Digital Leica M8 / M8.2 / M9 / M-E /Mono / M10 aka "M"Discussions about the Leica M8 /M 8.2 / M9 / M9-P/ M-E / M Monochrom / M10 aka "M": Leica digital M mount rangefinder cameras. Naming the new digital M the "Leica M" is VERY unfortunate as it will only confuse newbies with other Leica M cameras of the the past. Happily there is room for confusion with only the past 59 years of Leica M production ... since Leica introduced the Leica M system in 1953. All Hail for the Leica Marketing Department learning Leica M history!
I have just made a 37x55cm inkjet print, after quickly acquiring with Adobe Camera Raw, and it is more than promising. However the bokeh is less attractive than with silver halide... I am waiting for precisions concerning the focal lengths and apertures wich were used.
Leica and C1 worked together closely to optimize the quality of conversion from M8 RAW files. C1 LE is the bundled RAW converter for that camera. Were such a file, theoretically, to become available it would be wise to process it in C1 LE 3.5 to see what its potential might be.
Did you intend to focus on the farther eye, or did a little "oops" happen at the booth?
By the way, how did you manage to sneak your image file out? Or is Leica allowing the image files to escape now that the firmware is final?
Also, I take it you were using a non-coded lens, since the EXIF data doesn't show an aperture?
(I had a quick peek using default Photoshop conversion, and the overall structure of the image looks very nice. Not sure it's drastically better than a good R-D 1 image other than in pixel count, but that alone would be a plus if cropping is an issue. I'll bet the young lady would be just as happy NOT to have all those little hairs on her face rendered so clearly...)
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."
[quote=jlw]Did you intend to focus on the farther eye, or did a little "oops" happen at the booth?
/quote]
Precision : I am not the author of the 2 pictures (unfortunately I don't have handeld the camera yet), I picked up the file for a printing test purpose only and for comparing to my "classic" lens and body. The author of the 2 pictures is the Lightmediation webmaster I suppose.
When you open a DNG file in CS2, you're using the Adobe Camera Raw plug-in to process it. That's what puts up the first dialog box you see, with the image on the left and all the control sliders on the right.
Below the image, there should be a pop-up menu that lets you to choose to open it at 8 bits or 16 bits.
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."
It selects 8 bits for me. I can change it to 16 bits in the drop box. I assume(d) that if it defaults to 8 bits, then the image data is 8 bits. It selects the size to be as expected, so why lower pixel depth and lose data by default? Is there a way to see how much pixel depth it really has?
Yes, I am new to this..
/Håkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlw
Below the image, there should be a pop-up menu that lets you to choose to open it at 8 bits or 16 bits.
I've opened it, no changes or anything; I only resized 50% with Bicubic Smoother and converted the colorspace to sRGB, for posting.
All the original EXIF data should be there.
__________________ Fellow RFF member: I respect your bandwidth by not posting images larger than 800px on the longest side, and by removing image in a quote.
Together we can combat bandwidth waste (and image scrolling).
In Photoshop the file info shows max aperture f1.0? It appears that this photo was taken with the noctilux. The aperture value was not recorded though.
Also of note, ISO 320. Very clean for ISO 320!
__________________
- s t e v e
“Sometimes I do get to places just when God’s ready to have someone click the shutter.” - Ansel Adams
It selects 8 bits for me. I can change it to 16 bits in the drop box. I assume(d) that if it defaults to 8 bits, then the image data is 8 bits.
No, that just happens to be the default setting. The actual image data from most digital cameras is 12 or 14 bits, but I'm not sure how you would measure the exact depth in Photoshop from an ordinary photo. (I guess that if you had a photo of a subject with known light and dark values you could determine the density range and infer the bit depth from that.)
__________________
"Never trust a graph without error bars."
Okay, I seen the lady enough. I've analyzed every hair on her chinny-chin-chin.
The M8 is wonderful at ISO 320. But the blood lust is rising again. Throwing us a ISO 320 bone can only last for so long. We have gnawed all the meat off this bird.
WE WANT MORE!! WE DEMAND ISO 1250 MEAT. THIS IS NON-NEGOTIABLE
The light at that stand was horrible - mixed fluorescent and halogen and low.
To get this quality shot is nothing short of incredible. Guy Manusco has worked the file beautifully onThis FM-forum thread
Attached is a very small 100% crop, and the output from the PERL script `exiftool'
Nice to know I needn't buy a new computer, nor software to work with the M8's files!
)
Linear Mode
