CCD vs. CMOS

[twopointeight]

I notice on my M8.2 that the RAW color files are much cooler than the RAW files from my Canon 5DMK2. The Canon files are much closer to what I want, but once I work with the M8.2 files, they are better in other ways. Does the color relate to lens varaitions as well, or is this a sensor difference?

[Gabriel M.A.]

It's a combination of all of the above and more: depending on what software you're using to process the files, you may be using the correct color space or not. While Canon RAW files seem to be "closer" to what one expects while using the AdobeRGB colorspace, the DNG files from a M8x should be treated with either ECI or a custom very well-calibrated colorspace. Not only that, but if your DNG files were shot using one of the earlier firmware versions, you may see some noticeable differences in blacks.

[hellomikmik]

i had also impression that 6500K (for example) on M9 is very different from 6500K on d700. i think there is a difference in sensor + lens + SOFTWARE and even maybe scale they use. how do you compare your files?

in C1 i can choose to use neutral adobe DNG setting - theoretically the software is not applying any color corrections specific to camera in that case if i understand it right.

to be honest in some cases i am having hard time to get colors i want from m9 and i think many others as well and that's why we see so many bw pictures around from leica.

[tom.w.bn]

What you see is basically a combination of sensor + software. For the Canon you can chose Canon Colors (JPG or RAW+DPP Software) or Adobe Colors (RAW + Adobe Raw Converter) or other interpretations of colors by different software vendors. Nikon is a bit different and so is the M8/M9. The lens has some influence on color too but I think not as much as sensor + software.

[jaapv]

Raw files do not have a color - processed raw files do. What you are seeing is the difference between the conversion profiles of your raw converter. If you do not like the color, simply choose another profile, or make one yourself. You can find a number of M8 and M9 profiles for C1 on the internet, some are free, some have to be paid for. I particularly like Jamie Roberts' profiles for the M8 and M8.2.

[LCT]

Comes mainly from different raw converters i guess. Been using C1 for both M8.2 and 5D1 (with R lenses) and i've not noticed a significant difference in color rendition so far.

[sevo]

CCD vs. CMOS is a difference in electronic technologies - these will affect stuff like readout speed, noise properties, sensitivity and sensor geometry, but not the colour rendition. That is purely a matter of the superimposed (dye) filter grid and the (in-camera or computer) software interpretation of the raw results.

[noimmunity]

For the M8, I highly recommend RPP converter. I had been using C1 v.6, but I get visibly better results with RPP.

[LCT]

Originally Posted by noimmunity

For the M8, I highly recommend RPP converter. I had been using C1 v.6, but I get visibly better results with RPP.

Matter of tastes i guess. C1 gives me the best results for Leica, Epson and Canon. Not that much for Nikon though.

[jaapv]

I agree with the preference for C1 as raw converter - best detail, best fringe surpression , best moire filter, and in the case of C1 6.x Pro best color rendering and correction.
But for high-ISO noise control nothing beats ACR 6.0.

[tj01]

I'm glad I shoot TriX

[jaapv]

Let's have a fight over developers then

[twopointeight]

Great answers, thanks. Lots to learn. And, yes, I miss shooting Neopan 400.

[gavinlg]

Originally Posted by tj01

I'm glad I shoot TriX

Hehe... you seen the threads on kodaks bankruptcy?

[Jim Evidon]

Originally Posted by jaapv

I agree with the preference for C1 as raw converter - best detail, best fringe surpression , best moire filter, and in the case of C1 6.x Pro best color rendering and correction.
But for high-ISO noise control nothing beats ACR 6.0.

I have recently turned to Lightroom 3.0 rather than ACR to open my DNG RAW files. It is totally non-destructive and has essentially the same controls as ACR plus a lot more. I retain the completed file as DNG and if I want to go to CS5 for further work, it opens with ACR and I simply click the open button essentially using ACR as a bridge to CS5. LR3 is much more than a catalog program. It is a very powerful post process engine that is much more advanced and fine tuned than CS5.

As for the out of camera color in RAW, it is what it is and the camera manufacturers know that you are going to post process anyway to suit your personal tastes.

[peterm1]

I never worry about color rendition too much unless its grossly out - usually due to factors (such as a wrong white balance setting) other than the camera technology or the processing software. More minor white balance problems are usually due to using auto white balance in the camera - in my experience some AWB software is much more susceptible to being fooled that are others. The M8 is notorious for this.
In any event the issue is easy to remedy in post processing and the software I use has one click settings to fix any slight problem of this sort. These settings usually work well for more minor inaccuracies in color rendition. If the camera's AWB is not the culprit, then I would think that it is mainly an issue of the profiles used by your RAW conversion software is correct.

[Speedfreak]

Originally Posted by tj01

I'm glad I shoot TriX

Where´s the thumbs up icon?

[jaapv]

Originally Posted by Jim Evidon

I have recently turned to Lightroom 3.0 rather than ACR to open my DNG RAW files. It is totally non-destructive and has essentially the same controls as ACR plus a lot more. I retain the completed file as DNG and if I want to go to CS5 for further work, it opens with ACR and I simply click the open button essentially using ACR as a bridge to CS5. LR3 is much more than a catalog program. It is a very powerful post process engine that is much more advanced and fine tuned than CS5.

As for the out of camera color in RAW, it is what it is and the camera manufacturers know that you are going to post process anyway to suit your personal tastes.

Umm..ACR is shared between LR and Photoshop. Completely identical. Many other features are shared as well. The main difference is indeed the trick that LR applies the actual algorithms on your original file at the very end, but if you use PS you get the same effect by using layers and in CS5 the adjustment layer panel. The only drawback is that it eats more memory, so you need a decent computer to run PS that way.
PS and LR have been converging, which is of course not surprising and I fully expect LR4 and CS6 to be even more alike under the hood with mainly the interface differing, and of course far more features on CS.