larry Posted October 30, 2006 Share #21 Posted October 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) I found this to be a true hands-on review that was refreshingly not a clinical glove-box treatment of the camera. It reinforced my brief but favorable impression of the M8 from a Leica demo a few weeks back. Michael makes it clear that this is a true M and that it's not going to appeal to everyone, particularly the more-buttons-are-better crowd. My hat's off to Michael for a review that's clearly directed to the mindset of M users. Larry Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 30, 2006 Posted October 30, 2006 Hi larry, Take a look here M8 Review on Luminous-Landscape. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
brucek Posted October 30, 2006 Share #22 Posted October 30, 2006 I love how M8 review has more pictures of taken with film M camera Did you check the link Michael refers to at the beginning of the article? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8-port.shtml Bruce Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamilsukun Posted October 30, 2006 Share #23 Posted October 30, 2006 Did you check the link Michael refers to at the beginning of the article? http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/leica-m8-port.shtml Bruce Very impressive samples indeed. Regards, Kamil Sukun Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wparsonsgisnet Posted October 30, 2006 Share #24 Posted October 30, 2006 I've just read the LL review and found it illuminating, of course. Reichmann's reviews are always clear, solid, and illuminating. I continue to find the white on black of this site difficult to read. I add to this comment that the current white on gray of Sean Reid's site is much more legible. For those of you who do not currently subscribe or those who continually grouse about the cost (what CAN your priorities be???!) of ReidReviews, you're missing the best photo review site I have used. No one else does lens comparisons in the same way -- WITH comparison images. I bot a Leica 24mm lens based on the images from Sean's site. I expect to be acquiring some software based on Sean's reviews, as well. Man, I hate to make uninformed decisions! I figure I've saved enough money buying the right stuff the first time to pay for this site for light years. Regards, Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 30, 2006 Share #25 Posted October 30, 2006 Originally Posted by nachkebiaI love how M8 review has more pictures of taken with film M camera I counted 2 film and about a dozen digital shots (excluding the 5D ones, the ones with no identification, and any crops). Did you drop out of maths by any chance! ;) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdewitt Posted October 30, 2006 Share #26 Posted October 30, 2006 Scott, Sean, at first I mean an error in : citation "I asked if there were any true 16 bit files from any camera. he said that he had never seen one (and he's seen them all). He said that files from Phase One backs are 14 bit (they too claim to be 16 bit), Canon raw files are 12 bit, and that various other cameras range from 8 to 12 bits." From my expirience, there are many cameras with 16 bit output and 14 bit also, ranging from cheap to expensive like a Leica DMR. But if his source did, in fact, make that statement, then MR did not make an error, did he? Whether or not his source made an error is another point, the one I think you are making. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted October 30, 2006 Share #27 Posted October 30, 2006 Advertisement (gone after registration) Reichmann - obviously way out of his depth - writes: ... According to Dr. Know, a friend who writes raw software, and who is extremely knowledgeable in this area, .... What he told me is that the M8's DNG files are definitely 8 bit, not 16 bit. They may be 16 bit somewhere upstream of the DNG file, but the output file is in 8 bit format. Fear Uncertainty Doubt, confirmed by an anonymous source. Uh-huh... yeah, right. When will Leica (and Kodak) put these 8-bit Trolls to sleep? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Kolev Posted October 30, 2006 Share #28 Posted October 30, 2006 Gary, I mean error in review, not Michael particulary. I'm afraid I have said too strong. Some inaccuracies in third sources would be better. When will Leica (and Kodak) put these 8-bit Trolls to sleep? When they will prove the opposite. Or at least will say something about the problem. Kodak has nothing to do with it, they only developed a sensor, encoding comes from adobe I suppose. It would be not a bad scheme, if the ability to write full data as an option was present. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie Roberts Posted October 30, 2006 Share #29 Posted October 30, 2006 {snipped}When will Leica (and Kodak) put these 8-bit Trolls to sleep? Andrew, they won't have to put us to sleep--we still buy Leica products, including the M8. In the old days, instead of "trolls" they used to call us "customers...." and I'd still like a way to turn this off or understand the encoding / compression scheme. Anyway, back to the LL review, does anyone here think the wide gamut profile of the M8 (as profiled by Phase One) has something to do with the encoding scheme and colour recovery? Just curious... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reichmann Posted October 30, 2006 Share #30 Posted October 30, 2006 Andrew N. Ok. Let's play "I know more than you do". Except, that I'll reveal who "Dr. Know" is. (It was a silly joke not to name him in any event, since he didn't request anonimity on this subject.) It's Thomas Knoll, the original author of Photoshop, the author of Adobe Camera Raw, and one of the developers of the raw capabilities in Adobe Lightroom. Now it may be that your knowledge of raw files is deeper than his, in which case I would enjoy hearing from you, here or in private. Indeed if you have any factual insights into the situation (rather than inuendo and hypothesis) I'll be glad to host an article by you on my site where a million people a month can learn from you. Michael Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrej Kolev Posted October 30, 2006 Share #31 Posted October 30, 2006 Michael, regarding Dr. Know statements - from my point of view next cameras for example write 16 bit data - Leica DMR, Panasonic FZ-30/LX-1. Sony R1 (-512 for black level), many Fuji cameras write 14 bit data. I mean they utilize that range of data, maximum values are nearly 2^16 or 2^14.IMHO their sensors in most cases dont need such amounts of data. From my calculations (based on Kodak specifications) DMR and M8 needs only 12 bits of data, the 4MP Kodak sensor with large cells and maximum dynamic range may need 15 bits of data. And sorry for such strong word as error. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cbretteville Posted October 30, 2006 Share #32 Posted October 30, 2006 I continue to find the white on black of this site difficult to read. I add to this comment that the current white on gray of Sean Reid's site is much more legible. You can allways change the colours of the html pages at the LL of you want. You can also print the pages for reading away from the computer. You can change the font size and resize the window in which you read the review or whatever. All this is inherent in html and the browser you use. Sean uses Flash movies as his way of presenting his ponderings denying his readers the flexibility offered by html. Try looking at the fruit/veg comparison shots in Sean's M8 part 2 and comparing them - don't you wish you could enlarge the view so you could get them in view at the same time? - Carl Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
truando Posted October 30, 2006 Share #33 Posted October 30, 2006 Well, after all it's the M8, not the M16, isn't it?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted October 30, 2006 Share #34 Posted October 30, 2006 Now it may be that your knowledge of raw files is deeper than his, in which case I would enjoy hearing from you Sigh. My remarks questioned the veracity of citing an anonymous source as an authority to support a dubious claim that the M8 captures 8-bit images. I also wondered when Leica/ Kodak would zap the net-myth. Surely a reasonable thing to do? At any rate, it isn't up to me to prove or disprove anything. It isn't my camera. Leica are big enough to look after themselves :?) I'll be glad to host an article by you on my site where a million people a month can learn from you Thankyou for the gracious offer, but I've been top 5 in a google search for "leica m8" for months now, so I get plenty of traffic on the issue :?) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rosuna Posted October 30, 2006 Share #35 Posted October 30, 2006 Just an hypothesis: Could Leica be using non-linear algorithms for data description into the DNG file? M8 DNG files are much smaller than DNG DMR files. This can be because a data loss or because a different way of storing data is used. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimF Posted October 30, 2006 Share #36 Posted October 30, 2006 My remarks questioned the veracity of citing an anonymous source as an authority to support a dubious claim that the M8 captures 8-bit images. I certainly don't wish to get involved in any slanging match, but the issue is not whether the M8 does or does not "capture" 8-bit images, but whether it outputs in that form. Not the same thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nemeng Posted October 30, 2006 Share #37 Posted October 30, 2006 Just an hypothesis: Could Leica be using non-linear algorithms for data description into the DNG file? M8 DNG files are much smaller than DNG DMR files. This can be because a data loss or because a different way of storing data is used. No it isn't. All Leica (and/ or Jenoptik) are doing is using the "lossless Huffman JPEG compression" scheme built into the Adobe DNG spec. See the note in my FAQ at: Leica FAQ - Digital Accessories & Issues Basically you get a 50% file-size saving for no data loss. The Huffman scheme has been around since the 1950s and although it isn't amazingly efficient, it hasn't been superseded because newer methods aren't that much better. See the following Wiki overview: Lossless data compression - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 30, 2006 Share #38 Posted October 30, 2006 Just an hypothesis: Could Leica be using non-linear algorithms for data description into the DNG file? Yes. The 8 bits which are stored in the dng file for each pixel are, roughly, the square roots of the original data, and are restored to their original values (again, roughly) when the dng file is read. See the thread which Andrej Kolev started here for the steps he took to confirm this. But it shouldn't be an issue, since Thomas Knoll, who is the senior technical person behind ACR, says that is what he sees in the files as well. Now please, can we stop the name-calling? scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gogopix Posted October 30, 2006 Share #39 Posted October 30, 2006 Just an hypothesis: Could Leica be using non-linear algorithms for data description into the DNG file? M8 DNG files are much smaller than DNG DMR files. This can be because a data loss or because a different way of storing data is used. I believe that is exactly what Andrej found; dynamic range 14-16 bit, precision, 8 bit uses LUT (or fixed algorithm) for conversion. pretty standard I suspect Leica found the deviation from the algorithm negligible Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted October 30, 2006 Share #40 Posted October 30, 2006 No it isn't. But it is. Sorry, you are incorrect. If you don't find Knoll's or Kolev's statements (they read the files) convincing, consider that Huffman encoding produces a file whose length depends on the image content, and all M8 dng files are the same length, about 10.2 MB. scott Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.