View Full Version : M8 Pics with IR cutoff filter
Hi, I posted this at the leica user forums but was asked by another member to post them here as well...
Just got my M8 today and happen to have a tiffen standard hot mirror filter laying around. Enclosed are some pictures of a couple of household items I had that show the IR problem. The first picture is from the Canon 5D, the second is the M8 without filter, and the third is with the hot mirror filter attached. You can see significant improvement in the blacks although the purple is not completely gone (notice the lining of the upper boot)...
Thanks,
Greg
Gabriel M.A.
11-08-2006, 20:23
Thank you.
Well...actually, you've brought the ePrey IR-cutoff filter prices up, but at least it'll calm the non-IR-cutoff-filter-impaired users ;)
Greg,
Thanks for posting these pictures. As an owner of the M8, is this something that you can live with or is it too much of an inconvenience for a 5K camera?
I think this IR problem is insane to have to deal with in a $5K camera. And to be told to buy a filter to fix it after dropping that kind of coin on a camera that makes a tuxedo look like a 70's wedding flashback? Fuggedaboutit. Mine is going back.
Greg,
Thanks for posting these pictures. As an owner of the M8, is this something that you can live with or is it too much of an inconvenience for a 5K camera?
Hi Jorge,
Well I've been wresting with that question. I've been using digital SLRs for years but I'm pretty new to rangefinders and absolutely love the handling, build, and method of photography with the M8 - it's an incredible machine. Having said that I was fine with the banding issues because I felt I at least had a chance to work around that while waiting for a fix from Leica. However I was very concerned when the first posts about the IR cast showed up. My gut feeling is I'm probably going to return the camera since to be honest it just doesn't feel like it's terribly close to being fully ready for prime time. As much as I like the M8 I don't want to spend what will most likely be many hours tweaking and testing to get things to a level I'm comfortable with. If I do return it and leica does provide a fix that lets me focus on using the camera as I currently do with my digital SLRs I would purchase it again in a heartbeat.
Thanks,
Greg
willie_901
11-08-2006, 21:30
Good job with the test.
Unfortunately, there is still a lot of magenta in the tiffen case, the dart board, etc... even with the filter.:(
Regarding the price of an IR cutoff filter - it would be nice not to have to use one of these, but .... how many rolls of EIR or HIE would you have to buy before you'd spent more on film than on the filter which disables the IR sensitivity of your M8?
I'm a bit in a daze - photographers have been using filters to balance the rendering of colour on film since the middle ages - and now, all of a sudden in the digital age this is the mortal sin? I would have preferred not to - but I can accept it, like I need a warming filter in the mountains, or a light blue one when shooting tungsten.
Nachkebia
11-09-2006, 01:59
Jaap : Tree dougnuts in your pocket and banding will be also solved! in the middle ages it worked at least :D
Andy Aitken
11-09-2006, 02:05
Thanks for the illustration. It shows how bad the problem really is.
Nice shooting - how far away were you standing when you threw the darts ;)
Yeah - but seriously, Vladimer, how much of this whole hullabuloo is inspired by the "technical marvels will take us to paradise whilst we are sleeping" mentality of the digital age?
I'm probably going to be shot for this, but I like the filtered M8 better than the 5D in this comparison....
Nachkebia
11-09-2006, 02:10
Anyhow, Sad thing is leica lost almost 40% of brand value and the good thing is, I knew it would happen.... if ever there will be M9 I think it will be good enough to pay $2500 for it :D
Don't worry, only a small percentage of photographers are active on internet forums....
Nachkebia
11-09-2006, 02:24
And another small percentage of good photographers shooting digital..... :D
Rich Silfver
11-09-2006, 02:30
Anyhow, Sad thing is leica lost almost 40% of brand value and the good thing is, I knew it would happen....
How did you calculate the 40%?
I know my way fairly well around intangible asset valuation - both book and tax values - and I wouldn't be able to make such a statement.
Ummm.... I have tried to find the "problem" from that non-filtered M8 image but I can't figure out what it is? Is it the slight color cast or...?
Greg,
Thanks for posting these pictures. As an owner of the M8, is this something that you can live with or is it too much of an inconvenience for a 5K camera?
I shot an election story for a big national magazine yesterday, had one 5D and one M6 w/ Kodachrome in it. I really wished I had a digital M, even would have settled for the 1.33 crop M8. But, not with a single issue that has popped up. None.
Banding, blooming, IR color shift? Not with my 5D. I can put a good roll of film stock in my M6 and won't have to deal with any of those issues. That is what I expect from a digital M as well.
I am baffled at how it has become that none of this was discovered by top pros as it most likely would have been. Instead, the major portion of the feedback is by hyped up internet gear testers who test and test and test and miss the magenta, the banding, the blooming and test and write about those tests, test some more, reply to fan letters in public, and test and test and test.......
WTF is going on Leica??
I am sure the Magnum shooters ran into this stuff. Did Constantine Manos shoot and black velvet garments turned grape?
You NEED this camera to work like we expect it to in order for you to subsist any further, period!
I'm sure that for those that refuse to use filters, Leica will issue a whole new line of lenses with internal IR filtering incorporated.....:o :( :o
I'm no photographer and I will never own an M8 but I can't believe you can pay 5k for a camera that can't represent a basic colour accurately without the use of a filter. I really want Leica to succeed with this camera but if I was in the market for one I would be backing away rapidly now! :(
You are all barking mad.
Please send me all unwanted M8's.
This is like a floating nuthouse. You're all feeding off each other and magnifying the problem to insane proportions. The "internet effect".
Will you all be happy when you've put Leica out of business and there are NO M-digital cameras in production?
It's the first run of a very new product and there are MINOR teething pains that will be addressed and fixed. What a bunch of babies.
Anyone who works with high tech products on a regular basis takes things like this as a matter of course.
Stop the hysteria. Most of the photos from the M8 are GORGEOUS.
johnastovall
11-09-2006, 08:34
Well, I just ran the numbers for B+W IR cut off filters for the 4 lenses I plan on using.
From B&H (all special order) 560 dollars worth of filters. Not bad, not good but rather netural.
If this fixes the magenta fine but there's to me the deal killer of the banding.
specifically it's black synthetic fibers.
Just tell your subjects to remove that offending material, because you have a Leica :p
You are all barking mad.
Please send me all unwanted M8's.
This is like a floating nuthouse. You're all feeding off each other and magnifying the problem to insane proportions. The "internet effect".
Will you all be happy when you've put Leica out of business and there are NO M-digital cameras in production?
It's the first run of a very new product and there are MINOR teething pains that will be addressed and fixed. What a bunch of babies.
Anyone who works with high tech products on a regular basis takes things like this as a matter of course.
Stop the hysteria. Most of the photos from the M8 are GORGEOUS.
I dont have an issue with the problem. I am keeping my M8. I want Leica to stay in business so we can continue having great lenses and camera bodies. My concern is that this is a Leica issue that they probably knew about yet they want the consumer to pay for the fix.
Well, I just ran the numbers for B+W IR cut off filters for the 4 lenses I plan on using.
From B&H (all special order) 560 dollars worth of filters. Not bad, not good but rather netural.
If this fixes the magenta fine but there's to me the deal killer of the banding.
Is banding camera related? I tried and tried and cannot get any. Straight into the sun, street lights-nothing....
My concern is that this is a Leica issue that they probably knew about yet they want the consumer to pay for the fix.
I want Leica to survive and prosper too, but if they expect customers to pay to fix a $5K camera so it takes pictures properly, they don't deserve to prosper.
Even with the filter, the M8 is showing significant colour casts in the original post.
Ian
I wish Leica would be bought out by a giant like Canon or something... that'd be great. Plenty of capital to come up with a proper M8.
I read your "open letter..." and it makes good sense.
I don't think there is any evidence of bad business practices here yet, it just seems that they (along with some early reviewers) got caught with their pants down and are now doing damage control. I think you early owners should keep the pressure on them to offer free or discounted filters or whatever else is reasonable.
However, I think it was brave and responsible of Sean R. to come forward early, surely knowing that it would cause a snowstorm.
I dont have an issue with the problem. I am keeping my M8. I want Leica to stay in business so we can continue having great lenses and camera bodies. My concern is that this is a Leica issue that they probably knew about yet they want the consumer to pay for the fix.
I, for one, photograph only in black and white.
And I am happy with the camera's high IR sensitivity -- I have taken many test images with an 89B filter -- some that I will post online soon -- and think that the M8 may be a suitable alternative to using HIE.
J. Borger
11-09-2006, 09:09
Well the hell with it ... people cross proces, use outdated film to get away from real colors, use warming filters, cooling filters etc... . ....
The M8 is an artist's tool that fits perfectly in this tradition :cool: :cool:
In the meantime i enjoy it as a wonderful dedicated B&W camera, because i bought it to shoot B&W anyway ....... in this case the IR sensitivity is even a Bonus!
At least one happy Leica customer here :) :)
I'm no photographer and I will never own an M8 but I can't believe you can pay 5k for a camera that can't represent a basic colour accurately without the use of a filter. I really want Leica to succeed with this camera but if I was in the market for one I would be backing away rapidly now! :(
Don't buy any camera using film then... There wouldn't be a huge market for colour-correcting filters otherwise.Colour rendition is high science with the human eye the least accurate measuring instrument.The Leica M8 is a rather extreme but all digital camera's have colour inaccuracies.,the filter fix, even if temporary and not very elegant, is pretty logical...I'm a bit unhappy with this as well, but a reason for overreacting - rather not.
90% of my photo's are technically the best to come out of any camera I've ever owned. Pretty redeeming imo.
Jim Watts
11-09-2006, 09:19
Is banding camera related? I tried and tried and cannot get any. Straight into the sun, street lights-nothing....
Well it may be, but if it is a whole batch of cameras or sensors must be involved as there are quite a few M8's out there with the problem.
I had my first hands on experience of the M8 at a dealers yesterday and it does handle beautifully, but I was easily able to detect the 'banding' problem even on the LCD at anything above 320 iso by pointing to an area in the shop where there was a couple of spot lights. The background behind the lights where the 'banding', 'steaking' occured wasn't even very dark, they were readily visible. My R-D1 could not be provoked into giving the same problem.
I would like this camera for its build quality, handling and for the wider fields of view in comparison to the R-D1, but not until Leica fix the problems or I could find one that is 'problem free' as it would effect too many of the situations I shoot in.
John Camp
11-09-2006, 09:55
Is banding camera related? I tried and tried and cannot get any. Straight into the sun, street lights-nothing....
Straight into the sun, distant streetlights won't do it. You really have to force it. You pretty much need to shoot a very bright light fairly close up with a large adjacent dark area, and ***you have to expose for the dark area.*** I don't know why, but that seems to be the way it works. I can force mine to band; but I went out shooting a town along our river the other night, kind of foggy and cool, streetlights and city lights, and got no banding whatever -- I think because there was enough ambient light around to reduce the relative overexposure of the street lights.
You notice in the now-infamous photos taken at the photo show, that the banding was taken of very bright lights in the ceiling, but the exposure was for the black ceiling, and that you can see details in the black areas. In other words, the lights were not only super-bright, they were massively, massively over-exposed (not just over-exposed like you usually over-expose lights.)
JC
PHOTOEIL
11-09-2006, 09:56
I shot an election story for a big national magazine yesterday, had one 5D and one M6 w/ Kodachrome in it. I really wished I had a digital M, even would have settled for the 1.33 crop M8. But, not with a single issue that has popped up. None.
Banding, blooming, IR color shift? Not with my 5D. I can put a good roll of film stock in my M6 and won't have to deal with any of those issues. That is what I expect from a digital M as well.
I am baffled at how it has become that none of this was discovered by top pros as it most likely would have been. Instead, the major portion of the feedback is by hyped up internet gear testers who test and test and test and miss the magenta, the banding, the blooming and test and write about those tests, test some more, reply to fan letters in public, and test and test and test.......
WTF is going on Leica??
I am sure the Magnum shooters ran into this stuff. Did Constantine Manos shoot and black velvet garments turned grape?
You NEED this camera to work like we expect it to in order for you to subsist any further, period!
At last, someone who's clear headed!
Gabriel M.A.
11-09-2006, 10:04
And another small percentage of good photographers shooting digital..... :D
And a small percentage of those know what they're doing.
Straight into the sun, distant streetlights won't do it. You really have to force it. You pretty much need to shoot a very bright light fairly close up with a large adjacent dark area, and ***you have to expose for the dark area.*** I don't know why, but that seems to be the way it works. I can force mine to band; but I went out shooting a town along our river the other night, kind of foggy and cool, streetlights and city lights, and got no banding whatever -- I think because there was enough ambient light around to reduce the relative overexposure of the street lights.
You notice in the now-infamous photos taken at the photo show, that the banding was taken of very bright lights in the ceiling, but the exposure was for the black ceiling, and that you can see details in the black areas. In other words, the lights were not only super-bright, they were massively, massively over-exposed (not just over-exposed like you usually over-expose lights.)
JC
I don't think that kind of shot on slide film would be very nice....
Peter G1G2
11-09-2006, 10:18
Is banding camera related? I tried and tried and cannot get any. Straight into the sun, street lights-nothing....
Interesting Jaap,
some people seem to just not have the problem. no matter how hard they try.
Do you think there might be a problem with a curtain (the first?) batch after all?
Peter
billsmith
11-09-2006, 10:35
" distant streetlights won't do it. You really have to force it. You pretty much need to shoot a very bright light fairly close up with a large adjacent dark area, and ***you have to expose for the dark area.**"
That's not true, walk outside at night and shoot for 5 minutes any street scene with streets lights and you will get banding. Shoot at iso 160 outside ,( Daylight) any everyone who walks by with a black dress, jacket, tshirt or canvas brief case will be STRONGLY purple. It's a disaster, people are not over reacting.... Carefully choose your subjects and scene, the image quality is excellent.
Gabriel M.A.
11-09-2006, 11:17
purple is the new black.
It's great for the Dork Bar accessory. :angel:
Peter G1G2
11-09-2006, 11:18
Straight into the sun, distant streetlights won't do it. JC
Pardon me sir, but the sun is the brightest lightsource 'on' earth. If one would really expose for the sun, the sky would be as dark as midnight. That would suffice for the banding experiment, I think.:) Which camera on earth can take this contrast and not give some kind of artifact? At $5K that would be the best bargain 'on earth', contrastswise.
BTW I am really interested in your 'foggy night out' shots. Can you please post some?
... the exposure was for the black ceiling, and that you can see details in the black areas. In other words, the lights were not only super-bright, they were massively, massively over-exposed (not just over-exposed like you usually over-expose lights)
JC
With all due respect, sir, exposing for the ceiling would be 2-3 stops above (medium gray). With 'correct' exposure the bright lights would allready be something like (what?) 5-7 stops overexposed. 2-3 stops extra is not what I concider " massively over-exposed." What I mean is that these extra 2-3 stops should not make the difference between 'banding' and 'good Leica quality'.
So I just don't know. I guess, sir, like a lot of other People here, and over at the Leica forum.:confused:
Could you please be so kind as to give me the link for the picture? I've seen it somewhere but helas, one sees a lot, these dark-november days. :bang:
Peter
Peter G1G2
11-09-2006, 11:20
Well the hell with it ... people cross proces, use outdated film to get away from real colors, use warming filters, cooling filters etc... . ....
The M8 is an artist's tool that fits perfectly in this tradition :cool: :cool:
In the meantime i enjoy it as a wonderful dedicated B&W camera, because i bought it to shoot B&W anyway ....... in this case the IR sensitivity is even a Bonus!
At least one happy Leica customer here :) :)
Bravely spoken! :) But maybe you right! We just might be witnessing the birth of a whole new 'Look' in Photography!
Cheers,
Peter
Peter G1G2
11-09-2006, 11:25
purple is the new black.
You got that right Mr. :o
Actually, the Emperor wears purple.
Is Leica now recommending one use a filter on the Noctilux? Harumph. My owner's manual is now in error.
Of course, the point of this whole thing is that Leica is just starting to come to grips with a finicky public.
Good luck to 'em. They are now no longer above the likes of Canon and Nikon, with folks carping at everything that they do in such a way that they simply can't wave 'em off and say "if you don't like it, you probably can't afford it..." At least, not anymore. Should have priced the camera over the Canons. That'd have helped.
I'm a bit in a daze - photographers have been using filters to balance the rendering of colour on film since the middle ages - and now, all of a sudden in the digital age this is the mortal sin? I would have preferred not to - but I can accept it, like I need a warming filter in the mountains, or a light blue one when shooting tungsten.
Yes, photographers of old, way back before MTV, Bill Gates and DSLR's ( you know...the middle ages), had a choice. The certainly could use filters or they could choose not to use filters. Either way they were able to produce acceptable results. Can you say that you have a choice?
The only sin I see is bringing a product to market before it clearly is ready. I beleive the sin is called greed.....not sure what it's called in German.
Bob
Leica will fix this.
I really hope they can and it happens fast enough to help them maintain the momentum they gained from the intro of the M8.
They make the very finest optics on earth, it would be insane for us to not have proper digital venue for them.
I do want a digital M and I have to admit, the price is not that bad if it really does Leitz optics justice.
Besides, I need a second M6, I would love to get one for cheap because the M8 does so well, folks just sell them en' mass.
I am willing to bet that these issues are on the forefront of company's decision making.
Could it be that the most recent version of the firmware is the buggy one?
Let's hope so, filters are not the answer. I think it was a hasty mistake on Leica's part to have given Sean the reply they did. It did lots of damage and I am almost willing to bet someone's arse got chewed for it. It was just too half cocked, incomplete in areas like who would pay for this? Too many things were unanswered in that unofficial post.
dazedgonebye
11-09-2006, 12:49
Just my poor 2 cents...as a digital shooter late to rangefinders...
Isn't it likely that Leica will just come up with a firmware fix to make this all right?
At the very least, they should come out with a statement to that effect...if it is indeed possible.
John Camp
11-09-2006, 12:52
Pardon me sir, but the sun is the brightest lightsource 'on' earth. If one would really expose for the sun, the sky would be as dark as midnight. That would suffice for the banding experiment, I think.:) Which camera on earth can take this contrast and not give some kind of artifact? At $5K that would be the best bargain 'on earth', contrastswise.
BTW I am really interested in your 'foggy night out' shots. Can you please post some?
With all due respect, sir, exposing for the ceiling would be 2-3 stops above (medium gray). With 'correct' exposure the bright lights would allready be something like (what?) 5-7 stops overexposed. 2-3 stops extra is not what I concider " massively over-exposed." What I mean is that these extra 2-3 stops should not make the difference between 'banding' and 'good Leica quality'.
So I just don't know. I guess, sir, like a lot of other People here, and over at the Leica forum.:confused:
Could you please be so kind as to give me the link for the picture? I've seen it somewhere but helas, one sees a lot, these dark-november days. :bang:
Peter
I really don't understand a lot of the technical talk -- I just take pictures. I'm not suggesting that you "expose for the sun" and that's not what I said -- if you have a very bright light with a very bright surround, you will not get banding (on my camera.) In other words, a bright sun in a bright sky won't band, if you expose for the bright sky. A bright sun in a black sky would band.
Also, not being a technical guy, I don't think the sun is the brightest light on earth -- I think things like arc-welding light is brighter.
As I said, I'm just working from observation here, and my observation is that a light has to be a certain brightness, and a certain size, for banding to occur. The problem with the ceiling lights is that they are extremely bright (probably halogen) fairly close, in a dark surround (the black-painted ceiling.)
JC
John Camp
11-09-2006, 12:54
" distant streetlights won't do it. You really have to force it. You pretty much need to shoot a very bright light fairly close up with a large adjacent dark area, and ***you have to expose for the dark area.**"
That's not true, walk outside at night and shoot for 5 minutes any street scene with streets lights and you will get banding. Shoot at iso 160 outside ,( Daylight) any everyone who walks by with a black dress, jacket, tshirt or canvas brief case will be STRONGLY purple. It's a disaster, people are not over reacting.... Carefully choose your subjects and scene, the image quality is excellent.
I've got an M8, I'm doing just what you said, and I'm not getting banding, and I'm getting the magenta cast in only a few instances. Other people who have M8s are saying the same thing. What else can I tell you?
JC
clintock
11-09-2006, 13:31
Would a single IR filter mounted in front of the sensor take care of everything?
Kodak's fault.
erikhaugsby
11-09-2006, 14:16
I wish Leica would be bought out by a giant like Canon or something... that'd be great. Plenty of capital to come up with a proper M8.
Capital, yes; customer service, however, what would happen to customer service? Quality products? Hand-assembled cameras? Metal cameras?
I don't know, I don't want to know.
Capital, yes; customer service, however, what would happen to customer service? Quality products? Hand-assembled cameras? Metal cameras?
I don't know, I don't want to know.
What is wrong Canon Professional service? In the end of the day it is only the Leica glass and stellar body that matters. Do you think Canon can't build a better body than Leica? Do you think Canon can't continue to build quality Leica lenses having acquired the Leica camera company and employing the same staff?
John Camp
11-09-2006, 15:20
What is wrong Canon Professional service? In the end of the day it is only the Leica glass and stellar body that matters. Do you think Canon can't build a better body than Leica? Do you think Canon can't continue to build quality Leica lenses having acquired the Leica camera company and employing the same staff?
No, I don't think they could; I haven't worked in a camera company, but I've worked in analogous situations, and if you have a mentality where "good enough is good enough," and "Let's fill up the niche and get the product out there before we miss the sales window," it's almost impossible to shift that to "the best possible." The whole culture fights against it -- which is reason that Chryslers still suck, even though it's owned by Daimler. And it's the reason Leica could never shift gears and compete with Nikon and Canon -- they couldn't adopt the "good enough is good enough" attitude. That's why Canon doesn't have a whole bunch of really good wide primes that Canon users have been screaming for ever since the 1Ds (1) came out -- they don't have to have them, so they don't. What are the users going to do? Dump all their Canon gear and go to Pentax?
Culture counts. It might be the most important thing. Canon optical engineers could build a lens as good as a Leica, they just won't.
JC
No, I don't think they could; I haven't worked in a camera company, but I've worked in analogous situations, and if you have a mentality where "good enough is good enough," and "Let's fill up the niche and get the product out there before we miss the sales window," it's almost impossible to shift that to "the best possible." The whole culture fights against it -- which is reason that Chryslers still suck, even though it's owned by Daimler. And it's the reason Leica could never shift gears and compete with Nikon and Canon -- they couldn't adopt the "good enough is good enough" attitude. That's why Canon doesn't have a whole bunch of really good wide primes that Canon users have been screaming for ever since the 1Ds (1) came out -- they don't have to have them, so they don't. What are the users going to do? Dump all their Canon gear and go to Pentax?
Culture counts. It might be the most important thing. Canon optical engineers could build a lens as good as a Leica, they just won't.
JC
Then the whole point of acquiring a specialty brand such as Leica is to branch out in the niche photography market and continue to create leica spec lenses. If Canon acquires Leica with this intention then it's a win win situation for everyone!
With the M8 it looks like the "good enough" (or not good enough?) mentality is starting to permeate into the Leica world. It might not be such a difficult transition..
As I recall, the problem described here as "banding" is also known as "register overflow", which in layman's terms is caused in CCD and CMOS camera sensors when excess light causes the resulting charges in a pixel (or register) to overflow to the neighboring pixels, resulting in vertical or horizontal banding (depending on the orientation of the sensor's rows in relation to the image orientation).
Sony and other Japanese makers have worked for years on eliminating this problem in video cameras using a variety of techniques, most of which require more than mere software reprogramming. It perhaps could be minimized by software in the camera by limiting the amount of exposure in high-contrast scenes, but the real issue, in my not-so-humble opinion, is it's a chip design problem.
Of course, it's also possible to theorize that Leica, in their infinite wisdom, left it up to the manual adjustment of exposure, by a knowledgable photographer, rather than having software do it for you; more in keeping with the manual heritage of their legacy products.
And did I just make this up, or is it true that Kodak manufactures the image sensor for the M8? Hmm....
All this purple is caused by cheap polyester suits. Leica assumed a quality world where people wear natural fibres like wool, linen...they were wrong!
Who'd a thunk this processed oil stuff would bring down a top quality camera?
Not for me.
Everybody I know wears cotton, so I don't expect ANY problems...
All depends who you hang around with...
BTW notice the frowny is "quess what color!":(
and the smily is:)
Gabriel M.A.
11-09-2006, 17:57
Just my poor 2 cents...as a digital shooter late to rangefinders...
Isn't it likely that Leica will just come up with a firmware fix to make this all right?
At the very least, they should come out with a statement to that effect...if it is indeed possible.
Yes, this is what I've been reading. Of course, no official statement yet on anything. At least they are being more human than other DSLR companies, like, say, Can** or Nik** ( :angel: ) ; I remember the times I had issues with a camera of either company, they treated me like an idiot who didn't know the first thing about using a camera or software, and completely disavowing any knowledge of any issue(s) I reported. Of course, some of them would be fixed by a firmware upgrade within a month, others were quietly fixed in their software.
Leica, arrogant, they are not. The other ones I've had direct experiences with, hell yeah. To be fair, they do deal with an exponentially higher number of, emm, knowledge-impaired beings
:)
http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/SENSORS/name/KAF-10500_product/show/KAF-10500_productOrderingOptions
The press release is also on my blog site, along with a link to the Kodak datasheet for the CCD imager.
As I recall, the problem described here as "banding" is also known as "register overflow", which in layman's terms is caused in CCD and CMOS camera sensors when excess light causes the resulting charges in a pixel (or register) to overflow to the neighboring pixels, resulting in vertical or horizontal banding (depending on the orientation of the sensor's rows in relation to the image orientation).
Sony and other Japanese makers have worked for years on eliminating this problem in video cameras using a variety of techniques, most of which require more than mere software reprogramming. It perhaps could be minimized by software in the camera by limiting the amount of exposure in high-contrast scenes, but the real issue, in my not-so-humble opinion, is it's a chip design problem.
Of course, it's also possible to theorize that Leica, in their infinite wisdom, left it up to the manual adjustment of exposure, by a knowledgable photographer, rather than having software do it for you; more in keeping with the manual heritage of their legacy products.
And did I just make this up, or is it true that Kodak manufactures the image sensor for the M8? Hmm....
Gabriel M.A.
11-09-2006, 18:08
All this purple is caused by cheap polyester suits. Leica assumed a quality world where people wear natural fibres like wool, linen...they were wrong!
RLMAOF!! That's what crossed my mind last night.
You really can't escape that reality, unfortunately.
I've always abided by that Spanish saying, "Lo barato cuesta caro" (more or less, cheap things are expensive). I'd rather spend $20 once than $4 ten times later.
But that's just me. But most people that think they know me would say that's just plain cuckoo :p
Gabriel M.A.
11-09-2006, 18:20
As I recall, the problem described here as "banding" is also known as "register overflow",
<snip>
Sony and other Japanese makers have worked for years on eliminating this problem
<snip>
Of course, it's also possible to theorize that Leica, in their infinite wisdom, left it up to the manual adjustment of exposure, by a knowledgable photographer, rather than having software do it for you
And then I'm reminded by all the "Ilford XP2 sucks! It's all purple! It's all sepia! / Do you really need a Stop when developing? / Kodak Tri-X, why if I can desaturate my digital pictures?" floating about, which are undeniably part of the learning process, but when you have many ad hoc photographers (me being one of them, to be honest) who don't have the discipline to learn and understand the tools in their hands and want quick results now without having to think, applying a one-solution-fits-all ("hey, a digital camera is a digital camera, right?"), it's painful to see people blowing an issue so out of proportion because they do not understand the issue they are experiencing.
This is one of those cases.
Also, the problem of being somebody who everybody has high expectations of, it is all too easy to disappoint expectacularly. On the other hand, when a product is mediocre and is expected to be mediocre, it is hailed as great when it delivers something more than low expectations. Which is why people pay $150 to watch a football game, but will vote people out of office if they are taxed as much to pay for the education of their children. Or something like that :bang:
Gabriel, you are dangerously perceptive and will soon be banned. You're only allowed to THINK the truth, not say it out loud.
Larry Kellogg
11-09-2006, 19:58
All this purple is caused by cheap polyester suits. Leica assumed a quality world where people wear natural fibres like wool, linen...they were wrong!
Who'd a thunk this processed oil stuff would bring down a top quality camera?
Not for me.
Everybody I know wears cotton, so I don't expect ANY problems...
All depends who you hang around with...
BTW notice the frowny is "quess what color!":(
and the smily is:)
Well, I shot my wife's top which is cotton and it also came out purple. I suppose the shirt is not a true black, maybe a black/gray but the purple problem was there.
Regards,
Larry
anything that reflects light (visible and non-visible) the way the dark synthetic textiles did, will show the artifacts, could be any number of materials with further testing.
Well, I shot my wife's top which is cotton and it also came out purple. I suppose the shirt is not a true black, maybe a black/gray but the purple problem was there.
Regards,
Larry
It's silly to equate the M8 purple issue to previous color balance issues that involved cameras or films. The unique problem of the M8 is that the purple effect is inconsistent. You'll never know when it'll show up. You can't correct that in post.
I'm a bit in a daze - photographers have been using filters to balance the rendering of colour on film since the middle ages - and now, all of a sudden in the digital age this is the mortal sin? I would have preferred not to - but I can accept it, like I need a warming filter in the mountains, or a light blue one when shooting tungsten.
I'm tempted to say that I am aghast at this post - since the damned contraption is simply a digital light value sensor behind a lens.
But on second thought - I think I now understand why the instructor in my PS CS2 class last Summer made a big thing about the new filter feature. Let's you "add" all kinds of classic filtering elements to adjust your images.
Then, all you have to do is buy the third-party plug-in to "emulate" various films and you almost have a M7! :bang:
amateriat
11-09-2006, 21:40
Gabriel: what you said.
- Barrett
Sorry, Athena, but that's not going to work. The problem is the IR getting into the data in a flat and unexpected way, unpredictable. One cannot simply write it away in software.
Sorry, Athena, but that's not going to work. The problem is the IR getting into the data in a flat and unexpected way, unpredictable. One cannot simply write it away in software.
In RAW too?
How could that be - RAW is unprocessed, non-interpolated data. I could see a problem with the firmware for JPEG but don't understand how RAW could be corrupted that way.
Or is it a sensor problem?
the IR is related to the sensor's 0.5mm coating not eliminating enough IR with certain wavelengths/colors/textures, but possibly with an IR filter on the lens it may correct the issue, and yes, this IR leak goes into the raw data that the sensor captures.
Another issue is AWB behavior, possibly unrelated to the magenta cast, and this may be made better in firmware upgrades, but is generally never perfect in any digicam.
The latter is probably also related to having the lens coded.
In RAW too?
How could that be - RAW is unprocessed, non-interpolated data. I could see a problem with the firmware for JPEG but don't understand how RAW could be corrupted that way.
Or is it a sensor problem?
Mark Norton
11-11-2006, 03:44
I took four pictures in incandescent light with the M8, each a different WB setting - auto, incandescent, 3000K, Manaul (white card) and the results were all different, none correct.
The same test with a Nikon D2X yielded near perfect results. The WB in the M8 is flawed and may be being made worse by the IR issue.
you can't really isolate the WB problems until the IR is resolved, since many visible light souces also contain varying amounts of IR.
Could be when you put the recommended IR filter on, the WB gets better.
I took four pictures in incandescent light with the M8, each a different WB setting - auto, incandescent, 3000K, Manaul (white card) and the results were all different, none correct.
The same test with a Nikon D2X yielded near perfect results. The WB in the M8 is flawed and may be being made worse by the IR issue.
neatertone
11-14-2006, 07:07
Hi, I posted this at the leica user forums but was asked by another member to post them here as well...
Just got my M8 today and happen to have a tiffen standard hot mirror filter laying around. Enclosed are some pictures of a couple of household items I had that show the IR problem. The first picture is from the Canon 5D, the second is the M8 without filter, and the third is with the hot mirror filter attached. You can see significant improvement in the blacks although the purple is not completely gone (notice the lining of the upper boot)...
Thanks,
Greg
You should get better results with a B+W 486 filter. This filter blocks all IR and UV so the effects you still see with a hot mirror filter should go away.
Don
cme4brain
11-22-2006, 17:46
Would a single IR filter mounted in front of the sensor take care of everything?
Kodak's fault.
It seems that this was NOT Kodak's fault about the IR sensitivity. Read Sean Reids explanation, like NO ONE seems to read. The acute angle of the image circle of rangefinder lenses cause vignetting on flat digital sensors. To minimize this, Leica used a crop factor AND a thin-as-can-be cover glass. Plain glass in your house window is an IR filter, and the thicker the glass, the better the IR filter. The 0.5mm thin glass over the Kodak sensor [B][I][U]specified by Leica to achieve image sharpness[B][I][U] apparently has minimal IR filtering properties- a trade off for sharpness. Blame Leica instead of Kodak, but blame no one but rangefinder design! The R-D1 has the same problems, but less so for several reasons, but one is the greater crop factor. SO what if you have to use a filter? What is the big deal using an IR cut filter? Will my fellow Leicanuts look at the big picture here? This sensor was the only way to exploit the leica lenses, get over it, use the camera if you want. I am holding on it until Leica allows a menu selection of non-coded lenses which activates a focal-length specific color and vignetting program to the DNG file.
Sailor Ted
11-22-2006, 21:29
It seems that this was NOT Kodak's fault about the IR sensitivity. Read Sean Reids explanation, like NO ONE seems to read. The acute angle of the image circle of rangefinder lenses cause vignetting on flat digital sensors. To minimize this, Leica used a crop factor AND a thin-as-can-be cover glass. Plain glass in your house window is an IR filter, and the thicker the glass, the better the IR filter. The 0.5mm thin glass over the Kodak sensor [B][I][U]specified by Leica to achieve image sharpness[B][I][U] apparently has minimal IR filtering properties- a trade off for sharpness. Blame Leica instead of Kodak, but blame no one but rangefinder design! The R-D1 has the same problems, but less so for several reasons, but one is the greater crop factor. SO what if you have to use a filter? What is the big deal using an IR cut filter? Will my fellow Leicanuts look at the big picture here? This sensor was the only way to exploit the leica lenses, get over it, use the camera if you want. I am holding on it until Leica allows a menu selection of non-coded lenses which activates a focal-length specific color and vignetting program to the DNG file.
Hear hear!!! You're spot on- bravo!
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2006, 21:36
It's silly to equate the M8 purple issue to previous color balance issues that involved cameras or films. The unique problem of the M8 is that the purple effect is inconsistent. You'll never know when it'll show up. You can't correct that in post.
IR reflected from non-IR opaque materials is not a "purple effect"; but so be it. The infrared reflection is consistent. That you don't know (or can't understand) when it'll show up doesn't make it inconsistent.
I didn't see this kind of bashing for the RD-1. Oh, right, it's "only" $2200 (really, is this really what it boils down to?)
Gabriel M.A.
11-22-2006, 21:38
Hear hear!!! You're spot on- bravo!
I agree. But relish it, because only a few seem to get it. The bashing will continue and drown out any intelligent discussion.
Sailor Ted
11-22-2006, 21:46
Gabriel M.A.,
I have a thread going "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian" that elaborates on this same theme however he hit nail right on the head in my opinion. If pressed I will offer my analysis on what kind of people... to heck with it. What's going on here is obvious to many but here's my take:
"Work arounds to IR color shifts:
Again from what I gather this issue can be dealt with provided the photog is willing to invest in IR cut filters combined with what will undoubtedly be a firmware revise and new C1 profiles for the M8 so problem solved. The issue for many to use filters seem to steam from the expense or a mental hang up regarding the use of a “filter” in front of virgin Leica glass. Frankly if the prints deliver performance in the ballpark of a Hassablad then the “expense” of a handful of filters seems not worth discussing- this is my opinion.
Why can’t the M8 deliver the worlds best performance and not require the use of IR cut filters? To me the answer is simple- technology is not sufficiently advanced and or the pockets of Leica enthusiasts are not sufficiently deep to finance such a camera with out trade-offs. It seems ironic that those who wanted the M8 the most seem to be the least willing to put in the extra effort to get the best possible image performance and instead want the camera to “automatically” deliver the best possible results without the need to mess with profiles in C1 or purchase IR cut filters. If someone wants a camera that takes great pictures with a minimum of “fuss” then why not just buy a Canon DSLR? Really since the advent of the Canon A1 Leica’s have always required more of their photographers then did the wonder SLR’s from Nikon and Canon and it’s no different today. Get over it or get a DSLR."
summilux
11-22-2006, 22:07
cme4brain is spot on.
It was not for no good reason when Leica said they were not satisfied with the current technology of the digital sensor. If Leica does not make certain comprimise, you will have no M8.
John Camp
11-29-2006, 17:50
I think this has been explained a couple of times here, but the problem with the magenta is that different materials reflect varying amounts of IR -- so you don't have a consistent amount of IR coming in all over the frame. Thus, you may have two materials sitting next to each other, say a black leather coat and a black Rayon sweater, that appear to the human eye to be the same color, but the Rayon reflects much more IR and thus turns up in the photo as magenta-toned, while the leather jacket remains black. This can't be fixed with a profile because a profile takes colors down across the entire file -- essentially eliminates a certain amount of magenta -- and therefore, other colors shift. A false-magenta jacket may become black, but an orange may then shift to yellow. An IR cut filter doesn't eliminate the same amount of IR across the entire sensor -- it eliminates more IR from sources of heavy IR, like the Rayon sweater. So, in effect, the filter is selective, and the resulting file can then be tuned to appear (in color) as it does to the human eye.
JC
I bet Fred Miranda will come up with an action set to fix the magenta problem. If not him, there certainly will be a third party software developer coming up with a CS2 plugin.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.