View Full Version : the Blue DOT
willemvelthoven
09-09-2006, 06:36
The blue dot on the M8 is a sensor for determining the actual aperture of each shot.
The camera needs a second light measurement to compare to the ttl measurement (and for angle of view and ultimate accuracy reasons, the known lens characteristics) to know the actual aperture setting.
Nice that they can write that info to the EXIF and/or show it in a display.
More importantly, Leica are promising us very specific image enhancements based on the characteristic of the lenses used.
Ever since they've shown us the 6bit lens coding, i've wondered how they were going to do any corrections withou knowing the aperture setting.
The aperture setting influences lens characteristics so dramatically that you cannot do automatic anhancements without knowing it.
willemvelthoven
09-09-2006, 06:52
Surely, the blue dot can be used for other things too. White balance for instance. Hell, it could even be made to blink when the self timer is running.
But Leica would never deface their company-saving new flagship with something that cheap.
Design wise, the BLUE DOTs prominent placing must be justified. IMHO, it can only be justified when it represents a really intelligent, cool, new function!
Imagine, it even reads the (effective) aperture of ANY piece of old glass mounted on the camera!
willemvelthoven
09-09-2006, 07:17
Theoretically, the accuracy of the aperture measurement by comparing blue dot and ttl metering is dependent on the angle of view of the lens used.
Assuming that the blue dot has a fixed angle of view, the M8 could vary the size of the ttl measurement circle to match it. But only if the focal length is known. This requires a coded lens or somekind of prohibitively awkward manual identification procedure.
Sufficient argument for Leica to disable aperture recognition for non coded lenses!
And actually a nice extra argument to have your summicron 50 of 75 coded. (because those lenses really don't need any corrections in camera)
Here, the guys and girls that are in charge of marketing Leica glass might find the leverage to have the M8 designers switch off aperture detection for non coded glass.
I would regret that however, i'd rather have a slightly inaccurate reading than no ready on the 8 non-codable lenses that I use. (mostly voigtlaender and old german glass)
So please Leica:
If we are naughtly and use lenses that do not contribute to your organisations profit...
give us a slightly inaccurate reading in stead on no reading at all!
Actually, one of the reasons that I ordered an M8 is that i can use all kinds of optics on an M camera.
And yes Leica, i'll have my cron, lux and noct coded. I promise!
Did I miss something, like an official statement from Leica that there actually is a "blue dot" on the real M8 and an official announcement of its function?
Palaeoboy
09-09-2006, 07:56
I cant see how it would work as you have described.
For example if you are standing in direct sunlight shining on the camera top and pointing the lens into the shadows it would think the lens is set at a different aperture to if you were pointing the lens to another area also in sunlight.
Self timer LED is my guess.
willemvelthoven
09-09-2006, 08:08
Not just a sensor. It is actually precisely measuring a portion in the middle of the image. Does it have mechanical parallax correction? It could be mechanically achieved... but just as easily electronically at the moment of selecting the corresponding image circle in the RAW data.
again, assuming that the M8 knows about the lenses angle of view through the 6 bit coding info of course...
I'm also assumin that tha camera is electronically registering the focus distance of course... would that be too much for a $ 5000 camera?
Mark Norton
09-09-2006, 08:39
I think you're dreaming and should go and lie down in a dark room until the feeling passes...
will. I thought you were talking with inside information... now I just think you're crazy :)
I cant see how it would work as you have described.
For example if you are standing in direct sunlight shining on the camera top and pointing the lens into the shadows it would think the lens is set at a different aperture to if you were pointing the lens to another area also in sunlight.
You'd be right if the blue dot functioned as an incident light meter. But if it worked as a reflected light meter, it would work fine,,,,,in theory. The problem is the light intensity comparision must be done between areas of similar included angles of view. However, the lens coding does take care of that problem for Leica lenses and, for that matter, with any lenses that have been coded.
This would be a really useful feature. I would love to have the F# info recorded in the EXIF file. Also, having the F# displayed in the viewfinder would be handy, especially in low light situations.
Since the F# would be a calculated number based on two light readings which are not totally similar (in the geometric sense), there might be a slight disagreement between the actual apeture setting and the reported one. But, still the information would be a lot better than nothing.
Rex
shutterflower
09-09-2006, 10:16
What kinds of automatic enhancements are they planning on putting in this thing? I wouldn't want any camera automatically enhancing my images - especially a Leica. Seems just wrong...
>Self timer LED is my guess.
Absolutely. Just like the dot on the front of the Hexar RF.
Same thing.
What kinds of automatic enhancements are they planning on putting in this thing? I wouldn't want any camera automatically enhancing my images - especially a Leica. Seems just wrong...
I don't want any automatic enhancements either. I just want the the F stop to be recorded on the EXIF data and displayed in the camera viewfinder. Others will want automatic enhancements but not me.
Rex
I don't know whether or not the blue dot is it, but the original poster is 100% correct about needing a second sensor to determine the actual aperture of the lens.
The Contax G1 and G2 use a very similar system. The external meter cell was provided primarily for exposure setting when using the 16mm Hologon lens (which sits too deep for TTL metering to work) but also is used to derive the aperture setting in use. The only use made of this data in the G cameras was to imprint the exposure data on the G2's data back, but obviously with a digital camera more can be done with it.
Here's the background of why an external sensor is needed to determine the f/stop in use:
All SLRs that feature full-aperture metering communicate the aperture setting from the lens to the metering system in the camera body, either by a mechanical linkage (e.g. the prong on Nikon F lenses) or an electronic contact (as used on most modern SLRs.) This coupling reads the actual setting of the lens' aperture ring and passes it along to the metering system in the camera body.
The metering system needs to know the aperture setting so it can determine the correct shutter speed without having to stop down the lens, which on an SLR would cause the viewfinder to get dim. (Owners of stop-down-metering SLRs such as Pentax Spotmatics are all too familiar with this.)
Rangefinder camera lenses (including Contax G-mount lenses) have never had this kind of aperture coupling system. They always meter at the actual working aperture, with the lens stopped down. It's a simpler and theoretically more accurate system, and there's no reason not to use it, since you're not viewing through the lens and don't have to worry about the finder getting dim when you stop down.
But because the aperture ring setting isn't communicated to the metering system, the meter doesn't know (or care) what aperture you've set. It just measures the amount of light passing through the lens, and determines what shutter speed is appropriate for that amount of light. It has no way of knowing whether you're metering a dimly-lit scene at f/2 or a brightly-lit scene at f/16... and it doesn't need to know that to give you a correct exposure.
However, if you're trying to record your exposure data (on a data back or in an EXIF file header) you'd naturally like to know the aperture to which you had set the lens. So, Contax came up with a clever trick which Leica apparently is adopting as well: Measure the brightness of the scene using a NON-through-lens meter, and compare that to the brightness read by the through-lens meter. By comparing the two, the camera can compute what lens aperture would be needed to account for the difference in brightness. The result will only be approximate, but it should be close enough to help you evaluate your exposures.
[At first I thought it also would be necessary to know the lens' maximum aperture, as it is on SLR full-aperture metering systems -- but further thought made me realize this isn't actually necessary, so I've deleted that part of this post.]
To give a simple example I thought up for another mysterious-blue-dot thread, suppose you see me taking a picture and ask what settings I'm using. I reply, "My ISO is 400 and my shutter speed is 1/125, but I'm not going to tell you the aperture." (I must be crabby that day.) Still, if you happen to have a hand-held meter with you, you can set it to ISO 400, meter the scene, and then see what aperture lines up against 1/125 on the calculator dial, and you know approximately what f/stop I would have been using. The Contax G2 data back and presumably the Mysterious Blue Dot work exactly the same way.
As to the question of automatic enhancements, I can think of one example right off: vignetting. Most of us have observed that vignetting is worst at full aperture, and improves as you stop down. If you're Leica and you want to include automatic vignetting compensation, you'll need to know the lens' working aperture as well as its focal length, so you can apply an appropriate amount of correction for the aperture in use.
It will be interesting to see how they use this data: whether the camera includes a lookup table of correction values derived for various Leica lenses and applies correction to the images "on the fly" (which might mean that third-party encoded lenses could give inaccurate corrections) or whether they just store the coding data in the file header and then use it for post-processing via raw conversion software.
Picking apart this kind of stuff will be lots of fun for technically-minded RF enthusiasts, even if we can't afford to buy an M8 ourselves!
...Others will want automatic enhancements but not me...
Neither me. Raw will be free from those gadgets hopefully.
>Self timer LED is my guess.
Absolutely. Just like the dot on the front of the Hexar RF.
Same thing.
too bad they didn't put it in the same place. ;)
I don't know whether or not the blue dot is it, but the original poster is 100% correct about needing a second sensor to determine the actual aperture of the lens...................
open-aperture metering also requires the meter to know the lens' maximum aperture ......
That's true in an open-apeture metering system. But the M8 doesn't have an open-apeture metering system so doesn't need to know the maximum apeture of the lens.
For arguments sake suppose the external metering system (AKA Blue Dot) has an effective field of view of a 50mm lens and an apeture of F4.0. Now if you have a 50mm Summicron on the camera set at an apeture of F4.0, the relative brightness of the two readings will be the same. So the cameras brain says " Oh this must be a F4.0 lens". If you decide to open the lens apeture to F2.8 the camera says "mmm, the internal meter is reading twice the brightness as the external meter... that must mean the apeture of the lens must have been opened up to F2.8"
Their is no need for the software to know what the maximum apeture of the lens is. It will soon find out when you open the lens to the maximum but if you never do, so what?
The only problem comes with the use of filters. If you put a filter with a 2X factor on the lens, the software has no way of knowing whether the camera has been stopped down by one stop or you reduced the light input by 2X by use of the filter.
Of course you don't really need to use filters on a digital camera but that opens up a can of worms that best be left closed for this discussion.
I'm I missing something here? This seems so intuitive and Leica like that I know I am missing something that will make it all complicated and screwed up.
Rex
AndyPiper
09-09-2006, 14:29
"The aperture setting influences lens characteristics so dramatically that you cannot do automatic anhancements without knowing it."
The main optical effect that will need correcting with the M8 is darkening of the corners with wide-angle lenses due to angle-of-incidence between the incoming light and the sensor surface.
And that kind of darkening (unlike classical vignetting of the type one sees on film) IS NOT affected by aperture. I used my R-D1 and the Cosina 15mm to test this, shooting a scene at all apertures - and there was NO CHANGE in the pattern or amount of 'vignetting' from f/4.5 to f/16.
So the M8 needs to know WHICH lens is mounted (because each lens has a different pattern) but has no need to know which aperture was used.
The "blue dot" could still be a meter for aperture determination, even if only for EXIF.
Or a self-timer signal.
Actually, I think it's just a secret sign (for those in the know) that Zeiss bought out Hermés' and ACM's stake in Leica 3 months ago - to be revealed Sept. 15
8^)
John Camp
09-09-2006, 15:28
Maybe the blue dot signals Homeland Security when you take a picture of a tall building or a bridge...say like the building in Ash's avatar...
JC
That's true in an open-apeture metering system. But the M8 doesn't have an open-apeture metering system so doesn't need to know the maximum apeture of the lens.
I realized you're right shortly after I posted that, and have deleted that paragraph from my post above.
You're missing the obvious part: cos^4 light falloff correction is NOT dependent on aperture, only the angle of acceptance. Thus, no automatic correction based upon aperture is necessary or even possible.
Personally, I don't give a crap about having the aperture display in the EXIF. My dSLR doesn't record aperture or focal length when I use manual lenses, or even use the built in meter.
You're missing the obvious part: cos^4 light falloff correction is NOT dependent on aperture, only the angle of acceptance. Thus, no automatic correction based upon aperture is necessary or even possible.
Cosine^4 falloff isn't aperture-dependent, but other kinds of optically-induced vignetting are.
Nobody but a few insiders has actually shot with an M8 yet, but we can use as a stand-in the only other digital RF camera that takes M-mount lenses: the Epson R-D 1. What I can tell you by personal experience with an R-D 1 is that most lenses that vignette do so more at wider apertures, so if you're dialing in software-based correction, you'll need different amounts depending on the aperture in use.
Take a look at the two images attached, which I shot just now for the purpose of this discussion. I shot both of them using an R-D 1 and a 50mm f/1.5 Nokton lens (which should be long enough to be reasonably immune from cosine^4 error, wouldn't you think?) In both cases the lens was focused at infinity and aimed at the closest thing I could find around the apartment to an evenly-illuminated white wall. I used the shutter speeds recommended by the camera's TTL meter, then opened and converted the raw files in Photoshop CS2 with all the auto-compensation settings turned off. So, the only difference between the two frames is the taking aperture: f/1.5 for one and f/11 for the other.
The first attachment is the f/1.5 frame and the second is the f/11 frame. Q.E.D., wouldn't you say?
For those who prefer not to believe their eyes, the third attachment shows the histograms of the two images: f/1.5 image on the left, f/11 image on the right. A histogram is a graph that shows the image's brightness range, from dark to light, across the horizontal axis. The vertical axis shows the number of pixels that have each brightness value.
Since the overall tone of both images is medium gray, both histograms consist of a peak in the middle of the horizontal axis. But you can see that in the left histogram, the peak has a wider base -- meaning that there's more brightness variation in the f/1.5 image than in the f/11 image.
Below each histogram, you'll see some statistics about each image including its standard deviation -- a statistical measure of how much the different values differ from the average value. The f/1.5 image's standard deviation is more than 3x that of the f/11 image, again showing that it has much more brightness variation across the frame.
Moral of this somewhat long-winded story: If you're trying to correct for optically-induced vignetting, it helps to know the working aperture of the lens, since the amount of vignetting does vary from aperture to aperture.
Bob Ross
09-09-2006, 18:01
Cosine^4 falloff isn't aperture-dependent, but other kinds of optically-induced vignetting are.
Moral of this somewhat long-winded story: If you're trying to correct for optically-induced vignetting, it helps to know the working aperture of the lens, since the amount of vignetting does vary from aperture to aperture.
Those are interesting test images. Another way to do it is with an Expo Disk (or I supposed a Pringle lid).
What we may also be seeing is spherical aberration, which should be gone by f/2.8 according to some tests of that lens. There is another aberation where light travels different distances through glass, as the wide aperture angles increase. This has more impact than cosine^4, but is aperture sensative.
If we get similar results with the M8 with a 50mm, we can be happy campers. If we have a problem lens/aperture, we can use an image like yours as a filter in post processing. It would probably do a better job that the uniform correction tools in the software.
Bob
I realized you're right shortly after I posted that, and have deleted that paragraph from my post above.
I am relieved to find out I am right about something. Your post are generally so well researched that I was afraid I was missing something. I also hope that the blue dot is an external meter as the aperture data would be valuable information to have in the EXIF data. Also it would be nice to see the information in the viewfinder window, especially when using lenses in which the aperture ring rotates the "wrong" way.
Of course white balance info could be gathered for those who are using JPEGs instead of RAW.
willemvelthoven
09-09-2006, 18:58
Of course white balance info could be gathered for those who are using JPEGs instead of RAW.
Yes! and even for those who use raw, the white balance measurement could be of value at later time I would expect...
AndyPiper
09-09-2006, 19:03
jlw: right! There are (at least) 3 sources/types of vignetting or corner darkening.
1. Mechanical vignetting - the lens barrel crops the full aperture of a fast lens into a "cat's eye" shape when seen off-center (as in your example). Stopping down crops the "cat's eye" back into a circle as seen from all parts of the film or sensor and evens out the illumination. Aperture dependent - could be fixed by the magic blue dot - if that's what the blue dot is for.
2. Cos-whatever light fall-off. The corners of the image area are further from the exit pupil of the lens than is the center of the image area. Pythagoras, hypotenuse of a right triangle and all that. Light intensity drops off as the square of the distance, so the 'distant' corners get less. Not aperture dependent.
3. Digital vignetting - due to the fact that photo-sites (or pixels) are depressions or pits in the surface of the silicon, and the walls of the pits shade the light-sensitive bottom (just as tall buildings shade a street from low winter sunlight, but not a summer noon sun). Sometimes helped, sometimes exacerbated by microlenses. Depends soley on the angle of the light - which varies slightly with focus, but not at all with aperture.
So 2 of the 3 sources can be corrected simply by knowing the optical formula used - but the third would need to account for the aperture as well.
When Leica tells me what the blue dot is for - then I'll know.
I don't want the camera body to correct for non-cos^4, optical vignetting. This is the silliest idea I've ever heard. I don't know of a single consumer or professional digital body that does it.
#2, inverse squared light falloff is due to the photon flux through a fixed area on the surface of a sphere decreasing with the radius of the sphere... not pythagoras and all that :P
I don't want the camera body to correct for non-cos^4, optical vignetting. This is the silliest idea I've ever heard. I don't know of a single consumer or professional digital body that does it.
The only lenses where this has a signifcent impact are the very lenses that are traditional for rangefinders i.e. non-retrofocus wide angles. Any lens that has the rear element very close to the image plane is going to have cos^4 vignetting. Most of the newer wide angle rangefinder designs are moving towords the retrofocus designs found in the SLR world. But these lenses are bigger than the older symmetrical designs. And its more difficult to control distortion.
All in all it would be benificial to be able to control vignetting in software. But I would much preferr to do any correction in PS rather than have the camera do it for me. Particullarly since there are tradeoffs with vignette correction. LIke more noise in the corners.
Rex
Yes, I should have been more elaborate in my first post.
Let's classify the light falloff.
Falloff due to CCD angle-of-acceptance issues will not vary due to aperture, because the angle of acceptance doesn't change with aperture. This effect doesn't really exist in film (maybe theoretically due to the film not being infinitely thin and light passing through some film gelatin and chemicals, more at higher angles, but little in practice)
Cos^4 light falloff is different theoretically but has the same basic pattern and dependence on angle as CCD falloff. So, it also won't change with aperture. It will be exactly the same as it would be on film.
Optical vignetting due to the construction of the lens will vary due to aperture, but will behave exactly the same as it would be on film.
(and other minor sources, but no diff. film vs. ccd)
Of these, the only one that is different with CCD vs. Film is CCD angle of acceptance. This is what the 6 bit codes are for. The aperture doesn't need to be known.
how much does reducing vignetting through software increase noise in the corners?
ghost, at least as much as raising the ISO an amount equal to the light falloff. And likely more, because some sensors don't give a truly linear response, and put most of the 12 significant bits in the highlight region instead of the shadow areas.
ah. guess we'll have to be careful about not overdoing it.
how much does reducing vignetting through software increase noise in the corners?
Practically speaking, it cam be quite a bit. that's one of the reasons I don't want the camera doing it for me. It's kind of a balancing act, has to be done in a case by case basis. However, it is useful if you don't overdo it.
Morever, vignetting control can make a lens that has serious vigentting issues (like my VC 15mm) can be much more useful. My experience has been that serious vignetting problems become managable with software management.
willemvelthoven
09-10-2006, 00:13
Several people have expressed their disliking of any in-camera corrections going on.
I guess that Leica will never introduce obligatory automatic sorrections.
Also I'd expect RAW to remain RAW; all this correction stuff is for JPEG shooting...
(and maybe for presetting RAW conversion software)
This blue dot makes me think of laser rangefinders like that of the Leica Geovid binoculars.
See what i mean?
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/eureka.gif
http://tinyurl.com/rv7w/doute02.gif
If you check image 3 0f 7 (Mise à jour 07/09/13h00
Pièce révélée: 09) on the M8 puzzle you may notice that the "blue dot" is red or at least has a red border around it.
http://www.lightmediation.com/blog/index.php?2006/09/06/25-leica-m8-digital-numerique-exclusif
Richard
Leicaiste
09-10-2006, 03:09
Easy !
Don't use 6 bits lenses if you don't want corrections.
Jon Graham
09-10-2006, 03:39
This whole blue dot thread makes me want to lie down in a darkroom as Mark Norton suggested.
At the risk of sounding very stupid why cannot the in camera software roughly calculate the aperature from the following:
-shutter speed
-Iso
-Histogram
I really don't know WTF the histogram can do to solve the equation - but we are dealing with a digital animal - not a film camera. There is in camera processing.
greggebhardt
09-10-2006, 06:35
The blue dot on the M8 is a sensor for determining the actual aperture of each shot.
The camera needs a second light measurement to compare to the ttl measurement (and for angle of view and ultimate accuracy reasons, the known lens characteristics) to know the actual aperture setting.
Nice that they can write that info to the EXIF and/or show it in a display.
More importantly, Leica are promising us very specific image enhancements based on the characteristic of the lenses used.
Ever since they've shown us the 6bit lens coding, i've wondered how they were going to do any corrections withou knowing the aperture setting.
The aperture setting influences lens characteristics so dramatically that you cannot do automatic anhancements without knowing it.
I think you are taking a wild guess for sure! Just a little longer and we all will know way more about the M8!
Maybe it's for alerting the user when the M8 is becoming obsolete. When the M9 is in development, the dot will slowly turn black.
Bob Ross
09-10-2006, 09:01
If you check image 3 0f 7 (Mise à jour 07/09/13h00
Pièce révélée: 09) on the M8 puzzle you may notice that the "blue dot" is red or at least has a red border around it.
http://www.lightmediation.com/blog/index.php?2006/09/06/25-leica-m8-digital-numerique-exclusif
Richard
I think you are seeing the edge view of the classic Leica Red Dot.
Bob Ross
09-10-2006, 09:25
Several people have expressed their disliking of any in-camera corrections going on.
I guess that Leica will never introduce obligatory automatic sorrections.
Also I'd expect RAW to remain RAW; all this correction stuff is for JPEG shooting...
(and maybe for presetting RAW conversion software)
There is certainly a lot of prejudice against "in-camera" processing floating around and there are some good reasons and a few exceptions. It has to do with processing power and that is improving, so each new model will have to be tested, because as the MPs climb to double digits the processing loads change and processors are upgraded.
An example of an exception is the Oly E-1 where the SQH JPEGs are as good as RAW conversions, but that camera has three processor chips to the usual one.
Leica will spend a lot of money on developing the in camera processing system and before we toss it in the trash, we should at least evaluate it. Another point is that if "the print" is your final product, the gains from RAW conversion vs. JPEG or TIFF can be so small that you might not notice and most of your audience never will. RAW certainly is a good tool for imposible lighting situations and mixed lighting, but good exposure technique and post processing skills can level the field, too.
If your final product is the published picture, I'll defer to those here who know the pre-press CYMK processes.
Bob
At the risk of sounding very stupid why cannot the in camera software roughly calculate the aperature from the following:
-shutter speed
-Iso
-Histogram
The histogram is just a graph showing the distribution of tone values in the file. It has no relationship to the conditions under which the file was made. If the exposure system is working properly, different images of the same subject exposed under different lighting conditions and at different shutter speeds, apertures and ISO settings will have exactly the same histogram.
Film analogy: You can get one of those ten-step gray scales and make negatives of it using various combinations of long exposure/short exposure, wide aperture/small aperture, bright/dim illumination, and high/low ISO. As long as you've picked combinations that add up to equivalent exposures, all the negatives will look exactly the same in terms of tone values. If I gave you one of the negatives and told you the ISO and shutter speed used to make it, you wouldn't be able to guess the aperture unless you also knew the illumination level, or guess the illumination level unless you also knew the aperture.
I still don't know what the blue dot is for (or whether it's blue) but the four components of correct exposure -- scene illumination, imager sensitivity, shutter speed, and aperture -- don't change whether the imager is film or digital. If you know any three of the components, you can derive the fourth one; if you only know two components, there's no sure way to guess the other two.
There is certainly a lot of prejudice against "in-camera" processing floating around and there are some good reasons and a few exceptions. It has to do with processing power.......
Bob
It's true that in camera processing should do a good job of processing the data to make good prints. After all, thats the way a majority of photographers will use the camera. In fact, most people will base the quality of the camera on the JPEGs delivered not the quality of the RAW. Leica would be foolhardy NOT to address the quality of the JPEG files using every trick in the book including vignetting correction.
I'm almost certain that they will leave the RAW files alone. The post processing geeks would be sorely disappointed if the files had been messed with in a way that couldn't be reversed. Fortunately, a sidecar file could be attached to the basic RAW file that could provide the RAW file user with Leica's interpratation of the best solution. I would rather like that.
As for limitations on processing power of the in camera software, no matter how much improvement there is, my laptop will always have more. That's one of the reasons that I prefer the post processing algorythms. For example, I'd rather post process noise and sharpness in Photoshop than leave it to the camera software.
But realistically, only the tough shots need the tender loving care that post processing can offer. Still, you never know which shots that will be. That's why I shoot both RAW & JPEG. For a quick slideshow for friends and family, I filter out the RAW files and just look at the JPEGs.
Rex
Bob Ross
09-10-2006, 13:57
As for limitations on processing power of the in camera software, no matter how much improvement there is, my laptop will always have more. That's one of the reasons that I prefer the post processing algorythms. For example, I'd rather post process noise and sharpness in Photoshop than leave it to the camera software.
But realistically, only the tough shots need the tender loving care that post processing can offer. Still, you never know which shots that will be. That's why I shoot both RAW & JPEG. For a quick slideshow for friends and family, I filter out the RAW files and just look at the JPEGs.
Rex
Hi Rex,
The ideal would be to have no NR in camera, since that one really messes with the basic image quality & structure. Sharpening with a wide variation of settings can be good, so it can taylored to your lenses and post processing techniques. I don't think the DMR does NR and my E-1 doesn't. They both do basic sharpening. The problem with shooting JPEG is when you make a wrong guess on a setting other than ISO. You have to live with a finished product, like we did with slides. In those days we just tossed the bad slides and said, better luck next time. Those who are starting in photography with digital are missing all the fun:D
Another heresy that has cropped up is to shoot at a lower resolution:eek: I read one today about someone using a Kodak SLRc, shot at 6MP instead of 14MP and found the prints were better. One of the replies refered to prior posts about it. So, there is lots of fun to be had, inside and outside the boxes we think we are in:cool:
Bob
willemvelthoven
10-02-2006, 13:21
will. I thought you were talking with inside information... now I just think you're crazy :)
I read in other threads that I'm not so crazy after all;-)
Not crazy, just late.. (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=24418&page=2&highlight=external+sensor)
Stan98103
10-16-2006, 17:44
I'm glad to see that the M8 manual is now online.
The Blue Dot is merely an ambient light sensor which controls the level of illumination for the viewfinder LEDS. This is according to the M8 Manual and was also stated by Phil Askey in his preview of the M8. The manual says there's no need to worry if the blue dot is covered.
I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the M8.
Stan
Well, at last we know!
There's even a footnote that says that lenses with viewfinder attachments cover up this sensor, so the readouts always appear with constant brightness when such a lens is used.
The downside: This means we now also know that the camera has no way of knowing the set lens aperture, so it can't be included in the EXIF header or on the LCD information displays. As shown on page 79 of the manual, the information available consists of exposure mode, shutter speed, focal length (if 6-bit coding is on), ISO setting, exposure compensation, file format specs, white balance, and the user profile in use.
Kind of disappointing not to have aperture info, but as we've discussed previously, this wouldn't have been possible without either adding a coupling to the M mount or using an external sensor to estimate the working aperture based on scene illumination.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.