the Blue DOT

willemvelthoven said:
The blue dot on the M8 is a sensor for determining the actual aperture of each shot.

The camera needs a second light measurement to compare to the ttl measurement (and for angle of view and ultimate accuracy reasons, the known lens characteristics) to know the actual aperture setting.

Nice that they can write that info to the EXIF and/or show it in a display.

More importantly, Leica are promising us very specific image enhancements based on the characteristic of the lenses used.

Ever since they've shown us the 6bit lens coding, i've wondered how they were going to do any corrections withou knowing the aperture setting.

The aperture setting influences lens characteristics so dramatically that you cannot do automatic anhancements without knowing it.
Click to expand...

I think you are taking a wild guess for sure! Just a little longer and we all will know way more about the M8!
 
Maybe it's for alerting the user when the M8 is becoming obsolete. When the M9 is in development, the dot will slowly turn black.
 
willemvelthoven said:
Several people have expressed their disliking of any in-camera corrections going on.

I guess that Leica will never introduce obligatory automatic sorrections.

Also I'd expect RAW to remain RAW; all this correction stuff is for JPEG shooting...

(and maybe for presetting RAW conversion software)
Click to expand...
There is certainly a lot of prejudice against "in-camera" processing floating around and there are some good reasons and a few exceptions. It has to do with processing power and that is improving, so each new model will have to be tested, because as the MPs climb to double digits the processing loads change and processors are upgraded.
An example of an exception is the Oly E-1 where the SQH JPEGs are as good as RAW conversions, but that camera has three processor chips to the usual one.
Leica will spend a lot of money on developing the in camera processing system and before we toss it in the trash, we should at least evaluate it. Another point is that if "the print" is your final product, the gains from RAW conversion vs. JPEG or TIFF can be so small that you might not notice and most of your audience never will. RAW certainly is a good tool for imposible lighting situations and mixed lighting, but good exposure technique and post processing skills can level the field, too.
If your final product is the published picture, I'll defer to those here who know the pre-press CYMK processes.
Bob
 
Jon Graham said:
At the risk of sounding very stupid why cannot the in camera software roughly calculate the aperature from the following:

-shutter speed
-Iso
-Histogram
Click to expand...

The histogram is just a graph showing the distribution of tone values in the file. It has no relationship to the conditions under which the file was made. If the exposure system is working properly, different images of the same subject exposed under different lighting conditions and at different shutter speeds, apertures and ISO settings will have exactly the same histogram.

Film analogy: You can get one of those ten-step gray scales and make negatives of it using various combinations of long exposure/short exposure, wide aperture/small aperture, bright/dim illumination, and high/low ISO. As long as you've picked combinations that add up to equivalent exposures, all the negatives will look exactly the same in terms of tone values. If I gave you one of the negatives and told you the ISO and shutter speed used to make it, you wouldn't be able to guess the aperture unless you also knew the illumination level, or guess the illumination level unless you also knew the aperture.

I still don't know what the blue dot is for (or whether it's blue) but the four components of correct exposure -- scene illumination, imager sensitivity, shutter speed, and aperture -- don't change whether the imager is film or digital. If you know any three of the components, you can derive the fourth one; if you only know two components, there's no sure way to guess the other two.
 
Bob Ross said:
There is certainly a lot of prejudice against "in-camera" processing floating around and there are some good reasons and a few exceptions. It has to do with processing power.......
Bob
Click to expand...

It's true that in camera processing should do a good job of processing the data to make good prints. After all, thats the way a majority of photographers will use the camera. In fact, most people will base the quality of the camera on the JPEGs delivered not the quality of the RAW. Leica would be foolhardy NOT to address the quality of the JPEG files using every trick in the book including vignetting correction.

I'm almost certain that they will leave the RAW files alone. The post processing geeks would be sorely disappointed if the files had been messed with in a way that couldn't be reversed. Fortunately, a sidecar file could be attached to the basic RAW file that could provide the RAW file user with Leica's interpratation of the best solution. I would rather like that.

As for limitations on processing power of the in camera software, no matter how much improvement there is, my laptop will always have more. That's one of the reasons that I prefer the post processing algorythms. For example, I'd rather post process noise and sharpness in Photoshop than leave it to the camera software.

But realistically, only the tough shots need the tender loving care that post processing can offer. Still, you never know which shots that will be. That's why I shoot both RAW & JPEG. For a quick slideshow for friends and family, I filter out the RAW files and just look at the JPEGs.

Rex
 
rvaubel said:
As for limitations on processing power of the in camera software, no matter how much improvement there is, my laptop will always have more. That's one of the reasons that I prefer the post processing algorythms. For example, I'd rather post process noise and sharpness in Photoshop than leave it to the camera software.

But realistically, only the tough shots need the tender loving care that post processing can offer. Still, you never know which shots that will be. That's why I shoot both RAW & JPEG. For a quick slideshow for friends and family, I filter out the RAW files and just look at the JPEGs.

Rex
Click to expand...
Hi Rex,
The ideal would be to have no NR in camera, since that one really messes with the basic image quality & structure. Sharpening with a wide variation of settings can be good, so it can taylored to your lenses and post processing techniques. I don't think the DMR does NR and my E-1 doesn't. They both do basic sharpening. The problem with shooting JPEG is when you make a wrong guess on a setting other than ISO. You have to live with a finished product, like we did with slides. In those days we just tossed the bad slides and said, better luck next time. Those who are starting in photography with digital are missing all the fun:D
Another heresy that has cropped up is to shoot at a lower resolution:eek: I read one today about someone using a Kodak SLRc, shot at 6MP instead of 14MP and found the prints were better. One of the replies refered to prior posts about it. So, there is lots of fun to be had, inside and outside the boxes we think we are in:cool:
Bob
 
The Blue Dot

The Blue Dot

I'm glad to see that the M8 manual is now online.

The Blue Dot is merely an ambient light sensor which controls the level of illumination for the viewfinder LEDS. This is according to the M8 Manual and was also stated by Phil Askey in his preview of the M8. The manual says there's no need to worry if the blue dot is covered.

I'm looking forward to seeing more images from the M8.

Stan
 
Well, at last we know!

There's even a footnote that says that lenses with viewfinder attachments cover up this sensor, so the readouts always appear with constant brightness when such a lens is used.


The downside: This means we now also know that the camera has no way of knowing the set lens aperture, so it can't be included in the EXIF header or on the LCD information displays. As shown on page 79 of the manual, the information available consists of exposure mode, shutter speed, focal length (if 6-bit coding is on), ISO setting, exposure compensation, file format specs, white balance, and the user profile in use.

Kind of disappointing not to have aperture info, but as we've discussed previously, this wouldn't have been possible without either adding a coupling to the M mount or using an external sensor to estimate the working aperture based on scene illumination.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom