Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
RLMAOF!! That's what crossed my mind last night.gogopix said:
You really can't escape that reality, unfortunately.
I've always abided by that Spanish saying, "Lo barato cuesta caro" (more or less, cheap things are expensive). I'd rather spend $20 once than $4 ten times later.
But that's just me. But most people that think they know me would say that's just plain cuckoo
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
JoeV said:
And then I'm reminded by all the "Ilford XP2 sucks! It's all purple! It's all sepia! / Do you really need a Stop when developing? / Kodak Tri-X, why if I can desaturate my digital pictures?" floating about, which are undeniably part of the learning process, but when you have many ad hoc photographers (me being one of them, to be honest) who don't have the discipline to learn and understand the tools in their hands and want quick results now without having to think, applying a one-solution-fits-all ("hey, a digital camera is a digital camera, right?"), it's painful to see people blowing an issue so out of proportion because they do not understand the issue they are experiencing.
This is one of those cases.
Also, the problem of being somebody who everybody has high expectations of, it is all too easy to disappoint expectacularly. On the other hand, when a product is mediocre and is expected to be mediocre, it is hailed as great when it delivers something more than low expectations. Which is why people pay $150 to watch a football game, but will vote people out of office if they are taxed as much to pay for the education of their children. Or something like that :bang:
dadsm3
Well-known
Gabriel, you are dangerously perceptive and will soon be banned. You're only allowed to THINK the truth, not say it out loud.
Larry Kellogg
Established
gogopix said:All this purple is caused by cheap polyester suits. Leica assumed a quality world where people wear natural fibres like wool, linen...they were wrong!
Who'd a thunk this processed oil stuff would bring down a top quality camera?
Not for me.
Everybody I know wears cotton, so I don't expect ANY problems...
All depends who you hang around with...
BTW notice the frowny is "quess what color!"
and the smily is
Well, I shot my wife's top which is cotton and it also came out purple. I suppose the shirt is not a true black, maybe a black/gray but the purple problem was there.
Regards,
Larry
ampguy
Veteran
probably
probably
anything that reflects light (visible and non-visible) the way the dark synthetic textiles did, will show the artifacts, could be any number of materials with further testing.
probably
anything that reflects light (visible and non-visible) the way the dark synthetic textiles did, will show the artifacts, could be any number of materials with further testing.
Larry Kellogg said:
ywenz
Veteran
It's silly to equate the M8 purple issue to previous color balance issues that involved cameras or films. The unique problem of the M8 is that the purple effect is inconsistent. You'll never know when it'll show up. You can't correct that in post.
Athena
Well-known
jaapv said:
I'm tempted to say that I am aghast at this post - since the damned contraption is simply a digital light value sensor behind a lens.
But on second thought - I think I now understand why the instructor in my PS CS2 class last Summer made a big thing about the new filter feature. Let's you "add" all kinds of classic filtering elements to adjust your images.
Then, all you have to do is buy the third-party plug-in to "emulate" various films and you almost have a M7! :bang:
amateriat
We're all light!
Gabriel: what you said.
- Barrett
- Barrett
jdos2
Well-known
Sorry, Athena, but that's not going to work. The problem is the IR getting into the data in a flat and unexpected way, unpredictable. One cannot simply write it away in software.
Athena
Well-known
jdos2 said:
In RAW too?
How could that be - RAW is unprocessed, non-interpolated data. I could see a problem with the firmware for JPEG but don't understand how RAW could be corrupted that way.
Or is it a sensor problem?
ampguy
Veteran
there are 2 things
there are 2 things
the IR is related to the sensor's 0.5mm coating not eliminating enough IR with certain wavelengths/colors/textures, but possibly with an IR filter on the lens it may correct the issue, and yes, this IR leak goes into the raw data that the sensor captures.
Another issue is AWB behavior, possibly unrelated to the magenta cast, and this may be made better in firmware upgrades, but is generally never perfect in any digicam.
The latter is probably also related to having the lens coded.
there are 2 things
the IR is related to the sensor's 0.5mm coating not eliminating enough IR with certain wavelengths/colors/textures, but possibly with an IR filter on the lens it may correct the issue, and yes, this IR leak goes into the raw data that the sensor captures.
Another issue is AWB behavior, possibly unrelated to the magenta cast, and this may be made better in firmware upgrades, but is generally never perfect in any digicam.
The latter is probably also related to having the lens coded.
Athena said:
Mark Norton
Well-known
I took four pictures in incandescent light with the M8, each a different WB setting - auto, incandescent, 3000K, Manaul (white card) and the results were all different, none correct.
The same test with a Nikon D2X yielded near perfect results. The WB in the M8 is flawed and may be being made worse by the IR issue.
The same test with a Nikon D2X yielded near perfect results. The WB in the M8 is flawed and may be being made worse by the IR issue.
ampguy
Veteran
ineresting
ineresting
you can't really isolate the WB problems until the IR is resolved, since many visible light souces also contain varying amounts of IR.
Could be when you put the recommended IR filter on, the WB gets better.
ineresting
you can't really isolate the WB problems until the IR is resolved, since many visible light souces also contain varying amounts of IR.
Could be when you put the recommended IR filter on, the WB gets better.
Mark Norton said:
neatertone
Newbie
gseitz said:
You should get better results with a B+W 486 filter. This filter blocks all IR and UV so the effects you still see with a hot mirror filter should go away.
Don
cme4brain
Established
It seems that this was NOT Kodak's fault about the IR sensitivity. Read Sean Reids explanation, like NO ONE seems to read. The acute angle of the image circle of rangefinder lenses cause vignetting on flat digital sensors. To minimize this, Leica used a crop factor AND a thin-as-can-be cover glass. Plain glass in your house window is an IR filter, and the thicker the glass, the better the IR filter. The 0.5mm thin glass over the Kodak sensor specified by Leica to achieve image sharpness apparently has minimal IR filtering properties- a trade off for sharpness. Blame Leica instead of Kodak, but blame no one but rangefinder design! The R-D1 has the same problems, but less so for several reasons, but one is the greater crop factor. SO what if you have to use a filter? What is the big deal using an IR cut filter? Will my fellow Leicanuts look at the big picture here? This sensor was the only way to exploit the leica lenses, get over it, use the camera if you want. I am holding on it until Leica allows a menu selection of non-coded lenses which activates a focal-length specific color and vignetting program to the DNG file.clintock said:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
cme4brain said:
Hear hear!!! You're spot on- bravo!
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
IR reflected from non-IR opaque materials is not a "purple effect"; but so be it. The infrared reflection is consistent. That you don't know (or can't understand) when it'll show up doesn't make it inconsistent.ywenz said:
I didn't see this kind of bashing for the RD-1. Oh, right, it's "only" $2200 (really, is this really what it boils down to?)
Gabriel M.A.
My Red Dot Glows For You
I agree. But relish it, because only a few seem to get it. The bashing will continue and drown out any intelligent discussion.Sailor Ted said:
Sailor Ted
Well-known
Gabriel M.A.,
I have a thread going "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian" that elaborates on this same theme however he hit nail right on the head in my opinion. If pressed I will offer my analysis on what kind of people... to heck with it. What's going on here is obvious to many but here's my take:
"Work arounds to IR color shifts:
Again from what I gather this issue can be dealt with provided the photog is willing to invest in IR cut filters combined with what will undoubtedly be a firmware revise and new C1 profiles for the M8 so problem solved. The issue for many to use filters seem to steam from the expense or a mental hang up regarding the use of a “filter” in front of virgin Leica glass. Frankly if the prints deliver performance in the ballpark of a Hassablad then the “expense” of a handful of filters seems not worth discussing- this is my opinion.
Why can’t the M8 deliver the worlds best performance and not require the use of IR cut filters? To me the answer is simple- technology is not sufficiently advanced and or the pockets of Leica enthusiasts are not sufficiently deep to finance such a camera with out trade-offs. It seems ironic that those who wanted the M8 the most seem to be the least willing to put in the extra effort to get the best possible image performance and instead want the camera to “automatically” deliver the best possible results without the need to mess with profiles in C1 or purchase IR cut filters. If someone wants a camera that takes great pictures with a minimum of “fuss” then why not just buy a Canon DSLR? Really since the advent of the Canon A1 Leica’s have always required more of their photographers then did the wonder SLR’s from Nikon and Canon and it’s no different today. Get over it or get a DSLR."
I have a thread going "It's not the arrow, it's the Indian" that elaborates on this same theme however he hit nail right on the head in my opinion. If pressed I will offer my analysis on what kind of people... to heck with it. What's going on here is obvious to many but here's my take:
"Work arounds to IR color shifts:
Again from what I gather this issue can be dealt with provided the photog is willing to invest in IR cut filters combined with what will undoubtedly be a firmware revise and new C1 profiles for the M8 so problem solved. The issue for many to use filters seem to steam from the expense or a mental hang up regarding the use of a “filter” in front of virgin Leica glass. Frankly if the prints deliver performance in the ballpark of a Hassablad then the “expense” of a handful of filters seems not worth discussing- this is my opinion.
Why can’t the M8 deliver the worlds best performance and not require the use of IR cut filters? To me the answer is simple- technology is not sufficiently advanced and or the pockets of Leica enthusiasts are not sufficiently deep to finance such a camera with out trade-offs. It seems ironic that those who wanted the M8 the most seem to be the least willing to put in the extra effort to get the best possible image performance and instead want the camera to “automatically” deliver the best possible results without the need to mess with profiles in C1 or purchase IR cut filters. If someone wants a camera that takes great pictures with a minimum of “fuss” then why not just buy a Canon DSLR? Really since the advent of the Canon A1 Leica’s have always required more of their photographers then did the wonder SLR’s from Nikon and Canon and it’s no different today. Get over it or get a DSLR."
Last edited:
summilux
Well-known
cme4brain is spot on.
It was not for no good reason when Leica said they were not satisfied with the current technology of the digital sensor. If Leica does not make certain comprimise, you will have no M8.
It was not for no good reason when Leica said they were not satisfied with the current technology of the digital sensor. If Leica does not make certain comprimise, you will have no M8.