miami91 Posted October 17, 2008 Share #21 Posted October 17, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) Actually, I think I've found confirmation. See this Adobe web page: Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support Quote: "Camera Raw 5 and later is not compatible with Photoshop CS3." Now might there be an ACR 4.x for those of us still using CS3???? Jeff. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 17, 2008 Posted October 17, 2008 Hi miami91, Take a look here D Lux 4: Compare output to M8. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
farnz Posted October 17, 2008 Share #22 Posted October 17, 2008 Thanks, Jeff, and I agree - it does smack of Adobe's usual method of 'encouraging' us to upgrade. At the moment, for me, the case for upgrading to CS4 is far from compelling and ACR 4.6 doesn't appear to offer much either. Time may tell however. Pete. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 23, 2008 Share #23 Posted October 23, 2008 Well, I think the sensor itself is 16:9, so a crop should get you the same effect (and resolution) as the switch. At least that's what I tell myself when I make the same mistake I don't believe that to be the case any more. The previous iterations had a native 16x9 chip (one reason I bought the DLux3), but you don't see that mentioned in any of the marketing for either the LX3/DLux4, and if you look at the resolution you actually get less pixels in 16x9. That being said, it is great to be able to frame in 16x9 rather than crop after the fact. I found that shooting 16x9, especially vertical changed the way I looked at things... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shootist Posted October 23, 2008 Share #24 Posted October 23, 2008 Actually, I think I've found confirmation. See this Adobe web page: Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support Quote: "Camera Raw 5 and later is not compatible with Photoshop CS3." Now might there be an ACR 4.x for those of us still using CS3???? Jeff. Adobe is going to run into some problems. LR2/2.1 still uses a version of ACR 4. If they update LR2/2.1 to newer cameras they are going to have to update ACR 4 at the same time. That is until they come out with a new version of LR. IMHO I think it is all getting a little over the top. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
firoze Posted October 24, 2008 Share #25 Posted October 24, 2008 etherfarm and nostatic, The D-Lux 4 sensor is 3x2 format. The 16x9 and 4x3 formats are achieved by cropping the output of the sensor. Hope this clarifies your doubts. I got this info from a Leica Rep who was visiting one of the dealers in Frankfurt. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ibogost Posted October 24, 2008 Share #26 Posted October 24, 2008 Is there any information about the differences between the D-Lux 4 and the PanaLeica equivalent DMC-LX3? LX3 is literally half the price. I've already done my Leica splurging in M lenses, and I'm not sure I need to do so with a compact. In any case, I'd probably pay a premium just for the Leica model's exterior design, which I find superior, but 2x? Augh. I've read about certain secret "Leica imaging enhancements," but does anyone really know what the differences are? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nryn Posted October 25, 2008 Share #27 Posted October 25, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) oh well. Actually it doesn't matter to me either way. I've got more than enough resolution in 16:9. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pelikan1931 Posted October 30, 2008 Share #28 Posted October 30, 2008 the panasonic one: frankly i would be willing to pay more for the leica one, if there is more styling in it, something like a IIIf or the nearest Barnack equivalents, in classic chrome of course. why minox can do it but not leica? nonetheless 24mm @2 is cool: Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 30, 2008 Share #29 Posted October 30, 2008 etherfarm and nostatic, The D-Lux 4 sensor is 3x2 format. The 16x9 and 4x3 formats are achieved by cropping the output of the sensor. Hope this clarifies your doubts. I got this info from a Leica Rep who was visiting one of the dealers in Frankfurt. Actually according to the Leica spec sheet i think it is 4x3 native. 4:3 format (max. 10 MP) 3648 x 2736, 3072 x 2304, 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 640 x 480. 3:2 format (max. 9.5 MP) 3776 x 2520, 3168 x 2112, 2656 x 1768, 2112 x 1048, 2048 x 1360. 16:9 format (max. 9 MP) 3968 x 2232, 3328 x 1872, 2784 x 1568, 2208 x 1248, 1920 x 1080. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nostatic Posted October 30, 2008 Share #30 Posted October 30, 2008 Actually according to the Leica spec sheet i think it is 4x3 native. 4:3 format (max. 10 MP) 3648 x 2736, 3072 x 2304, 2560 x 1920, 2048 x 1536, 1600 x 1200, 640 x 480. 3:2 format (max. 9.5 MP) 3776 x 2520, 3168 x 2112, 2656 x 1768, 2112 x 1048, 2048 x 1360. 16:9 format (max. 9 MP) 3968 x 2232, 3328 x 1872, 2784 x 1568, 2208 x 1248, 1920 x 1080. Hmm, according to the Leica site the chip is 1:1.63, which doesn't really add up to any of these formats. I'm assuming that since the 4:3 gives the largest file size it is the closest to the "native" size of the chip. Then again, I'm not an electrical engineer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn last night... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grillo Posted October 30, 2008 Share #31 Posted October 30, 2008 > according to the Leica site the chip is 1:1.63 This refers to the size of the chip, not the proportions. If you look closely at the resolutions you will see that they are all cropped from a bigger sensor. You can't get 3968 x 2232 by cropping 3648 x 2736 or viceversa. --J. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.