clayh Posted October 19, 2006 Share #61 Posted October 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, yeah. I think this is like one of those arguments you sometimes get into with a S.O. when you are both right - the only problem being you are both right about entirely different things. Seriously: Sean has twice said we're barking up the wrong gefilte fish. Several people have said Leica would never recover if they gave us 8-bit data. Andrew has deciphered the data and found them not 8-, not 12-, but 16-bit. Leica is the only company with 16-bit raw on the market. Leica has asked us not to disseminate (ergo not to discuss) the M8's DNGs. Has anybody noticed that Leica takes good pictures? Has anybody else heard that Leica has been very surprised and pleased at the quantity of orders for M8's? Does anyone think Leica will jeopardize that? --HC Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 19, 2006 Posted October 19, 2006 Hi clayh, Take a look here M8-why 10MB-vs-DMR 20MB. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #62 Posted October 19, 2006 Sigh. Troll alert! Google "imagemagick identify" and "dcraw" for handy image-processing command line tools. Thanks a lot for these pointers, mate ... I just let my kids taught me how to run these from command line - yes, I keep the Photokina woman DNG file too. [root@localhost]# ./dcraw -i L9994925.DNG L9994925.DNG is a Leica Camera AG M8 Digital Camera DNG image. [root@localhost]# identify L9994925.DNG /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG TIFF 320x240 320x240+0+0 DirectClass 8-bit 10.0854MB 0.031u 0:01 identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 34859 (0x882b) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 36867 (0x9003) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37390 (0x920e) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37391 (0x920f) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37392 (0x9210) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37398 (0x9216) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #63 Posted October 19, 2006 Well, yeah. I think this is like one of those arguments you sometimes get into with a S.O. when you are both right - the only problem being you are both right about entirely different things. To summarize ... it's all speculation fun. As nothing will change my order on the list - the worst case, my kids will know their dad just make another foolish purchase and hopefully they could learn something from it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 19, 2006 Share #64 Posted October 19, 2006 {Snipped}/tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG TIFF 320x240 320x240+0+0 DirectClass 8-bit 10.0854MB 0.031u 0:01{snipped} Simon--ooog. I've used DCRAW for years.... looks like this is NOT an EXIF bug, Andrew. I'd still like to believe this is the last thing Leica will "turn on" in the production firmware. Here's hoping! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddawn Posted October 19, 2006 Share #65 Posted October 19, 2006 Thanks a lot for these pointers, mate ... I just let my kids taught me how to run these from command line - yes, I keep the Photokina woman DNG file too. [root@localhost]# ./dcraw -i L9994925.DNG L9994925.DNG is a Leica Camera AG M8 Digital Camera DNG image. [root@localhost]# identify L9994925.DNG /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG TIFF 320x240 320x240+0+0 DirectClass 8-bit 10.0854MB 0.031u 0:01 identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 34859 (0x882b) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 36867 (0x9003) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37390 (0x920e) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37391 (0x920f) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37392 (0x9210) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37398 (0x9216) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' ouch! 8 bit?!!?!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ticanina Posted October 19, 2006 Share #66 Posted October 19, 2006 or believe what it says in the brochure ! 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! Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/7366-m8-why-10mb-vs-dmr-20mb/?do=findComment&comment=73097'>More sharing options...
robbegibson Posted October 19, 2006 Share #67 Posted October 19, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) snip...I ran "exiftool" over the M8 DNG sample I have (the infamous "Photokina Woman" shot) and indeed the EXIF tag indicated a sample size of only 8-bits. Yet the RAW converted image is 59.2 MB and opens as a fully fledged 16-bit TIFF in Photoshop. So clearly what is noted in the tag is wrong....snip Does 'exiftool' interpret the file information correctly? Photoshop lists the file properties/bit depth as '16,16,16' and Camera data/Bits per sample as '16,16,16'. Robbe Gibson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted October 19, 2006 Share #68 Posted October 19, 2006 /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 34859 (0x882b) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory'identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 36867 (0x9003) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37390 (0x920e) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37391 (0x920f) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37392 (0x9210) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' identify: /tmp/garbage/L9994925.DNG: unknown field with tag 37398 (0x9216) encountered. 'TIFFReadDirectory' All these tags are known ones even if DCRaw dosen't identify them. There is no secret information burried there: 882Bh: Self timer mode 9003h: DateTimeOriginal (when image was captured) 920Eh: Focal plane X resolution 920Fh: Focal plane Y resolution 9210h: Focal plane resolution unit 9216h: TIFF-EPStandardID Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #69 Posted October 19, 2006 All these tags are known ones even if DCRaw dosen't identify them. There is no secret information burried there Exactly ... I guess it is not all that hard to find out, and a 6 grader's math is sufficient to solve these mysteries. It took my kid less than 5 minutes to compile the utitlity from source code and run it on his little machine. I am not really into all these computer stuff but my eyes weren't fooling me and what I saw is 8-bit. Cheers ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wattsy Posted October 19, 2006 Share #70 Posted October 19, 2006 Is it possible that the 8-bit file referred to in the 'code' above is the small preview TIFF that is usually embeeded in these RAWs (there is reference there also to a 320 x240 image)? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted October 19, 2006 Share #71 Posted October 19, 2006 Is it possible that the 8-bit file referred to in the 'code' above is the small preview TIFF that is usually embeeded in these RAWs (there is reference there also to a 320 x240 image)? Exactly. The 320x240 size indicates the "8-bit controversy" really applies to the embedded TIFF thumbnail and not the main RAW image, which is of course 16-bit. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #72 Posted October 19, 2006 which is of course 16-bit. Dude ... you're best at making assumptions instead of providing some hard proofs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
plasticman Posted October 19, 2006 Share #73 Posted October 19, 2006 Honestly, this is starting to get ridiculous. There is simply NO WAY that Leica, (or any other camera company) would even consider releasing a pro-level body, that would capture only 256 levels of color in each channel. Any idiot would be able to see the banding in their first shot. What's got into people? In any case, after seeing some pretty horrible images posted here last week - ironically from a Leica dealer - i've now seen some others that give me more hope of the real quality we'll be seeing from the M8. Looking forward to it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guy_mancuso Posted October 19, 2006 Share #74 Posted October 19, 2006 I agree there is no way in the world these are 8 bit files. Not even a remote chance Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 19, 2006 Share #75 Posted October 19, 2006 Dude ... you're best at making assumptions instead of providing some hard proofs. Dude...you're best at being annoying and insulting of others. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 19, 2006 Share #76 Posted October 19, 2006 {snipped}There is simply NO WAY that Leica, (or any other camera company) would even consider releasing a pro-level body, that would capture only 256 levels of color in each channel. Any idiot would be able to see the banding in their first shot. {snipped} While I tend to agree, you know, in my experience, the facts are actually quite different. I know plenty of pros who shoot JPEGs all the time, yes--and with pro cameras. 8bits per channel. There's lots who don't use a RAW workflow at all! I even got into a bit of an argument with a whole *set* of JPEG shooting pros who judge their pro cameras by the quality of the JPEG it produces "out of the box:" no tweaking. Well, that puts any number of fabulous pro cameras in the dumpster, since they're simply not meant to be used that way. And of course, you print an 8bit per channel image *anyway*--and my prints don't have banding. But this is all about what the RAW file delivers. I really want Andrew to be right. But so far, I have to agree the DNG analysis from DCRAW doesn't look good. We just need someone from Leica to say categorically they're not doing some weird 16 bpp to 8bpp mapping for compression purposes (or that it can be turned *off* in the final firmware). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #77 Posted October 19, 2006 I agree there is no way in the world these are 8 bit files. Not even a remote chance Guy, I couldn't believe it either ... I repeat, my posts were originally for fun and I seriously couldn't care less whether the M8 will be good, or not ... it'll only be one of the many cameras I've played with. What takes it so hard for Leica to add one more line into their spec. sheet or whatever ... just to say the damn camera has a color depth of 16-bit instead of letting folks scratching their head out there? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #78 Posted October 19, 2006 Dude...you're best at being annoying and insulting of others. Nice to meet you again ... sir. If you want a second life on the web, you do need a thick face. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 19, 2006 Share #79 Posted October 19, 2006 Nice to meet you again ... sir. If you want a second life on the web, you do need a thick face. For some reason I'm suddenly feeling the urge to reach for a fly swatter... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 19, 2006 Share #80 Posted October 19, 2006 For some reason I'm suddenly feeling the urge to reach for a fly swatter... Then go for it ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.