View Full Version : RFF to encode leica and Zeiss lenses
Dear RFF M lens owners. Rangeinderforum.com is in the process of acquiring the necessary equipment and data to encode M lenses with the new Leica 6-bit code for use with the upcoming M8. Once confirmed, this service will be offered to RFF members at a substantial savings. RFF is also working on applying the code to the Zeiss ZM lenses.
Stay Tuned for more information.
MORE INFO Feb 2007
Stefan Daniels, Head of Production for Leica Camera explained at the Wetzlar LHSA meeting (during Photokina) that the M8 Lens bar coding system is patent applied for. RFF will NOT encode the M8 bar codes.
Stephen Gandy
Wow this is brilliant news. I hope this gets off the ground soon and works well for all you M users!
Nachkebia
07-31-2006, 14:35
Yessss!! excellent!
telenous
07-31-2006, 14:39
Excellent news. Where would one have to send the lenses though? The US?
Great! Now the obvious question: what about other M-mount lenses such as Cosina Voigtlanders? 'Just thought I should ask. :cool:
erikhaugsby
07-31-2006, 15:52
Wow, so I guess RFF does have clout in the rangefinder world! I do wonder what "substantial" amounts to: 10%? 20%? Regardless, good for you lucky M8'ers.
Still working on getting hardware and coding logic. But if all goes well and as planned we are probably looking at $50.00 if one send the bayonet in and $70.00 if the lens is sent for bayonet removal. Of course, shipping is extra but minimal.
Stay tuned for more.
Bob Ross
07-31-2006, 17:43
Jorge, Another idea would be to obtain a supply of the screw mount to M mount adapters in the three frameline flavors and do batches for the most popular current CV lenses. I made this suggestion to someone else about a month ago and he was going to have the adapters fabricated locally (in the USA) by one of the machinists he knows in the auto indusrty. I told him that having a camera part made in the USA would be unique...:-)
I wonder what the code would have to contain for something like the VC 15mm? Do you pick the code of the nearest Leica glass and let it go at that? Am sure the system info will be cracked shortly after the first M8's reach market. Wonder if there will be provision to enter lens ID via the cameras menus like the D200 does? Not as simple and quick as the coded flange, but still able to take advantage of possible features.
Glenn
Very exciting. Jorge, let me know if you need help with this project.
amateriat
07-31-2006, 20:24
What, no M-Hexanons on the list!? ;)
Seriously, I'll be in no position whatever to purchase an M8 (and, as mentioned elsewhere, I'm still having too good a time with film and scanning to care at the moment), but this is an idea worth pursuing nonetheless, sometime in the future. (Hell, it's an M-mount; what's to stop us?)
- Barrett
anselwannab
07-31-2006, 20:28
Leica patents the viewfinder magnifier add on, but doesn't patent this new lens "Morse Code" system?
Do the Tri-Elmar's have dots that move?
Mark
I would be wary of encoding my lenses until I knew the in-camera firmware "improvements" of the image could be turned OFF. For example, I know that reducing or eliminating vignetting on my 21mm Kobalux WILL increase noise in the corners. There is a trade-off I want to control. In general, I want RAW data to be outputted from the camera in the purest form possible. Save all the in-camera firmware manipulation of the data for JPEGs but leave the RAW data alone. Please
Still it would be nice if the focal length of the lens in use was recorded in the metadata. That about all I want out of lens encoding.
Rex
Mark Norton
07-31-2006, 21:33
Since the coding is specific not just to the focal length but the actual lens type, you can be sure that the image correction applied will be lens unique. There are 8 or so codings for 50mm lenses. Which code are you goimng to give a Zeiss 50mm or is it a case of close your eyes and choose with a pin?
ideally, there will be options to turn off in camera adjustments, just as if there were no coding on the lens, and also, an ability to apply a different coding lens bit-mask to the firmware, for special or different effects, though I doubt the latter will be supported, it will likely be tested by creative barrel taping, etc.
Since the coding is specific not just to the focal length but the actual lens type, you can be sure that the image correction applied will be lens unique. There are 8 or so codings for 50mm lenses. Which code are you goimng to give a Zeiss 50mm or is it a case of close your eyes and choose with a pin?
A great idea, but... no patent problems?
Jon Graham
08-01-2006, 02:13
Jorge,
'Offering' RFF members a special deal on encoding seems a bit suspicious to me. Most of your advertisers are direct or indirect Leica resellers. Stick to running the forum and let the Leica dependant businesses come up with their own 'discounted' encoding.
I am sure I will get flamed for what I have said, but your business model is to have a forum with paid subscribers and advertisers. It will only get muddied by you offering any hardware for sale.
It seems likely this is a JPEG-only feature (except for EXIF data) so shooting RAW will "turn it off" automatically.
Jon: Since none of us know the details of how this will be run, you might want to reserve comments until you have those details.
Of course, shipping is extra but minimal.
Of course shipping is extra but it's hardly minimal for those outside the US.
From Holland we can't even send insured mail to the US via the regular post office, and insurance I'd want if I'm gonna send any expensive lens away. If I want insurance I'd have to opt for one of the international couriers, which will make shipping more expensive than getting the coding. Sending to Leica in Solms would be a cheaper option in that case, at $125 per lens for the coding plus only a few tenners for insured shipping.
J. Borger
08-01-2006, 04:05
I welcome the idea .......... but it does not make sens to spend Euro 4000 on a camera, EUro 2000 on an average Leica lens and try to save a few bucks on the coding.
I am also not convinced the coding is necessary until further specifications and or results from the M8 are available. So no dots on any of my lenses for now!
6 bits total 64 possible values.
this is interesting news and very shocking for me, how many strings did you have to pull at leica to get them to go along with this?????
Jorge, this is a great idea.
Wow, this is super!!!!!
Though I doubt I will be buying an M8 having my 35 and 50 Crons encoded is a real consideration.
6 bits total 64 possible values.
Actually 192 possibilities. The frame selector will act like a "three-way bit" It has to, to accomodate for the tri-elmar.
Mark Norton
08-01-2006, 06:42
I welcome the idea .......... but it does not make sens to spend Euro 4000 on a camera, EUro 2000 on an average Leica lens and try to save a few bucks on the coding.
I agree, it seems ridiculous to try to save, what, $50 - $60 per lens. I can tell you that the dots are not just painted on, there are depressions milled into the bayonet ring and filled with paint and there isn't a trace of roughness in the finish. Run your finger over them and you can feel them for sure but there's no metal "burr" around the depressions.
This scheme sounds like they will be taking the mount off, milling the depressions and filling them with paint. You're going to want the finish to be as good as Leica's to avoid the lens mount being scratched.
Mark Norton
08-01-2006, 06:45
Actually 192 possibilities. The frame selector will act like a "three-way bit" It has to, to accomodate for the tri-elmar.
Japp, I think the Tr-Elmar is a special case where they will use the setting of the frame selector in addition to reading the code. I'd be surprised if they gave the same 6 bit code to more than one lens type. It looks like about half the codes are used from the outset.
Sure, but the electronics will be able to "see" the selector.
Mark Norton
08-01-2006, 06:49
Jorge, this is a great idea.
Wow, this is super!!!!!
Though I doubt I will be buying an M8 having my 35 and 50 Crons encoded is a real consideration.
Oh please! What's the point of having the lenses coded if you are not planning to buy an M8?
Oh please! What's the point of having the lenses coded if you are not planning to buy an M8?
Bragging rights? ;)
Mark Norton
08-01-2006, 06:52
Sure, but the electronics will be able to "see" the selector.
Yes, but I expect the only time they will look at the selector to identify the lens type is with the Tri-Elmar. For other lenses, the unique 6 bit code will be enough.
Having a possibility to encode ZM lenses is a big enough advantage of 3rd party ecoding service. I can't see why people object to that; if you think only Leica can properly polish a piece of alloy in this world, it's still there :)
Of course shipping is extra but it's hardly minimal for those outside the US.
From Holland we can't even send insured mail to the US via the regular post office, and insurance I'd want if I'm gonna send any expensive lens away. If I want insurance I'd have to opt for one of the international couriers, which will make shipping more expensive than getting the coding. Sending to Leica in Solms would be a cheaper option in that case, at $125 per lens for the coding plus only a few tenners for insured shipping.
If you give your lenses to an authorized dealer you don't have to insure them and they will be sent by collection by Leica or though the importers channels.
anselwannab
08-01-2006, 08:01
I still can't believe that there are no patent issues.
Jorge, Best correct the typo now its on the main page...
back alley
08-01-2006, 08:10
never ceases to amaze me what will cause a stir in this place...
Oh please! What's the point of having the lenses coded if you are not planning to buy an M8?
Oh, I was planning on borrowing your M8.
If there is a pat on the lens mount it would be meaningless unless you were in the business of manufacturing lens mounts from scratch to mimic a leica. Since you already own the lens in essence you are only making modifications to your own equipment.
something that Leica HAS NOT commented on and many reputable sources are speaking of is that the coding will also select the frame lines for the camera. Again, I CANNOT confirm this. This is what I have heard from people well in the know. I started a thread about this on pnet once and it evolved into a heated debate. However, I have a friend that will be meeting with leica execs in a few weeks who plans on seeing the camera. He will confirm this rumor for me. If it turns out to be true, then obviously the code will do more than just photshop your image in the camera.
anselwannab
08-01-2006, 15:34
If there is a pat on the lens mount it would be meaningless unless you were in the business of manufacturing lens mounts from scratch to mimic a leica. Since you already own the lens in essence you are only making modifications to your own equipment.
Jorge,
I really like RFf and I'd hate to see it go away. I'm not a patent lawyer but I think you really need to be careful here, if there is a patent. I did a quick US patent search and didn't find one, but like I said before, if they patented the eyepiece magnifier, I can't believe that they wouldn't or couldn't do it with this.
You are right; if you take your Dremel tool and some Testor's model paint and Franken-dot your mount, no one is the wiser. You try to compete with Leica on this, or screw up some Leica marketing execs plan to sell more lenses, I can't imagine they will sit by. Call it over-reaction, call it lawyer phobia, but I end up being a Cassandra far more than I want to.
I saw on pnet that you have a buddy who is going to see some Leica people. I'd have him enquire about the technology and any IP behind it.
Maybe Stephen Gandy can get Mr. K to comment on Cosina's plans for Voightlander M mount lenses and if there are any IP issues.
Best Regards,
Mark
never ceases to amaze me what will cause a stir in this place...
Ain't it the truth? :bang:
Bob Ross
08-01-2006, 19:47
something that Leica HAS NOT commented on and many reputable sources are speaking of is that the coding will also select the frame lines for the camera. Again, I CANNOT confirm this. This is what I have heard from people well in the know. I started a thread about this on pnet once and it evolved into a heated debate. However, I have a friend that will be meeting with leica execs in a few weeks who plans on seeing the camera. He will confirm this rumor for me. If it turns out to be true, then obviously the code will do more than just photshop your image in the camera.
Leica has also said that most lenses will work on the M8, so it wiil interesting what your friend finds out. If the rumor is true, then selecting frames for the uncoded lenses would be manual selection from a menu. That would certainly encourage the conversions.
Pherdinand
08-01-2006, 23:48
Hmm.
I don't understand much of this thread, but what I got is the following:
The current M-mount lenses will not work with the M8 as they are now.
They can make them work, but it costs a lot.
This sounds extremely stupid to me.
...If the rumor is true, then selecting frames for the uncoded lenses would be manual selection from a menu. That would certainly encourage the conversions.
That would encourage me not to purchase the M8 first of all as some of my favourite lenses cannot be coded at all and i'm not keen to let the camera decide how i must like my pics anyway.
I can't simply believe that frame lines could not be selected the same way as usual given the simplicity of the current system which is based on the length of one flange as we know.
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/4002flangeweb.jpg
Uncoded lenses can be used on the M8 in exactly the same way as any other M camera, Leica said. It must be, as the Tri-Elmar would be unusable otherwise. The coding is only for added features, maybe, just maybe it will extinguish unused framelines, thereby uncluttering the viewfinder.
J. Borger
08-02-2006, 02:37
That would encourage me not to purchase the M8 first of all as some of my favourite lenses cannot be coded at all and i'm not keen to let the camera decide how i must like my pics anyway.
I can't simply believe that frame lines could not be selected the same way as usual given the simplicity of the current system which is based on the length of one flange as we know.
Same here .... and Leica has stated several times older lenses/ lenses not on the list can be used.
So if i have to select framelines manual or in a menu .... that's ok with me. I do not swap lenses all the times anyway.
No reason to start encoding before i have more facts on the M8.
Geeze we waited years for the M8 ... so i do not understand the hurry with encoding before the official release of the camera.
I still assume it will be obsolete for a lot of users (including myself)....... it is just a marketing tool ...... to sell (encoded) Leica lenses and ensure good off-camera jpeg files for Diginewcomers ... nothing wrong with that strategy from Leicas point of view.
I can't believe this frameline thing has come up again. Leica has stated that older lenses and lenses without the code will have "full" usability on the M8. They have also stated that the coding will correct system vignetting and transmit data for the EXIF file. No where in anything Leica has said is there even a vague hint that something as major an issue as frameline selection will be controlled by the codes.
As to this aftermarket coding service being applied to lenses other than ones Leica has developed profiles for, it seems quite obvious that would involve a compromise at best.
Ben,
As i stated earlier I CANNOT confirm this rumor. I guess we will know in a few weeks. As far as functionality goes if it did control frame lines that does not mean the lens without the codes wont work. It would probably be a manual setting.
...It would probably be a manual setting.
Just another false rumor hopefully.
I won't pay $5,000 to get a new R-D1 with all due respect to that otherwise great camera.
Ben,]
As far as functionality goes if it did control frame lines that does not mean the lens without the codes wont work. It would probably be a manual setting.
Manually setting the frameline doesn,t bother me IF that is accomplished by a simple selector switch like the RD-1. However, it the frameline selector is buried in a menu that you have to dig thru with little scrolling buttons, that would take more time than changing the lens. I pray that Leica will keep the ergometrics of the camera as simple as Epson did with the RD-1.
Rex
I will keep things simple and stay away from digital cameras.
However, for those of you who consider digital photography, this is useful service by RFF.
Maybe a similar approach can be applied to get Film at lower costs for RFF members?
Raid
anselwannab
08-02-2006, 11:23
Raid- A Bulk, bulk film buy?
Mark
Bob Ross
08-02-2006, 14:46
Manually setting the frameline doesn,t bother me IF that is accomplished by a simple selector switch like the RD-1. However, it the frameline selector is buried in a menu that you have to dig thru with little scrolling buttons, that would take more time than changing the lens. I pray that Leica will keep the ergometrics of the camera as simple as Epson did with the RD-1.
Rex
The frame preview feature of the M class Leicas is part of it's heart and I doubt that it will be done away with. What may happen is that the mechanical linkage will change to electronic to save costs and to save space. I think this will be true of the shutter release, too. Mechanical linkages might be limited to the actual rangefinder. I do hope they will keep the frame selection lever and the screw in cable release on the shutter. Frame lines could be done with an LCD/TFT in the rangefinder and the results might be an improvement.
What we might get from the "dots" on the lenses is a lens profile similar to DxO, for corrections of distortions, variations in sharpness from center frame to corner, as well as the vignetting. The processing would slow write times and lens purists might moan about the lack of signatures to their lenses after processing...:rolleyes:
We'll have to wait on Jorge's spy (code name double em eight) reports back with the next batch of crumbs to really dig into the speculations....:D
Bob
Automatic frame lines is a Leica feature since the fiftees at least.
Whatever way it works it can't be lost in 2006 IMHO.
Raid- A Bulk, bulk film buy?
Mark
Actually, I was thinking whether RFF could get a special deal with some whole sale dealer of Fuji and Kodak film. Maybe we could get a 15%-20% discount that way. If we keep administrative work needed for such a task to a minimum, it could be done with the large member of devoted spenders who we are in RFF.
This would also be good for getting deals on film that is about to become out of date. Bulk film is also included.
Raid
Interesting idea but I wonder how you are going to assure that the mapping of your codes will not collide with that of Leica.
If understand this correctly, each code maps to a Leica lens. When the lens is mounted onto the M8, the camera decodes it in its firmware and will know what lens is mounted on it. It will probably show up in the EXIF of the image.
So, here's the problem: Unless you collaborate closely with Leica, there's no way you can assure that future lens releases from Leica will not collide with the ones you assign for the non-Leica lenses.
Please illuminate further. THANKS!
Initially I am thinking altering a non leica lens would at least send focal length to the exif data.So a 50 planar would be coded like a 50 summilux.
Mark Norton
08-02-2006, 22:08
The camera will carry a table of lenses it knows about - lens name, focal length, their maximum aperture, image correction characteristics - so that when a particular lens is mounted, the correct processing can be applied.
Mount a lens with a code which the camera doesn't know about and it will either ignore it or put up some sort of message.
If Leica come out with new lenses after the M8 is released, I expect the lenses will come with an SD card to teach the camera about the new lens through a partial firmware upgrade.
Mount a lens from another manufacturer and the camera will recognise it as whatever Leica lens is represented by the code, whether or not it's correct. The optical characteristics of a Zeiss 50mm lens are different from a Leica one so it makes little sense to code non-Leica lenses if you are looking for image improvements which will be tailored to the lens.
By the way, has anyone bothered to look at a Zeiss or CV lens to see if there is space on the lens mount to code it, or are there fixing screws in the way?
Happy Avatar, Jorge.
I think taht if there were patent issues involved Leica would have contacted Jorge. We can be fairly, or rather 99.99% sure that this forum is read in Solms.
Bob Ross
08-03-2006, 08:43
The camera will carry a table of lenses it knows about - lens name, focal length, their maximum aperture, image correction characteristics - so that when a particular lens is mounted, the correct processing can be applied.
Mount a lens from another manufacturer and the camera will recognise it as whatever Leica lens is represented by the code, whether or not it's correct. The optical characteristics of a Zeiss 50mm lens are different from a Leica one so it makes little sense to code non-Leica lenses if you are looking for image improvements which will be tailored to the lens.
Mark, I think you are right. it might be easier to look at the 75mm lenses, since there are only three with very different optical designs, the 'Lux, 'Cron and Heliar. The exit pupil and rear element diameters are probably different and the sensor fall off could be different enough to be seen. Any in-camera corrections might not be generic enought to handle all three. EXIF would show 75mm, but on the Heliar it wouldn't show f/2.5. The TTL flash might work fine, though. The EXIF info isn't important to me, as I use manual focus lenses on my E-1 all the time and haven't missed the data. The TTL flash also isn't a big issue for me, as I tend to prefer the "flashmatic" auto with flash and definitely dislike pre-flash.
A note on the "patent " issue, a check should also be made with Trade Mark and Copyright offices, just to be sure.
Bob
robertdfeinman
08-05-2006, 09:16
Can somebody explain how this encoding works? With six bits there are only 64 unique values. So is it a system like:
1 = XX focal length lens with YY f-stop
2 = XXX focal length lens-with YYY f-stop, etc.
That is each value encodes a specific focal length and f-stop combination. If so, then any lenses which aren't in the list (or aren't equivalents) can't be encoded.
I would have thought that a system where some bits were used for focal length and some other bits were used for f-stop would have been better. Then any combination could have been set up.
Robert, they could give 64 types of lenses a unique value with the rest of the information stored in the cameras rom.
Mark Norton
08-05-2006, 09:56
Robert, they could give 64 types of lenses a unique value with the rest of the information stored in the cameras rom.
I think that is what they are doing, each specific lens formulation has its own value. As we build a picture of all the codes in use, we may see a pattern, but you run into the problem of multiple 35mm f2 or multiple 50mm f2 which suggests they will not be allocating 3 bits to focal length (there are more than 8 anyway) and 3 to aperture (there are at least 5: 1, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4).
By identfying the lens as a "type 31", the camera will have been programmed with everything it needs to know about this lens.
But, we do not expect the camera to report working aperture, not unless they've come up with a clever way of figuring it out.
robertdfeinman
08-05-2006, 11:32
I may be missing something, but from the photos I've seen this looks like a series of black or white ovals painted on the lens mount.
I don't see why someone couldn't produce a sheet of self stick labels with all the possible combinations. A simple jig of cardboard that fits around the mount with an opening to show where to apply the appropriate label would then be used for positioning. If these were printed on mylar they would stand up for quite awhile.
If they eventually got worn, just peel off at put on a fresh one. When the DX codes came out for film there were similar products offered to tag refillable cartridges.
Mark Norton
08-05-2006, 13:35
I may be missing something, but from the photos I've seen this looks like a series of black or white ovals painted on the lens mount.
I don't see why someone couldn't produce a sheet of self stick labels with all the possible combinations. A simple jig of cardboard that fits around the mount with an opening to show where to apply the appropriate label would then be used for positioning. If these were printed on mylar they would stand up for quite awhile.
If they eventually got worn, just peel off at put on a fresh one. When the DX codes came out for film there were similar products offered to tag refillable cartridges.
Actually, there are 6 pits milled into the surface of the lens mount and filled with paint to make them resistant to wear. I'm quite sure a thin self-adhesive film could be used but it will eventually wear. New lenses have the code as standard and the cost of upgrading old lenses is the cost of a new bayonet ring, fitting it, testing the lens, administration, shipping and tax.
$125/€95? It's a bargain.
Jon Graham
08-06-2006, 07:08
Jorge,
Why would someone who spends $5000 for a M8 try to save a few bucks on lens coding? It sure beats me. Also I cannot see how you could do the machining, supply a new bayonet, test, etc for much less than $125.
Also, I would not be so sure about possible patent issues. Just because they have not yet said anything to you means nothing. Obviously the patent would be pending at this point so its enforceability is moot.
Perhaps your energy might be better devoted to encouraging your sponsors to pass on film/shipping or whatever saving to RFF paying members.
Mark Norton
08-06-2006, 11:14
There speaks a voice of reason, thanks Jon. Doing this separately from Leica is a pointless exercise which will cause Jorge no end of hassle.
What are you going to use to verify the camera can read the code before it is sent back? What's the lead time going to be keeping in mind the mounts will have to be sent for machining in batches and then matched with the lenses on return? How are you going to replace a batch of rings which are incorrectly machined or damaged or lost in the mail? Who are the RFF members going to sue (given you Americans are a litigious lot) when the lens they get back is not the lens they sent or claim that some other damage has been introduced? What's the impact on resale value going to be when you try to trade one of these lenses at a dealer?
And so on. It's a non-starter IMHO. Get Real!
sunsworth
08-06-2006, 14:01
Mark, I agree with everything you say.
Just a quick status report.
The manufacturer of the machine has just informed me that they have successfully machined a test mount. I should receive the sample tomorrow. If it meets my expectations, I will probably be getting the machine shortly and begin modifications soon.
Mark Norton
08-22-2006, 22:43
Jorge, just a few questions...
How are you going to verify the coding is correct?
You have a handful of codes from pictures I have posted, where are you finding out the other codes from?
What are you going to do about lenses which have mounting holes where the code is supposed to go, such as the 35mm Summicron pre-ASPH?
As I understand it, you want to charge $60 + shipping, compared to Leica's $125 including shipping. The difference (let's say $50) is little more than 1% of the cost of the M8 it will go on (say $4500 + sales tax). Are Americans really that (as we would say in the UK) tight?
Are you taking out insurance for when things go wrong, for whatever reason, as they inevitably will from time to time? "My lens got scratched while you were modifying it"
I suppose the good news is that since the work only involves modification to the bayonet ring, which is discarded by Leica anyway, unhappy customers can still send their lenses to Leica to be modified properly. It will at least brighten the Leica technician's day.
ian_watts
08-23-2006, 03:40
Mark, I agree with your aguments against Jorge's proposed scheme but don't you think it's time to give it a rest? I'm sure Jorge understood your objections the first time. Personally, I'm not sure why all the excitement? I (like, no doubt, a few here) have ponyed up a deposit on the M8 but I don't expect to have one in my hands until October at the very earliest. If it turns out that the lens codes are going to make a significant difference to image quality (i.e. do something that can't be done during the RAW conversion) then I guess I'll think about sending my lenses to Leica for the coding. I don't really see the need for rushing into this now - it's not as if, without the codes, the M8 is going to self-destruct at Christmas.
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 04:06
Ian, you're probably right, but I can guarantee that Jorge did not know (and nor did I until Bob Ross pointed it out to me) that one lens has a hole where the code should go and he will not therefore be able to grind the required depressions in that bayonet ring.
So in a sense, I'm just pointing out the pitfalls.
Bob Ross
08-23-2006, 10:14
Ian, you're probably right, but I can guarantee that Jorge did not know (and nor did I until Bob Ross pointed it out to me) that one lens has a hole where the code should go and he will not therefore be able to grind the required depressions in that bayonet ring.
So in a sense, I'm just pointing out the pitfalls.
Hi Mark,
I'll probably take Ian's approach, because EXIF info isn't important to me and I don't tend to use flash for the TTL zoom feature, but where I think Jorge's idea has the most merit is for lenses not on the lists and those using the SrwMt-M mount adapters, or Zeiss glass. Since we all have individualized kits, we'll have to figure out if it has any usefulness. I think all my Canadian Crons have that mount screw in the dot area (35, 50 & 90).
Bob
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 10:34
I get the lenses coded mainly for the expected improvement in image quality. Life is too short to sit in front of a PC processing all the images so I prefer to get them as right as I can out of the camera and process the RAW files only if I need to.
I had forgotten that the coding will be available for non-Leica lenses though whether the firmware will yield the same improvements is an open question.
In the meantime, I've just bought another (uncoded) lens. It arrives on Friday and will go off by DHL to Solms on Tuesday.
Mark,
To answer some of your questions.
Codes will be determined by a source which is having the entire range of lenses coded. You were also another source for the codes when you posted the images of of your coded lenses. There is no secret to the code. it is available from any camera store that has the new lenses. simply look at a lens and copy the code for that specific focal length/lens version.
The lens with a screw hole where the code goes is still in question. Once I see how Leica does it, O will be able to duplicate it exactly unless it involves a different mount. At that point I probably will not address that lens.
My cost for doingthe mods will be based on the lens owner emoving the lens mount and sending it to me. This will eliminate the need for added insurance and remove the risk of damage in shipping. However, I will accept the entire lens for those who do not wish to remove the mount.
Money is money. some people are really pulling all strings to buy the M8. Anyway you look at it, having two lenses encoded for the price of one is a good deal. Even the richest of the rich are "tight" with their money.
I willplace a photo of a machined mount soon to show progress in getting this done right.
I am more than glad to answer your questions when I have an answer. I surely dont expect people to have their lenses altered without asking first.
Thanks to people like you, everyone is well informed.
I get the lenses coded mainly for the expected improvement in image quality. ..
Not me. If I get my lenses encoded I will do so only to get the EXIF metadata information. I personally am a 100% RAW user and don't want the camera firmeware messing with my data. It would be nice, however, if the encoding would provide me with the focal length and F# of the lens. That's all I want.
It's also more important that I can turn OFF any features that try to improve the vignetting, chromatic abberation, etc. First of all, I dont see how the supposed feature could actually work in practice. For instance, reducing vignetting always increases noise in the corrected area. So I have to use my own judgement in deciding how much, if any, vignetting to correct. How can the firmware "know" what my judgement would be?
Rex
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 12:20
I see your point but I trust Leica to employ a lightness of touch which is mainly concerned with obtaining even coverage across the frame, such as you would get with film. The natural vignetting of the lens should be left untouched.
I see your point but I trust Leica to employ a lightness of touch....... The natural vignetting of the lens should be left untouched.
Maybe with Leica lenses a "lightness of touch" would be a good choice. I tend to let the lenses natural vignetting reveal itself, mostly. However, with the 15mm Heliar, a sledgehammer approach to vignetting control is perhaps, more appropriate. Really nasty vignetting which can seldom be ignored.
That's really my point. Each situation may require a different approach. I really like my 15mm Heliar, despite the vignetting. I find that most, if not all, lenses require at least a little subtle raw processing to bring out their best. Maybe the M8 firmware could make an initial cut at the best solution, but I'd still like to see the unproceesed version.
Rex
Bob Ross
08-23-2006, 17:57
Maybe the M8 firmware could make an initial cut at the best solution, but I'd still like to see the unproceesed version.
Rex
There is an interesting attitude across the digital community and even including some mfrs., that all the R&D and work going into the onboard RAW conversion are a waste of time and effort and the only way to be a real photographer is to shoot RAW and hunt around for a good conversion software. In some ways this is true and there are a few exceptions to break the generalization, too. I do both, but having done a lot of color darkroom work over the years, I know how errors can creep in. I see it in so many poorly post processed images that the author has proudly proclaimed that it is a RAW conversion of the highest quality. My point is that the propietory on board conversion programs understand the RAW file it was taylored to better than an untrained post processor using a program they don't fully understand. With what we may be facing with the M8's additional peculiarities, this may get even more interesting.
Bob
There is an interesting attitude across the digital community and even including some mfrs., that all the R&D and work going into the onboard RAW conversion are a waste of time and effort and the only way to be a real photographer is to shoot RAW and hunt around for a good conversion software.
Bob
My problem with the on board RAW conversion software is I don't know what it is really doing. At a minumum it must convert the linear files to a suitable gamma scale. Just what gamma (1.8 to 2.2 I assume) I don't know. I set the on board contrast to the lowest level assuming that will yield the greatest dynamic range but I really don't know (maybe it just effects the JPEGs).
I also set sharpness at minumim fiquring that CR2 has a better sharpness algorithm. But even with the on-board sharpness OFF, it appears that a little in camera sharpness is still applied. At least that what appears to happen a few seconds after opening the image in CR2 RAW. But then I don't really know.
I also set the noise reduction at OFF for the same reason. But who knows what is really going on in the camera.
I set all the auto adjust features OFF. That way when I bracket an exposure, at least they stay bracketed.
Maybe I'm off base but I would like to be able to toggle between the cameras idea off ideal RAW processing and my interpratation of the cameras minimal RAW processing.
Rex
Bob Ross
08-23-2006, 20:45
Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing. Used in reverse you can zero in on the JPEG settings by using the RAW adjustments that you end up with. What fooled me with this is the E-1's JPEGs are every bit as good as RAW conversions, but this is not the case with my KM5D, which has consumer settings.
I think that since JPEG is best when you nail the exposure, metering for contrast range becomes interesting, because you can do something about it, a luxury we didn't have with roll film. The problem that I see come up the most is the NR and only the "Pro" models seem to have any control on it. Sharpening is probably best done in PP, as you can go with a variety of ways and stack them to get what works for you. Camera sharpening isn't bad, but it seems quite generic and global. The no AA filter on the DMR & M8 should invite less sharpening.
Bob
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 20:46
I maintain there's a market need for excellence straight out of the camera, not everyone has the inclination to start from scratch with every image. Providing the adjustments can be varied/undone in post processing, I think it's correct for the camera to apply its own processing. Time for me to brush up on the Adobe DNG specification though...
Bob,
This is a good explanation. The reason I chose the *istDL was that it gave the ability over flexibility with JPGs (noise red. on/off, "brightness" on/off, and separate contrast and saturation levels with up/down adjustments, as well as raw for those who choose to use it.
Those who shoot JPGs (this consumer DSLR doesn't offer raw+JPG simultaneously) often turn off the default "brightness" on, and up the contrast a notch or two from default, and the contrast one notch. Some users keep brightness on, after comparing with raw or above settings.
I would hope the M8 could do raw + JPEGs at the same time, but if not, I would expect the menus for white balance, sensitivity, contrast, brightness, and noise reduction on/off to be able to be user defined for the non-raw shooters.
Some cameras noise reduction doesn't kick in until slow shutter speeds, but all of the other factors above should be easily seen at 12x zoom so once you get the menus down, you can tweak and create profiles.
Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing. Used in reverse you can zero in on the JPEG settings by using the RAW adjustments that you end up with. What fooled me with this is the E-1's JPEGs are every bit as good as RAW conversions, but this is not the case with my KM5D, which has consumer settings.
I think that since JPEG is best when you nail the exposure, metering for contrast range becomes interesting, because you can do something about it, a luxury we didn't have with roll film. The problem that I see come up the most is the NR and only the "Pro" models seem to have any control on it. Sharpening is probably best done in PP, as you can go with a variety of ways and stack them to get what works for you. Camera sharpening isn't bad, but it seems quite generic and global. The no AA filter on the DMR & M8 should invite less sharpening.
Bob
Hi Rex,
This all varies by camera and mfr., but the way I checked was to shoot RAW + JPEG and then used the JPEG as the standard and adjusted the RAW to equal it, with the camera maker's software. The RAW settings gave me an idea of what the camera was doing.
Bob
Bob
In the case of the RD1, does anyone know what the camera software is doing to the RAW image? Sharpening? Noise Reduction?
I like your idea of shooting a RAW+JPEG and then trying to match the JPEG with the PP raw image. Of course I think I would beat the manufacturers in camera software every time but maybe not. I never tried it!
I wonder if the encoding software, whatever it turns out to be, will effect the JPEG image only or the RAW file also. Once again, I hope can turn it off, at least on the RAW file.
Rex
Mark Norton
08-23-2006, 22:39
The R-D1 provides a "standard" setting and 3 user preset "films", each with 5 sliders for in-camera processing: Edge Enhancement, Saturation, Tint, Contrast and NR.
The R-D1 provides a "standard" setting and 3 user preset "films", each with 5 sliders for in-camera processing: Edge Enhancement, Saturation, Tint, Contrast and NR.
Mark
Don't these sliders effect the JPEGs only? At least that was my impression. I always turn the edge enhancement, contrast and NR down all the way thinking thats the best thing to do for RAW image processing if it does effect the RAW image. But I don't really know.
Btw, the image on the LCD is always a JPEG whether your shooting RAW only or not. Or so I'm told
Rex
Raw files are simply the data off the digital sensors. You get a lossy rendition of the image on the LCD.
Mark
Don't these sliders effect the JPEGs only? At least that was my impression. I always turn the edge enhancement, contrast and NR down all the way thinking thats the best thing to do for RAW image processing if it does effect the RAW image. But I don't really know.
Btw, the image on the LCD is always a JPEG whether your shooting RAW only or not. Or so I'm told
Rex
Raw files are simply the data off the digital sensors. You get a lossy rendition of the image on the LCD.
Yah, that's what I thought . But the image of the RAW file I open in Photoshop has been converted from a linear gray scale to a gamma scale of about 2.0 Was that done by Photoshop or by the camera software? Also even if I have the sharpness slider down all the way (in Photoshop RAW plugin), I still see a little sharpening applied a second or so after the file is opened.
If Leica can apply vignetting correction and whatever else, at the camera level, how do I know if Epsons not working a little sharpening and NR on my RAW files before I get my hands on them?
Rex
just wondering
A RAW file has been processed in-camera as well, for instance for colour interpolation. If you could see an image of a file read off the sensor directly it is virtually inrecognisable in pixellated grey and grey. I am sure the various camera makers use different algorithms.A Cmos sensor, for instance, needs in-camera initial noise surpression to get the clean RAW files it produces.One of the strong points of Canon is that they got it right, thus enabling them to produce very silent files up to 3200, maybe 6400 (watch the Photokina!) ISO from a less expensive sensor.
Bob Ross
08-24-2006, 07:12
Bob
Of course I think I would beat the manufacturers in camera software every time but maybe not. I never tried it!
I wonder if the encoding software, whatever it turns out to be, will effect the JPEG image only or the RAW file also. Once again, I hope can turn it off, at least on the RAW file.
Rex
Hi Rex,
Give it a try, you might be surprised. It can be useful as Mark says when you don't intend on making a master piece or need to send the image quickly as PJs do. I will admit to being a PP junky and tend to at least try to improve everything. That strategy works against me in many cases.
The M8 RAW files may have the vignetting info imbedded and the Leica software can access it. Third party RAW converters may have to catch up on that. JPEGs and TIFFs probably get the treatment, but we might be able to turn it off in the menus. The DMR can make 16bit TIFFs but with the new software provider that could change. The 59MB files sound yummy:o
Bob
Bob Ross
08-24-2006, 07:23
Yah, that's what I thought . But the image of the RAW file I open in Photoshop has been converted from a linear gray scale to a gamma scale of about 2.0 Was that done by Photoshop or by the camera software? Also even if I have the sharpness slider down all the way (in Photoshop RAW plugin), I still see a little sharpening applied a second or so after the file is opened.
If Leica can apply vignetting correction and whatever else, at the camera level, how do I know if Epsons not working a little sharpening and NR on my RAW files before I get my hands on them?
Rex
just wondering
Hi Rex,
My guess is that with the average DSLR or RD-1 with an AA filter, the image would be very soft and the mfrs do a bit of sharpening for marketing reasons:eek: Your gamma shifts may be how you have your PS set up. As I recall it is kind of hidden. I use Picture Window Pro, so I can be of much help with PS. The tone curves used by the mfrs. do leave somethings to be desired. Nikon has the right idea, with their user adjustible tone curves. Even my old CP5k has some that I finally tried and love when doing in camera B&W.
Bob
Bob Ross
08-24-2006, 07:35
Bob,
Those who shoot JPGs (this consumer DSLR doesn't offer raw+JPG simultaneously) often turn off the default "brightness" on, and up the contrast a notch or two from default, and the contrast one notch. Some users keep brightness on, after comparing with raw or above settings.
Some cameras noise reduction doesn't kick in until slow shutter speeds, but all of the other factors above should be easily seen at 12x zoom so once you get the menus down, you can tweak and create profiles.
Hi Ampguy,
My approach to the contrast and sharpening is to start low and in PP adjust the contrast separately for the highlights, midtones and shadows using masks. This process also sharpens as a byproduct and increases highlight saturation. Shadow masks are also good for NR to get rid of the shadow noise where detail loss is not a problem. Highlight masks are good to bring up detail in the highlights to reduce the video/digital look.
My KM5D kicks in NR as the ISO increases as well as long exposures:o
Bob
Color interpretation, and noise reduction are done in raw conversion.
Yes, other than the 4 or so vendors (leica included) that natively use Adobe's DNG, most other vendors use proprietary encrypted raw formats, with different tidbits of metadata attached to the raw data off the sensors, though at different levels, usually compatible with DNG/PS at basic levels.
With Canon and CMOS/CCD there are many other factors involving noise, e.g. full-frame vs smaller, etc. But again, noise reduction is done in raw conversion with CCD or CMOS sensors.
Color interpretation is digital is linear, this is why the barebones raw converters show a dark image, no S curve non-linear mods have been applied as they would have been to create a JPG. The important thing to note is that you may not want to expose digital the way you do film. Some folks always overexpose digital on purpose.
Read here for more info.:
http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/pdfs/understanding_digitalrawcapture.pdf
Bruce Fraser also has a book you can buy at Amazon or bookstores on RAW file formats, which are non-standardized, though the Adobe DNG is used natively as a least common denominator solution by a few vendors including Leica with the DMR.
A RAW file has been processed in-camera as well, for instance for colour interpolation. If you could see an image of a file read off the sensor directly it is virtually inrecognisable in pixellated grey and grey. I am sure the various camera makers use different algorithms.A Cmos sensor, for instance, needs in-camera initial noise surpression to get the clean RAW files it produces.One of the strong points of Canon is that they got it right, thus enabling them to produce very silent files up to 3200, maybe 6400 (watch the Photokina!) ISO from a less expensive sensor.
Ok I bow to superior knowledge. Thanks for educating me....http://www.freewebdesign.be/smileys/images/other/smile.gif
Sounds like you need to use raw to take control of the noise / ISO. Try lightzone or lightroom if PP opens the raw up weird.
There are a couple of things NR may be doing, 1 is to reduce the noise at high ISO's in JPG's, the 2nd is to mask out hot pixels in long exposures.
Hi Ampguy,
My approach to the contrast and sharpening is to start low and in PP adjust the contrast separately for the highlights, midtones and shadows using masks. This process also sharpens as a byproduct and increases highlight saturation. Shadow masks are also good for NR to get rid of the shadow noise where detail loss is not a problem. Highlight masks are good to bring up detail in the highlights to reduce the video/digital look.
My KM5D kicks in NR as the ISO increases as well as long exposures:o
Bob
[quote=Bob Ross
My approach to the contrast and sharpening is to start low and in PP adjust the contrast separately for the highlights, midtones and shadows using masks. This process also sharpens as a byproduct and increases highlight saturation. Shadow masks are also good for NR to get rid of the shadow noise where detail loss is not a problem. Highlight masks are good to bring up detail in the highlights to reduce the video/digital look.
Bob[/quote]
Bob
Good Lord, you are anally compulsive about post processing routine! I thought I was bad. Adjusting contrast for highlights, midtones, and shadows using masks is really going the whole 9 yards as far as dynamic range retention is concerned. How many photos can you process in a night,..... about two?;)
Rex
Color interpretation, and noise reduction are done in raw conversion........... other than the 4 or so vendors (leica included) that natively use Adobe's DNG, most other vendors use proprietary encrypted raw formats, with different tidbits of metadata attached to the raw data off the sensors ......
When Epson released their firmware upgrade for the RD1s, I upgraded my RD1 to match. One of the things they improved was to include a hot pixel elimination algorythm that really worked. Also included was a high ISO noise reduction algorythm based on dark frame subtraction.
It took Adobe about a week to update Photoshop to include the "new" camera (new software and the letter s decal) . I took this opportunity to color profile the camera using the "calibrate" tab. Using my trusty Gretamacbeth Color chart and Bruce Frazers instructions, I spent the next 200 hours of my spare time dialing in the hues and saturations to the last nano-shade. After all that, I cant say it looked much better, or even much different. However, I can say my prints now looked much the same as the prints from my Canon........ I'm not so sure that is what I was striving for!
Anyway, the more I delve into the intricasies of RAW processing, the more I know I don't know.
I think that shooting similtaneous JPEGs to compare with my own output, might be an interesting exercise. If the in camera processing can do a better job than I have been doing, I think I will kill myself'.
Just kidding
Rex
Bob Ross
08-25-2006, 07:58
Bob
Good Lord, you are anally compulsive about post processing routine! I thought I was bad. Adjusting contrast for highlights, midtones, and shadows using masks is really going the whole 9 yards as far as dynamic range retention is concerned. How many photos can you process in a night,..... about two?;)
Rex
:D :D Actually it goes quite fast. It is not so much a dynamic range thing, as it is a tone curve refinement. In a way it is a variation on tonal mapping, the newest trend in PP.
I got into it as a personal challenge to see if I could develop a JPEG file to equal the mythical RAW development results. In B&W it is like the old dodge & burn freaks (AKA Fine print makers), who could work a negative to the nth degree. I used to print Cibachromes from slides, so the DR from digital is a delight:)
Bob
Bob Ross
08-25-2006, 08:15
Anyway, the more I delve into the intricasies of RAW processing, the more I know I don't know.
I think that shooting similtaneous JPEGs to compare with my own output, might be an interesting exercise. If the in camera processing can do a better job than I have been doing, I think I will kill myself'.
Just kidding
Rex
Please don't:eek:
When I do RAW development, it reminds me of developing color film and wondering if the chemicals were mixed right, hadn't oxidized, weren't too old, and if the temperature was holding steady:rolleyes: When I goofed that up, I had a printing problem for sure. Of course, I learned all that the hard way:o
Using in camera processing is like getting film machine processed at a lab, not the best, but consistant. What using the camera's processing requires is good basic photographic skills to nail the exposure, so it is a good learning tool (or relearning tool in my case:o ) When you do RAW, you can begin to appreciate the folks at the Pro Labs. Learning how to tweak instead of mangle a digital image is another matter;)
Bob
Bob Ross
08-25-2006, 13:40
Rex,
If you have any interest in the tri tone process, here is a link to a tutorial. The software is Picture Windows Pro, so you might want to skip that and see his samples. http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/3tone/3tone.htm
Somewhere I have a Photo Shop link to the process. I'll see if I can find it.
Bob
Rex,
If you have any interest in the tri tone process, here is a link to a tutorial. The software is Picture Windows Pro, so you might want to skip that and see his samples. http://www.ncplus.net/~birchbay/3tone/3tone.htm
Somewhere I have a Photo Shop link to the process. I'll see if I can find it.
Bob
Bob
I looked at the turorial and it looks very interesting. I've been working slmost entirely in ACR, not using any masking techniques available in Photoshop proper. Clearly rescueing highlight and shadow details require me doing that.
What I'm doing now in RAW is the wet darkroom equivalent to film development. What you are doing is equivelent to printing. I was doing that in Photoshop with TIFF files but when I discovered RAW I have been drawn back to the basics of "film" development and have been neglecting the necessary finish work in Photoshop itself.
I am very interested in any information you can send me regarding the process as executed in Photoshop.
Perhaps you can send me a PM as we have done a pretty good job of hijacking this thread.
Rex
UPDATE:
RFF M lens owners. Rangeinderforum.com is in the process of acquiring the necessary equipment and data to encode M lenses with the new Leica 6-bit code for use with the upcoming M8.
We have not completed this process yet nor have we modified any lenses. We are waiting for the M8 to be released and approval from a patent attorney before we commit 100% to this task.
Once we get the green light, the service will be offered to RFF members at a substantial savings. RFF is also working on applying the code to the Zeiss ZM lenses. If you are interested in this service, please send an email to rangefinderforum @ gmail. Com For more information keep an eye on this thread:
Jon Graham
09-01-2006, 22:36
Jorge,
Be quite careful here, '100% approval' from a patent attorney is absolutely zero assurance you are safe. IMHO you better tread very lightly here and weigh the potential economic advantage to you against a not unlikely lawsuit somewhere down the road. Win or lose, it is very expensive.
So Jorge, where is all this today?
Thanks.
Richard Marks
02-25-2007, 11:55
Dear Jorge
This sounds great for the US but Im not sure i would be sending my lenses from the UK. I suspect very few people are sending lenses for 'chipping' at over £100-a- pop. Clearly your deal would be a lot cheaper. I have had a few conversations with Robert White who are a very well respected pro dealer in the UK and they tell me that they have been using the wide Zeiss lenses (unchipped) and with absolutely no propblems at all. (Robert White himself aid he was having trouble retrieving the demo M8 from his staff to show to customers!)
I too wonder how you will get Leica's approval for this.
I await with interest
CameraQuest
02-28-2007, 21:08
MORE INFO Feb 2007
Stefan Daniels, Head of Production for Leica Camera explained at the Wetzlar LHSA meeting (during Photokina) that the M8 Lens bar coding system is patent applied for. RFF will NOT encode the M8 bar codes.
Stephen Gandy
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.