mike prevette Posted October 24, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) James, I thought the same thing at first. Then I started really thinking about it. Sean said in his reviews this thing is coming in about a THIRD of a stop hotter than it's rated (lets call 2500>2800)** EDITED THANKS SEAN ** so then I started to compare it to digital and film shots i had on my machine. The M8 came out on top in both cases (delta 3200 + 20d@3200) Obviously the film came in a close second and d20 a third. I'm sure with a better RAW converter, a more skilled photoshop operator, and possibly as a last ditch some noise ninja, these files will be some of the best highspeed available. _mike (likes a little grain in his images) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 24, 2006 Posted October 24, 2006 Hi mike prevette, Take a look here DNG M8 files on-line. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 24, 2006 James, I thought the same thing at first. Then I started really thinking about it. Sean said in his reviews this thing is coming in about a stop hotter than it's rated (lets call 2500>3200) so then I started to compare it to digital and film shots i had on my machine. The M8 came out on top in both cases (delta 3200 + 20d@3200) Obviously the film came in a close second and d20 a third. I'm sure with a better RAW converter, a more skilled photoshop operator, and possibly as a last ditch some noise ninja, these files will be some of the best highspeed available. _mike (likes a little grain in his images) Hi Mike, Just to clarify....the M8 is about 1/3 stop more sensitive than rated, not a whole stop. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike prevette Posted October 24, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 24, 2006 Chris, I didn't do anything amazing. I am actually usually pretty poor with my raw conversions. no niose ninja. Just a basic raw conversion (maybe a little low con) then did some curve tweeks and some burning to the wall around the shoulders. Like I said in that post I jsut treated the image like it was one of my own, and did to it what I would do in a real world scenario. _mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 24, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 24, 2006 Did anybody else notice the strange banding behind the man in the ISO 1250 shot? It looks like the window light is causing it. I also see it in the ISO 2500 shot as well but it is not as severe. It doesn't look like flare to me... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 24, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 24, 2006 Maybe this is why Leica don't want files distributed...? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike prevette Posted October 24, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 24, 2006 Yup, I saw it, and Bob posted about it a few posts up. It unfourtunatly comes with the territory. CCD's are a grid of charged pixels. When a bright light causes a high charge down the row it tends affect those in line with it. This isn't a big suprise, and fixing it is beyond ANYONES current technology. It isn't a huge problem to deal with al long as your aware of it. _mike Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 24, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 24, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Maybe this is why Leica don't want files distributed...? But Andy, the consensus is that the ban has now been lifted and reviewers are free to offer their comments on image quality, isn't it the case? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
newyorkone Posted October 24, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 24, 2006 I've used Nikon DSLR's which also use CCD's and I've never seen anything like this. That particular shot has more of the window in the frame than the others so I suspect that is why it is so severe in that shot. No worries really...I doubt I will ever use ISO 1250 or 2500. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 24, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 24, 2006 Ok so the only file I've played with so far was the 2500 test shot. When I first cracked it open, I must admit I was a little disapointed. Then I realised my photoshop settings were mainly to blame. I also injected myself with a dose of reality. I tweeked a little, and did to it exactly what i would do if it were my image. I'm still bothered by the patter of digital "grain" but the m8 makes the most filmic i've ever seen. In the end i'm very happy. I read the prohibition to be against posting dng files with EXIF information, so JPG's derived from current generation M8 firmware should be OK. If not, I'll take these down, but... is the first of the series, developed in C1Pro (3.7.5) using the JFI yellow#1 profile, and otherwise all default settings, reduced to 25%. Even the 1250 shot, processed hands-off with this profile, is nice. (Note, yellow is the best filter for grain, since it suppresses the blue channel.) My downloads didn't include a 2500 shot. is the fourth in the series. Tweak the addresses used above and you can retrieve the other two, treated the same. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnastovall Posted October 24, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 24, 2006 Scott, I see what appears to be very distict banding in the background of the images you posted. It is most evident in the last one. Is that there or just an artifact of the size of the posted images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sdai Posted October 24, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 24, 2006 I don't have enough time to play with these files yet, but the banding at the top right corner in Scott's second example is horrid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 24, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 24, 2006 Scott, I see what appears to be very distict banding in the background of the images you posted. It is most evident in the last one. Is that there or just an artifact of the size of the posted images. It was commented on before. It appears to be a streak from the very hot spot at the top of the windows on the right. It's not banding. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted October 24, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 24, 2006 Maybe this is why Leica don't want files distributed...? How many more times..? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted October 24, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 24, 2006 Did any of you who downloaded these files happen to notice which version of firmware was used? If it is the current one being used by the reviewers, Leica’s position is difficult to understand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rvaubel Posted October 24, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 24, 2006 Did any of you who downloaded these files happen to notice which version of firmware was used? If it is the current one being used by the reviewers, Leica’s position is difficult to understand. Bill Version 1.06 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 24, 2006 Share #36 Posted October 24, 2006 {snipped}is the first of the series, developed in C1Pro (3.7.5) using the JFI yellow#1 profile, and otherwise all default settings, reduced to 25%. Even the 1250 shot, processed hands-off with this profile, is nice. (Note, yellow is the best filter for grain, since it suppresses the blue channel.) {snipped} Ok--no more comments from me until the embargo is lifted. But I'm starved for images. For some reason, I can't log into Sean R's site (I wrote down my username and pwd incorrectly... D'oh!!), so I'll just have to wait, I guess, until Leica releases some files... ANYWAY, Scott--what in heck is the JFI yellow #1 profile for C1? I like it, but I've never heard of it...Care to elaborate? Are these the monochrome + yellow filters provided by Phase One? One more cryptic question, BTW--who makes the M8 sensor this time round? Is it still Kodak / Imacon? I'm asking because those with FlexColor and C1 installed might want to play with other source profiles, of course, at such a time that M8 DNGs are officially availalbe, of course! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mitchell Posted October 24, 2006 Share #37 Posted October 24, 2006 I don't understand what's going on, what Leica is doing. None of us do. But, it makes sense that if Leica doesn't want images shown they're working on something. They may satisfy all our concerns. They may not. But, clearly they're still working and it's premature to judge the M8. Not that I don't enjoy and learn from all the learned speculation. Thanks, Mitchell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
billh Posted October 24, 2006 Share #38 Posted October 24, 2006 Bill Version 1.06 Isn’t this the version in Sean’s M8 - the one he used for the “sanctioned” photos he has published? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #39 Posted October 24, 2006 Ok--no more comments from me until the embargo is lifted. But I'm starved for images. For some reason, I can't log into Sean R's site (I wrote down my username and pwd incorrectly... D'oh!!), so I'll just have to wait, I guess, until Leica releases some files... ANYWAY, Scott--what in heck is the JFI yellow #1 profile for C1? I like it, but I've never heard of it...Care to elaborate? Are these the monochrome + yellow filters provided by Phase One? One more cryptic question, BTW--who makes the M8 sensor this time round? Is it still Kodak / Imacon? I'm asking because those with FlexColor and C1 installed might want to play with other source profiles, of course, at such a time that M8 DNGs are officially availalbe, of course! Jamie, E-mail me. We can sort out your log-in. Also on the site is the review of the JFI profiles which is where Scott learned about them. Scott, That was an excellent tip you gave about using the yellow filter. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sean_reid Posted October 24, 2006 Share #40 Posted October 24, 2006 Isn’t this the version in Sean’s M8 - the one he used for the “sanctioned” photos he has published? Yes, it's the same firmware and I certainly was allowed to publish example files and discuss them. Cheers, Sean Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.