M9: Does Phase One Know Something?

[charlesphoto99]

Obviously a mistake. Somebody released the wrong build. Developers do not do "pranks."

 

Releasing a body dubbed M8.3 would be a nail in the coffin at least marketing wise. The next iteration will be 9 no matter the feature set.

[buckhorn_cortez]

In the FWIW info bucket -

 

I checked the gamut of the M9 profile in Capture One using GamutWorks, and it is exactly the same profile as the M8 generic (no IR filter). So, either the profile is a place holder, or the same sensor is being used in the M9, or the "new" sensor in the M9 has exactly the same performance as the M8.

 

When you look at the M8 and M9 profile there is a large excursion into the red (IR) axis. When you look at the M8 IR profile, there is a huge dip (IR taken out) in the profile. What this means is that the M9 would have the same IR performance as the M8 without the IR filter. Doesn't seem real plausible that would be allowed to happen.

 

 

This seems to be a placeholder of some type - but, Phase One would have to release a new build of Capture One with the correct profile before the release of the M9.

[psquared]

M9 definitely appears real at this point.

 

If the CO M9 profile actually works for M9, at least in the rudimentary fashion, does the profile say anything about the bit-depth of the M9 DNG files?

[Guest guy_mancuso]

Anyone want to bet me right now you will not be getting C1 with your M9 but you will be getting Lightroom. The party is over with C1

 

Oop's I came out of the bunker to get a fresh glass and a new bottle of Vodka. Getting too sloppy top side. LOL

Edited September 3, 2009 by guy_mancuso

[scott kirkpatrick]

I missed this thread in early August (was in more interesting place, think slot canyons...), but I remember checking out the M9 generic profile when I returned. Creating a profile that is a copy of an existing profile with the name tags changed is an old hack that lets you get started using COne with a new camera. It worked when the Panasonic LX3 was supported but its Leica equivalent was not. So this does show that some one at COne had reason to believe that they should be getting ready for M9 files back in August.

 

COne profiles take a lot of work with the actual (final) camera, or at least they did when I corresponded with Michael Tapes, who was Phase One's US customer advocate and did profile shooting for them, in the release 3.x timeframe. That may be why they are not always the first to support new cameras. When you inspect their icc profiles with a gamut visualization tool you sometimes see signs of serious tweaking.

 

Now for total speculation -- I bet the LR bundling for a future M was a deal signed in the runup to the S2 announcement, once it became clear that COne would pretend that S2's didn't even exist. But we'll never know.

 

scott