DaveSee
shallow depth of field
All I really see of these shots is poor WB... what's with the Apple banner shifting from violet to magenta? And from these we are to truely know accurate conditions where banding occurs? Hmmm... seems moree like "my experiences with blown highlights and color captures nearly impossible with film". Banding is not the fault of the tool, but its user.haagen_dazs said:check out a ton of banding photos at
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30775
even at iso 320, it bands
Take a trip to Clay's garage attic elsewhere in this forum.
rgds,
Dave
rvaubel
Well-known
DaveSee said:
What??! That's a truly unique perspective on sensor banding
Rex
J. Borger
Well-known
Unfortunately you do not need to pixelpeep to see the issues.jaapv said:
In fact the M8 as it is now is as good as UNUSABLE for low-light photography, where lamps or candles are included (church, bar, concert....)
It does not bother me all that much ... because i am not in that kind of photography ... but there are people who use a Leica especially for this!
The C1 profiles are also NOT GOOD ... it takes me quite some time to tweek the colors. In fact the colors look better if i use any other profile except the one for the M8.
(Auto) white balance is even worse than on the R1-D!. White balance in mixed light is the worst i have ever seen with a camera.
The only situation where the M8 functions as it should is outside in normal daylight. And in that situation it is glorious!
Let's hope it all is firmware related and can be fixed.
JUst wonder if i was really that lucky getting my M8 so quick
.....
Last edited:
Toby
On the alert
I'm not really surprised the M8 has some early production issues. They are, after all, a tiny company compared to nikon or canon, trying to produce a pro-spec camera when they don't have a lot of money. The first batch of users are really only paying deposits to be beta testers. The only thing I can't work out is why anyone is surprised by this given Leica's well publicised troubles.
pfogle
Well-known
I've had this problem once with the R-D1 (I posted the pic on that forum), but never with the Canon CMOS cameras (10D, 20D, 1Dm2 and now 5D).
I think it is specifically a CCD problem, due the the way the pixels are scanned in the electronics, as others have mentioned.
I doubt if there's a firmware fix, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong. Sorry for the gloomy reply.
I think it is specifically a CCD problem, due the the way the pixels are scanned in the electronics, as others have mentioned.
I doubt if there's a firmware fix, but I'd be very happy to be proved wrong. Sorry for the gloomy reply.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
J. Borger said:Unfortunately you do not need to pixelpeep to see the issues.
In fact the M8 as it is now is as good as UNUSABLE for low-light photography, where lamps or candles are included (church, bar, concert....)
It does not bother me all that much ... because i am not in that kind of photography ... but there are people who use a Leica especially for this!
The C1 profiles are also NOT GOOD ... it takes me quite some time to tweek the colors. In fact the colors look better if i use any other profile except the one for the M8.
(Auto) white balance is even worse than on the R1-D!. White balance in mixed light is the worst i have ever seen with a camera.
The only situation where the M8 functions as it should is outside in normal daylight. And in that situation it is glorious!
Let's hope it all is firmware related and can be fixed.
JUst wonder if i was really that lucky getting my M8 so quick
I just mailed you a dedicated colour profile
I have not gotten my camera yet, but let me know if it works.Larry Kellogg
Established
John Camp said:
Hello John,
I posted some more shots in my gallery: Leica M8 in Central Park
. The first shot is taken into the sun. I haven't seen any evidence of banding in this case.
Regards,
Larry
Larry Kellogg
Established
jaapv said:I just mailed you a dedicated colour profile
Hello,
Could you email your dedicated color profile to me? You can mail it to mac.hive@mac.com
Thanks!
Larry
John Camp
Well-known
J. Borger said:
Doesn't seem that way to me. Because I got my camera late in the day, and had to charge the battery for three hours, I was messing around with it in the dark. I could make it band (and I could mostly clean up the banding without too much trouble) but I took a lot of shots outside in the dark, around a well-lit supermarket, that had no banding whatsoever.
I said someplace else, but I repeat it here, it seems to me that to get banding, the bright light has to be massively over-exposed, and must be relatively large compared to the size of the frame, and, I think, fairly much in-focus. Out-of-focus lights don't seem to band so badly. The shots inside the convention center that show all the banding probably could have avoided it if he hadn't taken pictures of the ultra-bright lights on the ceiling. And ceilings are something that I often don't take pictures of.
I think, but I'm not sure, that if you were shooting film in, say, a concert setting, where you were in the crowd looking at the front of the band, with the spotlights behind you, you would not get banding, no matter how brightly lit the band was. If you took pictures of the spotlights themselves, you'd get banding. If you took the same shots with film, you'd get fog or light contamination. Some levels of brightness can't be held by anything; as somebody on the Lecia forum said, he can force the 5D to band in extreme conditions. You simply work around it.
JC
J. Borger
Well-known
John Camp said:Doesn't seem that way to me. Because I got my camera late in the day, and had to charge the battery for three hours, I was messing around with it in the dark. I could make it band (and I could mostly clean up the banding without too much trouble) but I took a lot of shots outside in the dark, around a well-lit supermarket, that had no banding whatsoever.
I said someplace else, but I repeat it here, it seems to me that to get banding, the bright light has to be massively over-exposed, and must be relatively large compared to the size of the frame, and, I think, fairly much in-focus. Out-of-focus lights don't seem to band so badly. The shots inside the convention center that show all the banding probably could have avoided it if he hadn't taken pictures of the ultra-bright lights on the ceiling. And ceilings are something that I often don't take pictures of.
I think, but I'm not sure, that if you were shooting film in, say, a concert setting, where you were in the crowd looking at the front of the band, with the spotlights behind you, you would not get banding, no matter how brightly lit the band was. If you took pictures of the spotlights themselves, you'd get banding. If you took the same shots with film, you'd get fog or light contamination. Some levels of brightness can't be held by anything; as somebody on the Lecia forum said, he can force the 5D to band in extreme conditions. You simply work around it.
JC
John,
I hope you are right ... i love the M8 ..... and the more i use it the more i like it.
I just was surprised how easy it was to get the banding ... by just shooting 3 candles .... no banding at iso 160 ... but at iso 1250 it is there big time.
Like i said this is no issue for me .. because it is no part of my daily photography ..... and yes the M8 is worth to work around some possible issues. The files are glorious! THe best i have ever seen from any camera!
skimmel
Established
J. Borger said:
I love your gallery pics! Do you have any pictures using the M8 up on the M8 gallery? (They may be there and I just didn't see them).
J. Borger
Well-known
Thanks for the nice words ....... not yet .. just testing a bit and getting a feeling for the files!skimmel said:
IGMeanwell
Well-known
Does it make it worse or better when using the 6 bit coded lenses?
Or is there no difference whatsoever?
Or is there no difference whatsoever?
skimmel
Established
J. Borger said:
Thanks. I look forward to seeing more of your work.
DaveSee
shallow depth of field
Yes, out of the context of my post, this statement seems, ah, dumb. However, I was commenting on a "banding problem" reported in snaps made at an exposition where even the color balance variance among them tossed all of this evidence in the waste bin.rvaubel said:What??! That's a truly unique perspective on sensor banding
Rex
While there is a possibility that banding(sic) may occur, there is--and I and my poor skill atest--much more likely poor user craft contributing to this "problem".[1]
For those who have enjoined the hunt (eg ClayH) for root cause, and to you too Rex, it is especially good to know that some folks see this "banding problem" as an opportunity to correct it... or bother vendors to do so, rather than sit on the fence and pitch stones at passers-by.
On that note:
- which color film(s) do folks use with ISO greater than 640/800 ISO? Not that I am seeking a banding corollary, but whether shooting color with ISO >800 is common amongst us.
- does this banding occur in BW mode?
rgds,
Dave
[1] Added to film emulsions and "grain clumping", lens flare and all those technological problems that make my images worse than they already are
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I have not seen anybody reporting on the use of the banding tool in Capture One. One might assume that banding can be corrected in RAW conversion.
Ben Z
Veteran
As a matter of fact ClayH mentioned here that the banding correction in C1 didn't seem to make much difference, and on the LUF I see where he tried turning it to maximum and it didn't help. They're saying over there that Leica has been informed of the issue and is promising a fix is in the works as top priority. Of course there are those also saying Leica must have known about it and shipped the M8s anyway, and some saying a firmware update won't fix it, it will need the sensor to be replaced.
BTW, I know it's heresy not to shoot RAW but has anyone shot any .jpg with the M8? Just wondering if some of these issues may be addressed by the in-camera processing algorithms.
Scary stuff anyway, sorry for the guys who have to deal with these issues, and hope this banding thing isn't something that can't be fixed. I wonder if that's the worst-case, will Leica have to give everyone their moneys back.
BTW, I know it's heresy not to shoot RAW
but has anyone shot any .jpg with the M8? Just wondering if some of these issues may be addressed by the in-camera processing algorithms.Scary stuff anyway, sorry for the guys who have to deal with these issues, and hope this banding thing isn't something that can't be fixed. I wonder if that's the worst-case, will Leica have to give everyone their moneys back.
Last edited:
J. Borger
Well-known
That's because what we are discussing as banding on all forums in fact is not banding at all ........ therefore the specific tool in capture one has no effect.jaapv said:
Everybody calls it banding .. some call it bleeding, sensor striking etc. ........ we all know how it looks, but do not know how to call it ....so what's in a name .. it ads nicely to all the confusion
ClayH
Diana camera, coffee
Maybe we should amend the phrase and call in streaking or orthogonal highlight bleed. In any case, it is going to need to be fixed.
Ben Z
Veteran
Clay, have you tried shooting JPEGs, just for the heckuvit? Also, have you discovered any means in CS2 or other post-processing software to eradicate or at least diminsh this phenomenon?
BTW if it isn't the traditional banding that affect(ed) some earlier dslrs like the Canon 1D, maybe it will be successfully fixed with a firmware patch. Here's hoping.
BTW if it isn't the traditional banding that affect(ed) some earlier dslrs like the Canon 1D, maybe it will be successfully fixed with a firmware patch. Here's hoping.