M8 == 8bits

[xihalife]

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

So what you are essentially saying is that when shooting film, the development process is irrelevant? You could just send in your film to any discount film processing shop and get your great shots back in an hour? All it takes is spending time to nail the shot?

To answer your question, yes I do think that *some* of my images could be better if I access to the real RAW data from the sensor, rather than the compressed image. It can't save the composition or the setting of the scene, but there have been times when for example the scene has extreme dark and bright areas some highlights where over-blown. With a real 14-bit data like the ones in certain other cameras, you can save highlights even when they go many times over the full white. With simple HDR techniques you can remap the colorspace such that the darks and the whites fit in the 8 bits of resolution of JPEG image.

Obviously this is never even an issue if you never take photos that have the issue. If it's not an issue for you it doesn't mean it cannot be an issue for anyone else.

Oh an yes, when I compare shots from my Canon and M8, the M8 often is superior... the images are extremely well detailed and the colors tend to be excellent. So this isn't about M8 not being able to take great photos, it's about the *post processing* step taken by the camera which makes a decision of what data to save and what to throw away.

 

[Richard Marks]

So what you are essentially saying is that when shooting film, the development process is irrelevant? You could just send in your film to any discount film processing shop and get your great shots back in an hour? All it takes is spending time to nail the shot?

To answer your question, yes I do think that *some* of my images could be better if I access to the real RAW data from the sensor, rather than the compressed image. It can't save the composition or the setting of the scene, but there have been times when for example the scene has extreme dark and bright areas some highlights where over-blown. With a real 14-bit data like the ones in certain other cameras, you can save highlights even when they go many times over the full white. With simple HDR techniques you can remap the colorspace such that the darks and the whites fit in the 8 bits of resolution of JPEG image.

Obviously this is never even an issue if you never take photos that have the issue. If it's not an issue for you it doesn't mean it cannot be an issue for anyone else.

Oh an yes, when I compare shots from my Canon and M8, the M8 often is superior... the images are extremely well detailed and the colors tend to be excellent. So this isn't about M8 not being able to take great photos, it's about the *post processing* step taken by the camera which makes a decision of what data to save and what to throw away.

Firstly the old film analogy. Print film can handle pretty much plus or minus 2 stops in its stride. Obviously there is not instant playback, but there is a pretty good chance of getting a useable exposure and if its crucial there is bracketing. Even here I would not hope to salvage poorly exposed shots during the film development stage. Slide film is probably a bit closer to digital in this respect, and again I would put my trust in bracketing (or ND filters) rather than fixing things during either development or printing.

Regarding HDR, this is perfectly possible with the M8 and there is nothing here that is exclusive to 14 bit capture. Have you tried it with the M8? Incidentally you refer to JPEGS. I am presuming that you shoot RAW with your M8.

Finally you think your M8 is often superior to your Canon and the colours tend to be excellent! What more can I say? You really should stop worrying about post process salvage in my opinion.

Attached some pics with our lousy 8 bit RAW M8. (Finally some ggod light in the UK)

Best wishes

Richard

 

[xihalife]

Firstly the old film analogy. Print film can handle pretty much plus or minus 2 stops in its stride. Obviously there is not instant playback, but there is a pretty good chance of getting a useable exposure and if its crucial there is bracketing. Even here I would not hope to salvage poorly exposed shots during the film development stage. Slide film is probably a bit closer to digital in this respect, and again I would put my trust in bracketing (or ND filters) rather than fixing things during either development or printing.

Regarding HDR, this is perfectly possible with the M8 and there is nothing here that is exclusive to 14 bit capture. Have you tried it with the M8? Incidentally you refer to JPEGS. I am presuming that you shoot RAW with your M8.

Finally you think your M8 is often superior to your Canon and the colours tend to be excellent! What more can I say? You really should stop worrying about post process salvage in my opinion.

Attached some pics with our lousy 8 bit RAW M8. (Finally some ggod light in the UK)

First of all, salvage of over-exposed bits is not the only thing you can do in post processing step. I am still not convinced HDR photos are possible with M8 with a single shot, and since there's not automatic exposure compensation setting for multiple shots I haven't actually done it with multple shots either. Composing an HDR image with 3 shots is quite a bit of work and requires a perfectly still scene (I hope they will add some software support for the exposure settings in future firmware) but obviously it should be doable with M8. The difference - again - is that you could be doing it with single shot, free hand, moving objects, etc...

I'm not *only* worried about salvaging images in post process.. I also happen to like the post process step, going over the parameters and seeing what I can get out of the photo.

Nice photos.

 

[Richard Marks]

The three images attached to my previous post are from the same single RAW exposure.

I realise that there is a whole lot of post processing that can be done but the philosphy of the M8 is simplicity, superb lenses that work well wide open and hopefully a little creativity.

I am sorry if i sound a little technophobic, but for me the pleasure is incapturing the image and the post processing still seems to me something of a chore.

Best wishes


Richard

 

[xihalife]

The three images attached to my previous post are from the same single RAW exposure.

I realise that there is a whole lot of post processing that can be done but the philosphy of the M8 is simplicity, superb lenses that work well wide open and hopefully a little creativity.

I am sorry if i sound a little technophobic, but for me the pleasure is incapturing the image and the post processing still seems to me something of a chore.

Well, it's a digital camera, basically. That's all. I don't think it should be somehow limited to only shooting in a certain way. In fact, I don't know if there should be some philosophy attached to a piece of hardware which limits the way people are supposed to use it. I realize M8 is a very simple camera with nothing automatic, but that should be the beginning, not the end, of the creativity.

 

[Richard Marks]

Well, it's a digital camera, basically. That's all. I don't think it should be somehow limited to only shooting in a certain way. In fact, I don't know if there should be some philosophy attached to a piece of hardware which limits the way people are supposed to use it. I realize M8 is a very simple camera with nothing automatic, but that should be the beginning, not the end, of the creativity.

The camera is not limited in how it is used, but my own philosophy is you can save a great deal of post processing time if you get the shot right in the first place. However you say that you have not actually tried a High Definition conversion using the M8 yet you claim that its images are limited by being 8 bit. Until you have actually tried this your 'need' for a higher bit depth is somewhat un qualified. Do yourself a favour and have a go at using a single RAW M8 image with difficult lighting for a HDR before drawing any firm conclusions about the requirement for an increased bit depth. You might be pleqsantly suprised. The image that I posted took about 10 minutes in PS from a single RAW conversion processed to adjust +2 stops and - 1 for the two images blended using a layer mask.

Attached another M8 HD image from a single RAW file. (I have just shown the sky and final image for simplicity)

Regards


Richard

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The three images attached to my previous post are from the same single RAW exposure.

This has always eluded me. If I create three separate files from the same RAW file ("high-key", "normal", "underexposed"), HDR complains that I can't do that, doesn't ask me if I want to, and just exits.

May I ask how you do it?

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

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

There are a lot of people who are adamant this isn't true. I believe it is. 16-bit image processing is far superior than plain 8-bit. You won't see it if you're in the "8-bits is good enough" camp.

When microbes were discovered, people laughed: "Impossible! I don't see it! Therefore, you're lying."

 

[Richard Marks]

There are a lot of people who are adamant this isn't true. I believe it is. 16-bit image processing is far superior than plain 8-bit. You won't see it if you're in the "8-bits is good enough" camp.

When microbes were discovered, people laughed: "Impossible! I don't see it! Therefore, you're lying."

You cant see microbes and you cant see radiation. We know they are there by things other than plain sight. Not the best analogy. Incidntally you can not compare 16 bit with 8 bit unless you have the same system other than the bit depth. A set up that runs 16 bit at full tilt is also likely to differ in lots of other ways too. it may well turn out that 16 bit is visibly different. My point is that most of those contributing to this thread have not given their M8 an objective evaluation (and those who have suggest its a bit ahead of their canon with 12 bit).

Incidentally I concur with Sitemistic, you can do a HD with photoshop pretty easilly.

Best wishes

Richard

 

[Holmz]

Each bit is equivalent to a shade of gray.
So for normal daytime photos 8 bits might be OK.
If your taking picture which require an extended tonal range, those extra bits might come in handy, either on the highlight end or on the shadow end...
At night time usually you need more on both ends.

 

[Paul Kay]

My point is that most of those contributing to this thread have not given their M8 an objective evaluation (and those who have suggest its a bit ahead of their canon with 12 bit).

As a user of both M8 and 1DS/5Ds I actually prefer to think of the two systems as being different in terms of the image 'quality' that they produce, rather than one being better than the other. Each has its strengths and weaknesses and I would choose to use a specific camera depending on the subject or my intention. But to backtrack a little, I'd go as far as to suggest that the 8 vs. 16 bit debate is an entirely irrelevant one IF your purpose in taking an image is to envisage a specific result, take the image and then post process to produce that result - which is what I consider the craft of photography to be all about. If the final result captures the scene/subject as envisaged than bit depth has to be an irrelevance.

Lastly, the goal for technically 'perfect' photographs is one which can so easily miss concepts such as originality and content - it is not sufficient within itself.

 

[dcsang]

To me, and this is merely my opinion so if you don't agree with it I'm sorry; the whole reason for wanting to go "digital" (regardless of which system we're talking about - Leica-M, Canon, Nikon, Hasselblad etc.) is not merely so that we can have that instant gratification that we all adore but also in order that we can, in post processing, manipulate, enhance, adjust, and transform an image.

I have, in the past, "missed" shots due to any number of reasons - but mostly due to lighting situations being just not perfect (i.e. my flash mis-fired, the light was far too harsh for the subjects, the light was too dim for the subjects etc.). With digital, if it's a decent file, you should be able to adjust for such things in post processing. If I wanted to spend my time getting the shot "just right" every time I would be missing even more moments; and as a wedding photographer those moments only happen once.

With respect to the M8; I have no doubt that the files are excellent but having those extra bits of information could definitely be beneficial when your highlights are blown or the shadows are too muddy in your initial capture.

Dave

 

[Richard Marks]

With respect to the M8; I have no doubt that the files are excellent but having those extra bits of information could definitely be beneficial when your highlights are blown or the shadows are too muddy in your initial capture.

Dave

Hi Dave
Im dubious that the difference is all that big. I have posted a couple of examples earlier in the thread that show just how much shadow and highlight information can be pulled back using the M8. I think it realy is impressive, Theory supports your argument, but try it and see if you really can tell! Then report back.

This site is a great forum for debate but at the end of the day a load of people point out limittaions without any practical experience.


Regards

Richard

 

[hub]

This site is a great forum for debate but at the end of the day a load of people point out limittaions without any practical experience.

It is not like we can compare with a 12-bits RAW file coming from the same camera. Doing with a file coming froma different camera would lead to other nice comment from people that do not want to believe it. I guess it just says it all.

Anyway, I just find the limitation completely arbitrary, and so far I haven't seen any justification for doing so.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Leica user, and given this, I'm unlikely to get a M8.

 

[Richard Marks]

It is not like we can compare with a 12-bits RAW file coming from the same camera. Doing with a file coming froma different camera would lead to other nice comment from people that do not want to believe it. I guess it just says it all.

Anyway, I just find the limitation completely arbitrary, and so far I haven't seen any justification for doing so.

Disclaimer: I'm not a Leica user, and given this, I'm unlikely to get a M8.

Well I did guess earlier in the thread that you have not actually tried an M8. It looks as though you are not going to either. Any other philosiphising about performance specifications is a waste of time.

Enjoy your photography


Richard

 

[dcsang]

Hi Dave
Im dubious that the difference is all that big. I have posted a couple of examples earlier in the thread that show just how much shadow and highlight information can be pulled back using the M8. I think it realy is impressive, Theory supports your argument, but try it and see if you really can tell! Then report back.

This site is a great forum for debate but at the end of the day a load of people point out limittaions without any practical experience.


Regards

Richard

Ya.. for all I know the difference may not be that big.
It would be interesting to see though, as Hub suggested, to have a 12 bit and 8 bit file of the same scene from the same camera - but we can't get that seeing as there's no such thing as a 12-bit Leica M8 capture..

The hard part of the "trying it" is the fact that no one around here rents out the M8. If they did, I'd try it out - I am not averse to trying the camera out to see what it can or cannot do - but I'm not about to spend $5000 CDN that I can't really affod just to try the camera

I am aware I could "re-sell" it after the fact but based on the total I'd have to spend on a new M8 ($5424.00 CDN after taxes) compared to resale value (current Ebay pricing shows used bodies in Mint condition going for b/w $4000 and $4500 CDN) - unfortunately it's just not worth it for a trial run.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[hub]

Well I did guess earlier in the thread that you have not actually tried an M8. It looks as though you are not going to either. Any other philosiphising about performance specifications is a waste of time.

If somebody offer to lend me his for trying I'd not say no ya-know. You lend me yours?

 

[Richard Marks]

If somebody offer to lend me his for trying I'd not say no ya-know. You lend me yours?

It would be a pleasure
Im also quite happy to send you some files

Richard

 

[xihalife]

The camera is not limited in how it is used, but my own philosophy is you can save a great deal of post processing time if you get the shot right in the first place. However you say that you have not actually tried a High Definition conversion using the M8 yet you claim that its images are limited by being 8 bit. Until you have actually tried this your 'need' for a higher bit depth is somewhat un qualified. Do yourself a favour and have a go at using a single RAW M8 image with difficult lighting for a HDR before drawing any firm conclusions about the requirement for an increased bit depth. You might be pleqsantly suprised. The image that I posted took about 10 minutes in PS from a single RAW conversion processed to adjust +2 stops and - 1 for the two images blended using a layer mask.

Attached another M8 HD image from a single RAW file. (I have just shown the sky and final image for simplicity)

As you know, HDR stands for HIGH dynamic range. 8 bits does not have that no matter what. I find it odd you talk about getting the shot right and then suggest it somehow makes sense to use Photoshop to alter the colors by creating different exposure versions. Sure, you *can* do that. You can even take a JPEG file from a pocket camera and do that. You will get an image which you can import to an HDR tool and use all kinds of fancy algorithms and play with the "HDR" image. It may even look nice, and it may give you the illusion that you don't need more than a single 8 bits photo for HDR photography...

Here's an analogy - you can take a 2.5 megapixel image and scale that in photoshop to twice as large on both axis. This gives you a 10 megapixel image... by interpolating the missing pixel values. Creating a 32 bit per pixel HDR image by combining multiple exposures of the same image file is effectively the same. It's a clever trick if you want to load a non-HDR image to HDR tools. But if you just want to bring out the dark areas you could equally well load the image to LightRoom and adjust the color curve.

I have done a fair bit of HDR photography on Canon DSLR's and I can tell you there is a huge difference. This is a shame as supposedly the M8 has all that info available internally. The images are incredibly sharp and the colors are beautiful so this camera could be very close to perfection... but it's not.

Sometimes I'm even wondering if the image quality is more about the lenses and the camera. I'm using a 3000 EUR lens on my Leica and a 300 EUR lens on the Canon. I can't help thinking that is part of the reason the M8 photos are so detailed. If that is the case, Leica's upgrade program is brilliant - they can change everything between me and the lens - so any and all problems can be fixed.

 

[Richard Marks]

I have done a fair bit of HDR photography on Canon DSLR's and I can tell you there is a huge difference. This is a shame as supposedly the M8 has all that info available internally. The images are incredibly sharp and the colors are beautiful so this camera could be very close to perfection... but it's not.

You say there is a huge difference but you have not tried an HDR conversion with your M8 so how do you know? Just try it and see. Until then you can not possibly say. Even better help me out and show us some examples.

Regards

Richard