ph. Posted November 25, 2019 Share #1 Posted November 25, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) Am 1.7.2018 um 16:55 schrieb Raid Amin: Don recently coded my Zeiss Hologon after converting its G mount to M. Apart from giving exif data, I presume coding serves to correct for optical & sensor shortcomings so that lenses can be produced more cheaply. However, if you use the "verlauffilter there would not be any need for countering vignetting and given its lack of distortion , not much need for correction. Back when I had mine using Kodachrome, the corners were unacceptable, so I got rid of it. I presume such shortcomings cannot be corrected by any electronic trick. p Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 25, 2019 Posted November 25, 2019 Hi ph., Take a look here Super-Elmar 21 distortion and lens coding. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #2 Posted November 25, 2019 You presume wrongly. It has nothing to do with lens price. The only thing these codes do is correct the (cyan) vignetting and Italian flag shift that some lenses not designed with the limitations of digital sensors in mind in the past exhibit , and insert EXIF data. You also have a completely wrong idea about modern hybrid lens design. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #3 Posted November 25, 2019 38 minutes ago, jaapv said: The only thing these codes do is correct the (cyan) vignetting and Italian flag shift that some lenses not designed with the limitations of digital sensors in mind in the past exhibit , and insert EXIF data. Are you sure? I seem to notice distortion corrections as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #4 Posted November 25, 2019 Possibly - but on lenses that were not designed with these corrections in mind - as Leica M lenses are. They are optically optimized designs, not hybrid ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #5 Posted November 25, 2019 12 minutes ago, jaapv said: Possibly - but on lenses that were not designed with these corrections in mind - as Leica M lenses are. They are optically optimized designs, not hybrid ones. I meant on M lenses, not "optimized" ones. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #6 Posted November 25, 2019 All lenses are optimized, some only optically, like the Leica M lenses and some in a hybrid design both optically and electronically in symbiosis, like virtually all new mirrorless lens designs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #7 Posted November 25, 2019 Advertisement (gone after registration) 16 minutes ago, jaapv said: All lenses are optimized, some only optically, like the Leica M lenses and some in a hybrid design both optically and electronically in symbiosis, like virtually all new mirrorless lens designs. So i've been using "optimized" lenses for 30+ years really? I'm learning every day. Now you stated that the only effect of 6-bit coding, besides exif data, is to correct for vignetting and Italian flag on M lenses if i read you well. So i asked if you are sure of that because i seem to have noticed that 6-bit coding does distortion correction on M lenses as well. Would you have any info about that? Just curious. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #8 Posted November 25, 2019 No I have not. I certainly did not notice it, but it may be the case. However, normally distortion correction is applied at a later stage, or even in postprocessing, e.g. lens profiles in Lightroom. Of course you have been using optimized lenses, except for pinhole lenses Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #9 Posted November 25, 2019 Just now, jaapv said: No I have not. I certainly did not notice it, but it may be the case. However, normally distortion correction is applied at a later stage, e.g. the lens profiles in Lightroom. I wonder if distortion correction is applied by the camera firmware not only on jpeg but also dng files. I seem to have noticed this on two 6-bit M lenses so far, namely SE 21/3.4 asph and, to a lesser extent, 7art 35/2, but i did not check on other lenses so i may be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #10 Posted November 25, 2019 At any rate it is clear that the colour shift corrections are made at an early stage and EXIF is written into the DNG file. The 21/3.4 is a notoriously low distortion lens, 1.3% at the most, so I doubt whether there is much need for correction. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #11 Posted November 25, 2019 1 minute ago, jaapv said: At any rate it is clear that the colour shift corrections are made at an early stage and EXIF is written into the DNG file. The 21/3.4 is a notoriously low distortion lens, 1.3% at the most, so I doubt whether there is much need for correction. Question is how this distortion measure was taken. Before or after 6-bit correction? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #12 Posted November 25, 2019 Certainly before. What distortion are you talking about BTW? The pin-cushion/barrel/mustache linear distortion or perspective distortion (falling lines and eggheads in the corners)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #13 Posted November 25, 2019 14 minutes ago, jaapv said: Certainly before. What distortion are you talking about BTW? The pin-cushion/barrel/mustache linear distortion or perspective distortion (falling lines and eggheads in the corners)? I meant optical distortion (barrel...) but i'm not sure to share your certainty with respect. Would you have any link about the moment distortion measures are taken by Leica, before or after 6-bit coding? Just curious but i seem to have noticed significant firmware distortion corrections out of the SE 21/3.4 asph on M240 and/or digital CL. I will display them here if i can retrieve the files. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted November 25, 2019 Share #14 Posted November 25, 2019 Yes, that is a good idea. The distortion by this lens is mustache-type, which is devilishly difficult to correct in postprocessing. The distortion charts are on the Leica website: That is always without six-bit coding corrections, as Leica sells M lenses for use on film cameras as well. https://us.leica-camera.com/content/download/102625/906177/version/2/file/Super-Elmar-M21-TechnicalData.pdf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB_tx Posted November 25, 2019 Share #15 Posted November 25, 2019 I'm quite sure the Leica M coding affects only vignetting and edge colors. Sean Reid has pointed out that distortion correction always reduces resolution, and has not mentioned comparing M lenses with and without corrections, as he does with other types. However, there may be another layer, as Lightroom can also do distortion correction from the DNG file, so if the lens model is identified in the DNG, Lightroom could be adding correction even though Leica doesn't do it in-camera. Vignetting and edge color correction won't affect resolution, but may add a bit of noise, as it basically amplifies, like using higher ISO selectively on colors. That's why M lens edge corrections are more effective at lower ISO settings, as there is more "headroom" for adjustment. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #16 Posted November 25, 2019 41 minutes ago, TomB_tx said: I'm quite sure the Leica M coding affects only vignetting and edge colors. Sean Reid has pointed out that distortion correction always reduces resolution, and has not mentioned comparing M lenses with and without corrections, as he does with other types. [...] Too bad he has not as such a comparo would have been interesting IMHO. I dont use LR and i've no vegetables on hand but here's what i found in my garden. SE 21/3.4 asph on Digital CL. Lens profile "Super-Elmar-M 1:3.4/21 ASPH". Same raw file converted with and w/o lens profile through Iridient Developer. (6MB files) Lens profile off:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-TFJ9xsM/0/ab5ffda3/O/i-TFJ9xsM.jpg Lens profile on:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-t9MpWtm/0/0bad8edc/O/i-t9MpWtm.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
adan Posted November 25, 2019 Share #17 Posted November 25, 2019 Important not to confuse what the camera does to the image, and what post-processing software does to the image. The 6-bit code and Leica cameras do not, by default, correct the distortion of a lens. Only the vignetting and color stains. If one chooses to turn on automated corrections in software afterwards, any lens corrections can be applied then (by reading the 6-bit EXIF lens ID and the software choosing the appropriate corrections). But it is not clear to me whether the correcting profile is included in the camera file data and thus built by Leica ("To correct the distortion of this lens, apply these settings") - or whether it comes in the software (e.g. Iridient) instead, from their own lens tests. I'm not aware of Leica making any M lens that depends on digital computing to correct distortion in the taking of the picture - because Leica still respects the thousands of film users who want to, for example, use a 21 Super-Elmar on their M3/4/5/6/7, and print it via a lab or darkroom, not via LR or Iridient or C1, etc. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 25, 2019 Share #18 Posted November 25, 2019 Hard to believe that Iridient can be the culprit given that the file suffering from distortion is the one with no profile above. Anyway, i got similar results when removing the opcodes from the raw file through DNG Cleaner below. Basic raw conversion through Apple Preview. Any explanation? Opcodes off:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-fVxVdBX/0/e8de07bd/O/i-fVxVdBX.jpg Opcodes on:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-HVFgCdg/0/7be59dce/O/i-HVFgCdg.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted November 28, 2019 Share #19 Posted November 28, 2019 Same test with a CV 15/4.5 coded as TE 16-18-21 (WATE) on digital CL. Opcodes removed from the raw file through DNG Cleaner. Basic raw conversion through Apple Preview again. Pretty obvious that 6-bit coding affects distortion as i suspected. Opcodes off:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-gwJts7n/0/cf424a17/O/i-gwJts7n.jpg Opcodes on:https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-J5dWQXF/0/df5cd323/O/i-J5dWQXF.jpg Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ph. Posted November 28, 2019 Author Share #20 Posted November 28, 2019 a correction to my remark above ad the usefiulness of adding coding to the Hologon; I was referring to my copy of the original M-Hologon, not the rebuilt G-version which may well need some kind of correction. p. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now