carstenw Posted November 23, 2007 Share #41 Posted November 23, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe the next time they can add a little periscope I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that Leica didn't add any new forward-looking mechanism for communicating the aperture to the Summarits, from what I can detect. There *are* those strange little three dots on the 75 and 90, but as long as the 35 and 50 are left out, I cannot imagine that these are for that. By the way, the fact that the new budget-range doesn't go below 35 I think is an interesting indication that Leica may be planning for a FF M9 sooner rather than later... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 23, 2007 Posted November 23, 2007 Hi carstenw, Take a look here Secrets of the blue dot revealed! (and other M8 metadata). I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 23, 2007 Share #42 Posted November 23, 2007 Maybe the next time they can add a little periscope I am surprised, and a little disappointed, that Leica didn't add any new forward-looking mechanism for communicating the aperture to the Summarits, from what I can detect. There *are* those strange little three dots on the 75 and 90, but as long as the 35 and 50 are left out, I cannot imagine that these are for that. By the way, the fact that the new budget-range doesn't go below 35 I think is an interesting indication that Leica may be planning for a FF M9 sooner rather than later... Carl analyzed close to 2000 exposures, for each of which he had logged the actual aperture, in order to get his plots. Sandy worked with the blue dot and internal readings from Carl's data to conclude that the offset and some sort of mystery roundoff error were really happening. So while I am intrigued by hearing about the different behaviors seen so far in the Zeiss and Summarit lenses, I'd really like to see 50-100 annotated exposures across a range of relevant scenes from each. That would start to expose real differences. I posted a few individual examples because I was comparing CF.6 with a trial version CF.5 (which Sandy did not release, but did his test with) just to make sure that no bug had slipped in. There are many reasons to distrust the blue dot method -- FOV, blocking, operator error... I also think Leica is better off moving to a new M9 rather than trying to make everything that was underengineered in the M8 work a little better. I'll still love my Edsel, and I might just buy it a Mustang to keep it company. But wouldn't a 28/2.5 Summarit, slightly softer in character than the 28/2.8 Elmarit-asph, be nice? scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted November 23, 2007 Author Share #43 Posted November 23, 2007 I do not know if I missed anything, but will maker notes be affected by Adobe DNG converter? You mentioned a number of problem under the heading "Maker notes safety", but Adobe DNG converter is not included. If you use the DNG converter and create new uncompressed or compressed files from M8 DNGs the maker notes are copied to the new file and saved in a DNG tag called "DNG Private data". Once I understood what Adobe does - at least with the M8 DNGs - it was easy to adapt my decoder to read the information. I'm pleased to say that it seems CornerFix finds the maker notes data in these files too. - Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scho Posted November 23, 2007 Share #44 Posted November 23, 2007 Not in the current version. If many people have the same experience as you do however, an option could certainly be added in the next version of CornerFix. Sandy Thanks Sandy. I'll try to generate a larger data sample covering more lenses and shooting conditions and report back and hopefully others will as well. Is there any way to export or copy data from the Mac CF log file window? Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted November 24, 2007 Share #45 Posted November 24, 2007 Thanks Sandy. I'll try to generate a larger data sample covering more lenses and shooting conditions and report back and hopefully others will as well. Is there any way to export or copy data from the Mac CF log file window? Carl Not from the CornerFix Log window, but the if the Cornerfix log window isn't displayed, the same info is sent to the Apple logging app (in utilities, I think - not at a Mac right now), and you can copy from that. Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
luigi bertolotti Posted November 24, 2007 Share #46 Posted November 24, 2007 ... I can imagine easily what hell of threads would have sprouted if Leica would have decided to implement an aperture computation based on the blue dot... ... they have been clever not to do it... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted November 24, 2007 Author Share #47 Posted November 24, 2007 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not from the CornerFix Log window, but the if the Cornerfix log window isn't displayed, the same info is sent to the Apple logging app (in utilities, I think - not at a Mac right now), and you can copy from that. Sandy Any way to pipe the log to a file on Windows? -Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scho Posted November 24, 2007 Share #48 Posted November 24, 2007 Not from the CornerFix Log window, but the if the Cornerfix log window isn't displayed, the same info is sent to the Apple logging app (in utilities, I think - not at a Mac right now), and you can copy from that. Sandy Thanks again Sandy. Yes, the Apple Console app records the data from CF in the console log window which can then be copied or exported as a text file. Seems as though aperture estimates are very much focal length dependent. Although the Leica estimate is very accurate with my CV 28mm, the CF estimates are right on with my Zeiss 50mm and the Leica estimates are off. Also, the magnitude of the error seems to greater with larger (smaller opening) aperture numbers. Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted November 24, 2007 Share #49 Posted November 24, 2007 Any way to pipe the log to a file on Windows?-Carl Just cut and paste from the CornerFix logging area... Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Raucher Posted November 24, 2007 Share #50 Posted November 24, 2007 Sandy thanks for your great work on CornerFix. I'm interested in using CornerFix just to update the EXIF data in my dng files. I'm pleased to see that it will work on dng files that have already been losslessly compressed with Adobe DNG converter or in Lightroom. My question is whether any RAW image data is changed if I use CornerFix without a profile and with Enable Level Compression checked. If I start with a 10 Mb M8 file (or the corresponding 5 Mb file that was generated from Adobe DNG Converter or by export from Lightroom) and just update the EXIF data with Enable Level Compression checked and no profile the size grows to around 40 Mb. If I process the resulting _CF file with Adobe DNG Converter or export it as a dng file from Lightroom the size drops down to approximately 5 Mb. If I run CornerFix the update EXIF on a 10 Mb M8 file (or the corresponding 5 Mb losslessly compressed file) with no compression or lossless compression enabled, the file size increases to around 20Mb. When I then process that _CF file with Adobe DNG Converter or export it as a dng file from Lightroom, the size drops to approximately 10Mb. So what's happening here? Is any of the RAW image data being changed? Why are the initially generated _CF files so large? If only the EXIF data is being updated, why is there a difference in file size depending on whether or not I enable level compression? Thanks, Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted November 25, 2007 Share #51 Posted November 25, 2007 It sounds like demosaicing might be taking place... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
asfeir Posted November 25, 2007 Share #52 Posted November 25, 2007 If you use the DNG converter and create new uncompressed or compressed files from M8 DNGs the maker notes are copied to the new file and saved in a DNG tag called "DNG Private data". Once I understood what Adobe does - at least with the M8 DNGs - it was easy to adapt my decoder to read the information. I'm pleased to say that it seems CornerFix finds the maker notes data in these files too. - Carl Thanks Carl. I am glad DNG converter saves the data. I have compressed a whole lot of picts before and I was worried I may have trashed info that might be useful in the future. Abudi Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted November 25, 2007 Share #53 Posted November 25, 2007 Sandy thanks for your great work on CornerFix. I'm interested in using CornerFix just to update the EXIF data in my dng files. I'm pleased to see that it will work on dng files that have already been losslessly compressed with Adobe DNG converter or in Lightroom. My question is whether any RAW image data is changed if I use CornerFix without a profile and with Enable Level Compression checked. If I start with a 10 Mb M8 file (or the corresponding 5 Mb file that was generated from Adobe DNG Converter or by export from Lightroom) and just update the EXIF data with Enable Level Compression checked and no profile the size grows to around 40 Mb. If I process the resulting _CF file with Adobe DNG Converter or export it as a dng file from Lightroom the size drops down to approximately 5 Mb. If I run CornerFix the update EXIF on a 10 Mb M8 file (or the corresponding 5 Mb losslessly compressed file) with no compression or lossless compression enabled, the file size increases to around 20Mb. When I then process that _CF file with Adobe DNG Converter or export it as a dng file from Lightroom, the size drops to approximately 10Mb. So what's happening here? Is any of the RAW image data being changed? Why are the initially generated _CF files so large? If only the EXIF data is being updated, why is there a difference in file size depending on whether or not I enable level compression? Thanks, Stan The DNG's raw data isn't changed if you don't have a profile loaded. What is happening with the file size is that for Leica M8 file, there are two possible form of compression, level and lossless. Level compression is 8 bits vs 16 bits, which is the 10MB vs 20 MB file sizes. CornerFix defaults to not using level compression. Lossless compression is good for about a 40% reduction is file size, so 10 MB goes to about 6, and 20 to about 12.... Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
barjohn Posted November 25, 2007 Share #54 Posted November 25, 2007 Much to my surprise I am finding that with lens detection on and IR on and using a Leica 28/2.8 with 6 bit coding some of the EXIF files do not have the lens info in which case the converted _CF lack the information. Why some lack the lens data is a surprise to me and one I hadn't expected (Focal Length). This appears to be a software bug where it fails to record the lens information. All of the shots in the series were taken with the SF-24D flash in GNC. I don't know if this is the culprit causing this to happen. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Raucher Posted November 25, 2007 Share #55 Posted November 25, 2007 The DNG's raw data isn't changed if you don't have a profile loaded. What is happening with the file size is that for Leica M8 file, there are two possible form of compression, level and lossless. Level compression is 8 bits vs 16 bits, which is the 10MB vs 20 MB file sizes. CornerFix defaults to not using level compression. Lossless compression is good for about a 40% reduction is file size, so 10 MB goes to about 6, and 20 to about 12.... Sandy Thanks again Sandy. I'm glad to learn that the DNG raw data isn't changed if I update my EXIF data without a profile using Enable Level Compression. So, the warning to avoid level compression only applies to files that have been processed in CornerFix using profiles. Thanks, Stan Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandymc Posted November 25, 2007 Share #56 Posted November 25, 2007 So, the warning to avoid level compression only applies to files that have been processed in CornerFix using profiles. Correct Sandy Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted November 26, 2007 Share #57 Posted November 26, 2007 Much to my surprise I am finding that with lens detection on and IR on and using a Leica 28/2.8 with 6 bit coding some of the EXIF files do not have the lens info in which case the converted _CF lack the information. Why some lack the lens data is a surprise to me and one I hadn't expected (Focal Length). This appears to be a software bug where it fails to record the lens information. All of the shots in the series were taken with the SF-24D flash in GNC. I don't know if this is the culprit causing this to happen. If you read section 5 of Carl's manuscript, you'll see mention of several places where stuff seems to be missing that should have been recorded. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are more places where a table wasn't completed in the firmware and so the metadata is defective. The WATE has some of these. The 28/2.8 asph for a while showed a max aperture of 1.0, the result of a missing table entry that showed up in the EXIF, where all could see it. So please document whatever you find missing using CF, double check it, and share the information. One of us will probably check it once more if possible, and forward any discrepancies to Leica for their consideration (if not for immediate fixing, at least as part of their longer term effort to get clean firmware). scott Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveSee Posted November 26, 2007 Share #58 Posted November 26, 2007 Fantastic work, Carl! Thank you for the time and effort to present your observations so clearly and openly! I haven't worked through all of your report, yet am finding interesting points of intersection with my own work, work digging bits out of the metadata to better process my DNG files. Thanks! rgds, Dave Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share #59 Posted November 26, 2007 If you read section 5 of Carl's manuscript, you'll see mention of several places where stuff seems to be missing that should have been recorded. So I wouldn't be surprised if there are more places where a table wasn't completed in the firmware and so the metadata is defective. The WATE has some of these. The 28/2.8 asph for a while showed a max aperture of 1.0, the result of a missing table entry that showed up in the EXIF, where all could see it. So please document whatever you find missing using CF, double check it, and share the information. One of us will probably check it once more if possible, and forward any discrepancies to Leica for their consideration (if not for immediate fixing, at least as part of their longer term effort to get clean firmware). scott Scott, I can test this over the next few days. I have a CV28/3.5 that I thought I'd code as a 28/2.8ASPH to test as pr Carsten's table. I'll Put it through a shooting test and see what is recorded. - Carl Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share #60 Posted November 26, 2007 Fantastic work, Carl! Thank you for the time and effort to present your observations so clearly and openly! Thank you for the kind words. - Carl 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.