M8 == 8bits

hub

hub

Crazy French
Local time
11:29 AM
Joined
Dec 31, 2006
Messages
173
Hi,

I have been doing a little bit of analyzing various camera RAW format, and the various DNG files found on the Internet show that the M8 generate a RAW file with 8 bits-per component. This is way lower than even the first Canon DSLR, the D30 that did 10 bits per channel, while today they are all 12 or 14 bits.

The only other recent camera I have found that do that is Sony A700, but I really don't expect much from Sony in that area, and it does not cost 5 Large either.

Am I just having nightmare? Because even the size of the RAW data match this info.
 
*shrugs*


happy to take a photo with just 2 bits, or one bit

good pictures are good pictures, full stop

I guess go out and buy a Blad H3 if you like tech specs :(
 
jackal2513 said:
*shrugs*


happy to take a photo with just 2 bits, or one bit

good pictures are good pictures, full stop
Click to expand...

It is not about knowing who as the biggest. As you give in exemple, 1bit would mean that it is either on or off. That does not give a range off possibility for color OR even grays. 2bits, would allow 4 different values.

Back to the 8bits, that means that you lose *a lot* in term of posibilities. you have only 256 different values for each pixels, instead of 4096 in 12-bits. It represent a lot in term of quality.

Now to each their own, but I was just stunned to discover that on M8 files.
 
This link sort of describes things nicely:
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/8bit-versus-16bit-difference.html

So ya.. it would be better if you had 12 bits or 14 bits or 16 bits versus just 8 bits - it also is beneficial if you decide to crop or adjust your images as mentioned in that above article.

Bit depth does, in fact, make a difference when it comes to digital.

Dave
 
I would assume that the sensor has more (vaguely remember 14?), but
they get lost for vignetting correction. Anybody knows ?
 
hub said:
As you give in exemple, 1bit would mean that it is either on or off. That does not give a range off possibility for color OR even grays.
Click to expand...

yes i know (i've worked with EXRs a lot on feature films so know all about bit depth, luts etc..) ... my language was more creative than literal ;)
 
Last edited:
hub said:
Am I just having nightmare? Because even the size of the RAW data match this info.
Click to expand...
This discussion was all over the Internets many moons ago.

The conclusion is that Leica decided that 8-bits for files was good enough because their 16-bit processing was the bee's knees.

Requests for getting true 16-bit files have fallen on deaf ears. The same ears that decided the new Summarit line, I guess. Leica's been infiltrated, I tell ya.
 
Gabe..

ugh.. so it's Leica that's "decided" for their customers that they (i.e. the customers) don't need 16-bit (or 14 or even 12-bit) RAW files?

I guess their motto should be - "You'll take this and you'll like it because we say so!"

Dave
 
Gabriel M.A. said:
This discussion was all over the Internets many moons ago.

The conclusion is that Leica decided that 8-bits for files was good enough because their 16-bit processing was the bee's knees.

Requests for getting true 16-bit files have fallen on deaf ears. The same ears that decided the new Summarit line, I guess. Leica's been infiltrated, I tell ya.
Click to expand...

I missed it, probably because I'm not being obsessed by the M8. But clearly there is not incentive today.

Thanks for confirming.

I ended up googling: http://kammagamma.com/articles/solving-the-leica-m8-dng-riddle.php

Hub
 
hub said:
It is not about knowing who as the biggest. As you give in exemple, 1bit would mean that it is either on or off. That does not give a range off possibility for color OR even grays. 2bits, would allow 4 different values.

Back to the 8bits, that means that you lose *a lot* in term of posibilities. you have only 256 different values for each pixels, instead of 4096 in 12-bits. It represent a lot in term of quality.

Now to each their own, but I was just stunned to discover that on M8 files.
Click to expand...

Have you actually tried out an M8?
Im guessing that you have not.
If not please decide about image quality after a fair evaluation.
Image quality is more easilly measured by observation than by either pixels or bit depth.
Best wishes
Richard
 
hub said:
Hi,

I have been doing a little bit of analyzing various camera RAW format, and the various DNG files found on the Internet show that the M8 generate a RAW file with 8 bits-per component. This is way lower than even the first Canon DSLR, the D30 that did 10 bits per channel, while today they are all 12 or 14 bits.

The only other recent camera I have found that do that is Sony A700, but I really don't expect much from Sony in that area, and it does not cost 5 Large either.

Am I just having nightmare? Because even the size of the RAW data match this info.
Click to expand...

What about the Epson? Is it the same?
(I would really like to see a DigiBessa :eek: )
R.
 
If you were to give images to an agency, they would only accept files in 8 bit. I do all of my RAW conversion and post processing in 16 bit to avoid any clipping of data and convert to 8 bit when I am ready to submit those images to an agency or for printing. You still loose some data, but it is a lot less. Below is a link for better explanation.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/8bit-versus-16bit-difference.html
 
dcsang said:
I guess their motto should be - "You'll take this and you'll like it because we say so!"

Dave
Click to expand...

I think their motto is "The majority pay whatever we charge no matter what we give them so why should we cut our profits catering to the minority who wants more?" Leica doesn't really even need to get their hands dirty making excuses, there are so many on the forums who take that task upon themselves, and drive off those who express sensible complaints. I wish I had a business with a bunch of customers that loyal.
 
Richard Marks said:
Have you actually tried out an M8?
Im guessing that you have not.
If not please decide about image quality after a fair evaluation.
Image quality is more easilly measured by observation than by either pixels or bit depth.
Best wishes
Richard
Click to expand...

As an M8 owner I can confirm that the quality isn't always all that great. M8 suffers from quite a bit of noise in medium and high ISO, for example. The link posted earlier in this thread (http://kammagamma.com/articles/solving-the-leica-m8-dng-riddle.php) explains it pretty well. The data is 8-bits and they're just using a look-up table with 14-bit entries in it... which practically the same as using 8-bit data. I think where Leica fell is that they didn't consider post processing as part of the photography workflow these days. M8 *can* produce great photos but mostly you need to be dead on with the photo setting and lighting when you shoot. There's not much room for fixing errors in the 8-bit data. In a way it's great as it forces you to think more before shooting but I still do wish they'd give up and just store all of the 14 bits. Basically - it's not a real RAW format if the camera has already compressed the data down.
 
xihalife said:
As an M8 owner I can confirm that the quality isn't always all that great. M8 suffers from quite a bit of noise in medium and high ISO, for example. The link posted earlier in this thread (http://kammagamma.com/articles/solving-the-leica-m8-dng-riddle.php) explains it pretty well. The data is 8-bits and they're just using a look-up table with 14-bit entries in it... which practically the same as using 8-bit data. I think where Leica fell is that they didn't consider post processing as part of the photography workflow these days. M8 *can* produce great photos but mostly you need to be dead on with the photo setting and lighting when you shoot. There's not much room for fixing errors in the 8-bit data. In a way it's great as it forces you to think more before shooting but I still do wish they'd give up and just store all of the 14 bits. Basically - it's not a real RAW format if the camera has already compressed the data down.
Click to expand...

So when you say that the image quality is "not always all that great" what you mean is that there is less opportunity to fix things post capture. I have to say what ever system you are using, its worth trying to record as good an image as you possibly can. Rangefinders are generally about precision and what many people consider as a strength of the M8 is the relatively minimal requirement for post capture processing. If you are relying on this to salvage less than well exposed shots then I can appreciate its limitations for you. However getting the shot right more often and not pressing the shutter if its not good might be a better fix long term than reying on increasing the bit depth.

Best wishes


Richard
 
Richard Marks said:
So when you say that the image quality is "not always all that great" what you mean is that there is less opportunity to fix things post capture. I have to say what ever system you are using, its worth trying to record as good an image as you possibly can. Rangefinders are generally about precision and what many people consider as a strength of the M8 is the relatively minimal requirement for post capture processing. If you are relying on this to salvage less than well exposed shots then I can appreciate its limitations for you. However getting the shot right more often and not pressing the shutter if its not good might be a better fix long term than reying on increasing the bit depth.

Best wishes


Richard
Click to expand...

No, when I say the image quality is not always great I refer to the article I linked to, where the 14 -> 8 bits compression is explained. It gives an idea how the compression (supposedly) works and why it increases noise and cause other minor artifacts. It's true that mostly these are not visible to the bare eye and mostly they make it harder to fix things in post-process, but the noise is an issue.

I like M8 and I have taken some amazing shots with it. But equally I have also lost some shots when an opportunity presented itself too quickly and I just had to snap without metering the light.

I guess when people say that the extra bits (especially the range beyond 1.0, the overbright) are useless it just means they haven't (yet) figured out how to use those bits. I fully admit I need to learn to be a better photographer to rely less on the post processing, but I just don't feel it makes sense for the camera to crop out extra pixels just for the sake of producing a smaller file. At least it should be an option. You can think of post processing as developing the film - it's half of the fun.

There has been some guessing that Leica can't give us all the 14 bits of resolution because they lose some of it due to the vignetting correction... I hope that is not true but if it is, they should allow storing the original, non-corrected RAW in full bit depth. It's kind of like a film camera which insists on developing the film for you, instead of letting you do the work.
 
Richard Marks said:
Have you actually tried out an M8?
Image quality is more easilly measured by observation than by either pixels or bit depth.
Click to expand...

I'm just going through 50Gb of images from a recent trip taken on an M8 and 5D. Despite the increased bit depth of the 5D I can honestly say that there I find little significant difference in processing the RAW files from either camera. But I do find that the M8 has a richness and more filmic feel to finished results - although I do fully accept that this may be down to my workflow.

Whilst internet debates like this rage over bit depth, MPixels and all the other technicalia, I have to say that I find the M8's files to be very, very good provided of course that they are taken with the appropriate forethough essential to any well considered and crafted photograph. But perhaps this isn't a popular comment is today's world of automated results and technical specification?
 
xihalife said:
No, when I say the image quality is not always great I refer to the article I linked to, where the 14 -> 8 bits compression is explained. It gives an idea how the compression (supposedly) works and why it increases noise and cause other minor artifacts. It's true that mostly these are not visible to the bare eye and mostly they make it harder to fix things in post-process, but the noise is an issue.

I like M8 and I have taken some amazing shots with it. But equally I have also lost some shots when an opportunity presented itself too quickly and I just had to snap without metering the light.

.
Click to expand...
Firslty I appreciate the compression issue but do you really think that this is why some of your images are not that great? Do you think that if the bit depth was increased, that your image salvage would improve. I would urge you to spend more time nailing the shot and worrying less about thoretical issues. Prophylaxis is better than cure. The M8 will never compare with some frame guzzling auto everything monster where you can blast away and sort it out later in PS. But for taking pictures it needs a little bit of thought, its a joy.

Best wishes


Richard
 
Paul Kay said:
I'm just going through 50Gb of images from a recent trip taken on an M8 and 5D. Despite the increased bit depth of the 5D I can honestly say that there I find little significant difference in processing the RAW files from either camera. But I do find that the M8 has a richness and more filmic feel to finished results - although I do fully accept that this may be down to my workflow.

Whilst internet debates like this rage over bit depth, MPixels and all the other technicalia, I have to say that I find the M8's files to be very, very good provided of course that they are taken with the appropriate forethough essential to any well considered and crafted photograph. But perhaps this isn't a popular comment is today's world of automated results and technical specification?
Click to expand...

Thanks
Richard
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom