project. But, I still like the output, and I especially like the idea of a command-line digital negative developer that is oriented toward photographers, not scientists or pixel editors.

Most digital-to-filmic tools I've tried seem to assume the user wants the curated chromatic distortion of different films but the punchy contrast of digital. I'm happy to say that this tool produces gentle tones that I might actually want to use. Basically, I'm held back by speed and ease of use (a lot of which is likely attributable to Wine), not necessarily by the results, so I hope this project continues to mature.

My only programming-related request is the ability to forgo grain simulation.

I insist to use Silverfast HDR, its how I get the best results from the "simulated negative". Vuescan should work pretty much allright with B&W.

I haven't done many assumptions besides chemical simulation. Mainly, from my point of view, if the result differs from real film is because of digital camera's limitations (m9). Seriously, film has much much more DR, and also infinite tolerance to highlights. Meanwhile digital is better for blacks.

I'll program the -nograin option ASAP 🙂

Thanks for your comments!

Tomás

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have blacks on film. Just have to remember, negative is same as RAW file. But in analog. It will gives blacks on RC glossy paper and even deeper blacks on inkjet prints on matte paper.

 

Ilford Glossy MG RC paper.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the only way to verify how close it is to the reality is taking the same shot with two cameras and the same lens under the same conditions.

I did this with several tests and the results, mainly in black and white, where really really close.

Bellow just an example with the following structure:
+------------------------+------------------------+
|      original DNG      |                        |
+------------------------+------------------------+
|      converted DNG     |     scanned FILM       |
+------------------------+------------------------+
|      developed DNG     |     developed FILM     |
+------------------------+------------------------+

Taken with Leica M9 + Zeiss 35mm at F5.6 and 1/125 with ISO 400, and Leica M7 at F5.6 and 1/125 loaded with TriX 400.

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!

For me, the biggest difference is in the highlights. Besides that it's really close (from my point of view).

Always possible to get more contrast image, but it depends on the way it's digitally developed.

Full res of the image at: https://photos.app.goo.gl/KPUi3qzBYmUnnarGA

Just my two cents!

Tomás

Edited by camalogica
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example, but in color with Superia 200.

Both examples were developed using SilverFast HDR, with same parameters.

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!

Full res of the image: https://photos.app.goo.gl/6LVmUzmcfCeY2sF88

Kind regards everybody!!

Gonna work on the nograin option!

Tomás

Edited by camalogica
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...