Colours space comparisons (M8 vs others)

[robbegibson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Christophe,

One other question -Is the DMR profile and the M8 profile the same?

 

Thanks again.

 

Robbe Gibson

[cboudier]

Watch my post #19

[robbegibson]

Errrr ok.

It will be interesting to see the 'real world' results of the differences.

 

Thanks.

[frc]

Now we have answers for the sheer pixel counters.

This all means quality.

It seems that the colour-rendition of Leica glass wil show on these sensors

Sounds like good news to me.

[cboudier]

Let's hope that the dynamic range of this sensor is as huge as its colours space !

[imported_peter_m]

One thing to keep in mind is that you won't be able to see the whole color space on the monitor and I thing most printers won't be able to use the whole color space.

Nice to see the M8 has a lot of potential.

Peter

[gogopix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I interpret correctly the M8will be wider than the DMR except for some parts of the saturated reds and blues. Looks like the M8 will have more gradations in the lighter colors.

 

Is this correct?

[Bob Ross]

One thing to keep in mind is that you won't be able to see the whole color space on the monitor and I thing most printers won't be able to use the whole color space.

Nice to see the M8 has a lot of potential.

 

Peter

One thing Christophe's work addresses is the worry over obsolescence due to radical improvements in printers, inks, papers and monitors as the digital age matures:) While printer mfrs are working on the color gamut, I think they'll have a lot of work to match the M8.

Bob

[Guest guy_mancuso]

This is all great stuff guys. Like i said i expect this to be better than the DMR and frankly owning that thing for over a year , i find that hard to believe myself except MF. So your looking at some nice improvement. this all translates to really good stuff. Okay now give me some files. LOL

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Bob they do have work to do to catch up but having the biggest color space you can get to actually work the files is really the key, your not crushing color when working in 16 bit and at these color spaces when you start working on these files. Ask any Adobe guru and they will say always work at 16 bit and the widest color space than you can convert it down for a printer and such. But this is the least destructive way to work your files is in 16 bit, you just have more to work with.

[Bob Ross]

Bob they do have work to do to catch up but having the biggest color space you can get to actually work the files is really the key, your not crushing color when working in 16 bit and at these color spaces when you start working on these files. Ask any Adobe guru and they will say always work at 16 bit and the widest color space than you can convert it down for a printer and such. But this is the least destructive way to work your files is in 16 bit, you just have more to work with.

Guy, you are right about the 16bit flexibilty when pushing images around, but the printer can be your limiting factor. I recently had a funny situation where I was doing a thank you card on the "It is not easy being green" theme. I had the image all shifted into the green spectrum with good detail, set up the card and then printed it....over and over on different paper, with no luck. I had edited the color gamut out of the printer's range and it just smeared the out of gamut detail into a uniform gamut-boundry green.....so "it is not easy printing some greens, too":o Printers are starting to support ARGB and a few 16 bit at the high end, which should trickle down...hopefully by the time the wheels fall of of mine:rolleyes:

Bob

[ho_co]

This is very helpful information, and I thank you for the efforts and comparisons. But I also say: HELP!

 

I'm one of the sheep mentioned above trying to get to the grass!

 

You say the terms ECI, Adobe RGB (1998) and sRGB apply only to JPG?

 

I understand that sRGB is smaller than Adobe RGB (1998), which is smaller than ECI. But if these color spaces are meaningful only in JPG, which is 8-bit only, who cares?

 

I don't think I've seen a camera which both offers a choice of color space and is JPG only. The only ones I'm aware of that offer a choice of color space offer RAW output as well (though obviously I'm unaware of a lot).

 

I take it that the 16-bit color space of the DMR and M8 is effective through the DNG files, and that I don't need to pay any attention to the setting of color space in the menu? That would mean that if I chose RAW/DNG only, the color space selection should grey out and be inaccessible?

 

Or am I too close to becoming mutton to see the grass?

 

Thanks!

 

--HC

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Howard what happens when shooting raw is the color space is a tag that gets put on the file so when you go to raw conversion it is there for you to use and or change. Now the second part of that is it is when shooting jpegs in camera if you chose RGB than it will shoot and process at a wide color space in 8 bit but if you set it to srgb it will be a smaller color space. This is one reason if possible to never shoot in camera jegs. What you are basically doing is squashing a ORGINAL file down to a smaller working space, reason so many folks only shoot raw. What happens is now you are stuck with a file that is set at 8 bit orginal and working space that is smaller. Now if you want jpegs at the end of the day that is what is happening. Now a better way to shoot and still get a jpeg is shoot raw at 16 bit and and processed at the wide color space than processs and make your adjustments than do a convert to profile and also to 8 bit and save as a jpeg if needed, this is the least destructive way. My workflow is like this shoot raw and than process 16 bit at a custom color space John Holmes which is very wide than it gets process to a full res. tif . Than in PS i just run a action for jpegs but still keep my color space but it gets reduced to 8 bit for jpeg. This way i am still working in a large color space. Really the only time you should convert to SRBG is for web and for some printers and labs that are set up like that.

 

But I always set my color space in camera for the highest working space. I simply don't know if the manufactor has some sort of cut off on the sensor to lower the color space to SRGB in raw . I tend to seriously doubt that but i just do it out of habbit

[ho_co]

Thanks, Guy! Very helpful to see it all put in 1-2-3 order that way.

 

I can see why so many people offer classes on color management!

 

--HC

[cboudier]

...except for some parts of the saturated reds and blues.

Yes, butthe difference will be very very very small

 

Looks like the M8 will have more gradations in the lighter colors.

Not only... The full green range is also better

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Yes Howard there is a lot to learn in digital and it really is something that many folks should do is take a class or work with someone to help to get through all this. Once you learn the techniques than your images just get better and better. Basically you are taking a raw neg and making a postive to your taste. One reason i mentioned this several times , we need a section here on this forum for Color managment beginning to end . We are going to have thousands of M film shooters converting to digital and there simply going to need a lot of guidance here. I would love to teach this myself but my knowledge is more working knowledge than the depths of pixels if you know what i mean. But you simply need to be color managed all the way , all this work in post and no calibrated monitor gets you nowhere fast. I will say though in all honesty the DMR is probably the easiet camera to deal with there files in post. There is almost no work involved without a lot of tweeking. i am hoping the M8 and C1 will be the same

[jrgeoffrion]

..But I always set my color space in camera for the highest working space. I simply don't know if the manufactor has some sort of cut off on the sensor to lower the color space to SRGB in raw . I tend to seriously doubt that but i just do it out of habbit

 

I actually do the opposite. I set my camera to the SMALLEST color space in RAW. The RAW color space only affect the embedded JPG (hence the LCD display and histogram). As such, my histogram is 'more sensitive' to changes I make (since the space is smaller, the histogram is "wider" than with a larger space for the same image). When I process however, I use a broader space and 16-bit (I use ProPhoto RGB).

[jrgeoffrion]

Forgot to mention. I also set my contrast SLIGHTLY higher then 'default' or 'normal' settings. Just a tad more to make the histogram more sensitive to exposure swings but not enough to render the LCD preview totally unusable.