M Monochrom: is "significantly higher resolution" junk science?

ampguy said:
Will folks be using different lenses and colored filters with this camera, or will everyone be happy with the default design and a 35 or 50 cron lens with no color filter on the end??
Click to expand...

That is the $16,000 question, right? Where people go ballistic about "degrading" their lenses by adding filters, what of being required to use colored glass to control light frequency response? Are people going to be irrationally freaked out?

The most troubling thing about the M-M, though, is the suggested use of Silver Efex, which when stripped of its functions that rely on color data (color filters and some film emulation characteristics) is just an automated way of degrading the detail in images by introducing simulated grain and duplicating tone curve adjustments that could be done from within Lightroom. People like me who like T-Max 100 would probably never screw around wiith the SFex part. When you're paying that much for a camera, you want to use its capabilities to their maximum. If the M-M is an evolution, it needs to get past aping what have always been viewed as shortcomings of certain types of films (like grain) - even by film manufacturers.

Unless the idea is "Salgadogram."

D
 
I am sure Leica will present a new series of APO B/W (Yellow, Orange & Red) Filters for only $ 2666,66.- each. :D

Dominik
 
thegman said:
Is that not like saying "mental illness does not exist", simply because it's human perception?
Click to expand...

No mental illness is the term we use to describe a mind not operating in a normal condtion. What normal is is a moot point.
Perhaps I should have said that colour is not a physical property of light waves, i.e. light waves do not have colour, they have wave lengths, we convert wave lengths to colour in our minds, specifically using our visual perception system.
 
135format said:
Perhaps I should have said that colour is not a physical property of light waves, i.e. light waves do not have colour, they have wave lengths, we convert wave lengths to colour in our minds, specifically using our visual perception system.
Click to expand...

Thank you for making it clearer.
Isn't human minds amazing?
 
Dante_Stella said:
That is the $16,000 question, right? Where people go ballistic about "degrading" their lenses by adding filters, what of being required to use colored glass to control light frequency response? Are people going to be irrationally freaked out?

The most troubling thing about the M-M, though, is the suggested use of Silver Efex, which when stripped of its functions that rely on color data (color filters and some film emulation characteristics) is just an automated way of degrading the detail in images by introducing simulated grain and duplicating tone curve adjustments that could be done from within Lightroom. People like me who like T-Max 100 would probably never screw around wiith the SFex part. When you're paying that much for a camera, you want to use its capabilities to their maximum. If the M-M is an evolution, it needs to get past aping what have always been viewed as shortcomings of certain types of films (like grain) - even by film manufacturers.

Unless the idea is "Salgadogram."

D
Click to expand...

At this point, it's much too early for anything except speculation. Over at getdpi you can see some early LR noodling with M9M DNG files (and even try it yourself). I wouldn't for a moment discount the creativity that will be generated to get the most out of the Monochrom's files. It appears to me somewhat analogous to working with a well-made, high resolution scan of B&W film that nevertheless requires skilled post-scan processing before printing/posting.

Great point about getting beyond emulating film and film-ish processes, btw. Let's re-write that script for this rather different form of B&W imaging.
 
So Don't Believe Your Eyes...

So Don't Believe Your Eyes...

I downloaded what I could of the mono examples from the net (which opened in Photoshop).

They have been described here as 'blah'. In this thread I have read misunderstandings of Panchromatic film, the ability for the M's sensor to capture detail in both light and shade, and sorrow expressed over the lack of gully washes of dark shade.

Panchromatic film and the M's sensor images look similar at this stage of Leica's experiment, but I do believe that they are on to something.

The eye does not respond to color, or interpret color as value in a linear manner. For example, if you have ever used one of the new LED flashlights, you quickly find that they are advertised at lumens that still leave one groping in the dark; not as one would have from and old fashioned incandescent bulb. We see better at red and yellow frequencies.

Likewise, in audio we don't hear in a linear fashion so we use equalization.

With film we have built in accommodations for this, or use filters.

We find the Leica mono at a stage of development where one is seeing the curve of the sensor as values in its raw state. What is important to look for is the information that is there. I see it it doing a most remarkable job, thankyou.

Getting lost in, and arguing over Leica's claim to efficiency is a little premature. Don't forget that 100% better is also only 2X better, and, as with decibels, the sensitivity at certain light frequencies may be interpreted by sensor logarithmically.

These functions are easily mapped for a micro processor.

I had great fun manipulating the images I was able to download in Photoshop. One cannot to do much with information that is missing, but with the Mono it is clearly there and of useful high quality.
 
Okay, from the start I had a feeling that this was not a discussion for me. Pixel peeping is a bad habit as far as I'm concerned, I hold strongly to the idea that friends don't let friends pixel peep. But in this case, it's worth it. Not only because there's interest in Leica's claims for the MM, but it is a very expensive camera, and people want to know what they're getting.

I am just reading through the M Monochrom review at Reid Reviews. All the sample images from the MM that I had seen so far, I thought they looked great. But actually seeing M9 and MM crops side by side... the only description I can give for the performance of the MM is:

Wow.

I guess we've gotta wait until more mainstream (i.e. free) reviewers start to compare the M9 and MM, but I can tell you the differences are night and day. That is no exaggeration! Anyone who is really interested in learning about the MM, just do yourself a favor and pony up the $30 for a subscription.

I could go on, but suffice to say the sharpness claims are no joke. At any given ISO the MM files are noticeably cleaner than those from the M9. In fact the MM at base ISO (320) is cleaner than the M9 at it's base ISO of 160. Aside from that, when noise does become more visible on the MM, it's just gorgeous. At least I think so. Nothing at all like the muddled, sloppy mess that most digital photographers would be used to. The way the MM draws mid-tones is very different, I really like it. Actually the more photos I see from the MM the more I like them... I think I should ban myself from looking at anything more to do with the MM because I'm very quickly falling in love with it.

Anyone who says that they can't see much difference between photos from the MM and the M9 (let alone other digital cameras), either hasn't looked closely enough - or is legally blind.
 
mugget said:
Anyone who says that they can't see much difference between photos from the MM and the M9 (let alone other digital cameras), either hasn't looked closely enough - or is legally blind.
Click to expand...

Is that online when pixel peeping or in a print at lets say 15x10 inches ( fits on A3 ) ?
 
Dante,

Math aside, I think an analog is the Cone system for printers. Every one of those color bottles is now dedicated to black, white, or gray-scale. That 2x2 matrix of sensors that used to be dedicated to picking up gray scale with the filter, can now do just the job of picking up a gray value. The approximation of the 'color' between the 2x2 would now be more exact, I would think. I have not read the Cone Editions white papers in a long time, but I remember them boasting an increase in 'effective' resolution.

This does make sense. They are purposeful in their statement.

I will tell you from my imagery analysis background; the monochrom is nothing new. Military EO sensors are primarily built monochrome for this reason. It makes it easier to see camouflage netting and the like.

Now, I have a physicist background but have not messed much with optics. Mainly, I do computational phys. But, astrophysics and astronomy were in my domain for a while. I think what we are looking at has to do with definitions of optical resolution. Let me chomp on this a bit and get back with you.

Bohdan.
 
135format said:
Is that online when pixel peeping or in a print at lets say 15x10 inches ( fits on A3 ) ?
Click to expand...

Haha, well I think viewing a photo at 200% can be classified as pixel peeping regardless of what format it's viewed in. Although print is a bit different, not really an area I have much knowledge in (art prints).

But that's a good point - really the only way to properly evaluate a B&W image is with a correctly calibrated monitor that is actually capable of displaying accurate mid-tones, or in the form of an art print. Although viewing on-screen at 200% size does show the differences very well also.
 
I downloaded the samples from the web on this camera and played w/ them in PS. They look like flat digital images no matter what I do. And why wouldn't they?

I don't get why this camera costs so much, or is thought to be so revolutionary? As someone else stated, Kodak made a "revolutionary digital B&W camera" a looooong time ago. OK, maybe the "new" M9 takes better B&W photos that a regular M9. So? That isn't saying much. All the technical talk is interesting, but means nothing because this is a visual thing, not a verbal one. At the risk of sounding Luddite-like, show me the money. I don't see the money. I'm an old poker player from way back, and if you can't see the money, it isn't there.
 
Sad that this thread leans in the direction of useless film v digital debate. The M9M will give digital B&W workflow users another tool, one that appears to deliver superior resolution RAW files at higher iso's than the M9. Jury's out of course - the camera is in pre-production after all. There are some competent photographers over at getdpi who've been working a little with some test files. They're pretty uniform in praising file quality.

Folks who are competent in the use of film, and prefer it, aren't the target market for the M9M. Obviously. So why bring it up in a discussion of M9M output?
 
MCTuomey said:
Sad that this thread leans in the direction of useless film v digital debate. The M9M will give digital B&W workflow users another tool, one that appears to deliver superior resolution RAW files at higher iso's than the M9. Jury's out of course - the camera is in pre-production after all. There are some competent photographers over at getdpi who've been working a little with some test files. They're pretty uniform in praising file quality.

Folks who are competent in the use of film, and prefer it, aren't the target market for the M9M. Obviously. So why bring it up in a discussion of M9M output?
Click to expand...

Because it's like in every digital Leica thread that someone brings this boring "film is better" argument. I just have two films drying in my bathroom but I'm also using digital and I'm so annoyed with this. Sometimes I wished for more moderation regarding this OT stuff because it's really hard to find the relevant postings to the main subject.
 
I think you all should calm down, and let us wait and see some proper RAW (or processed) images from working pro photographers who have deep experience in both digital and film workflow.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom