The idea- applying the Gamma Curve using the look-up-table going from 14-bits to 16-bits avoids "collisions", two input values mapping to the same output value that it would if going from 14-bit to 14-bit. The slope would have to exceed 4 on the curve for a collision to happen when mapping to 16-bits. I also set the Black Value of the DNG to one that better matches the CCD in my camera. Leica was throwing away a lot of shadow detail with the value they chose.
The idea- applying the Gamma Curve using the look-up-table going from 14-bits to 16-bits avoids "collisions", two input values mapping to the same output value that it would if going from 14-bit to 14-bit. The slope would have to exceed 4 on the curve for a collision to happen when mapping to 16-bits. I also set the Black Value of the DNG to one that better matches the CCD in my camera. Leica was throwing away a lot of shadow detail with the value they chose.
My M Monochrom with the new sensor developed an "underperforming line" evident at ISO 10,000. Well that was annoying. It took me one morning to write code to correct the error. I "hardwired" the code to my camera, meaning "Column 3203 row 3105", found by looking at the image in Photoshop. I'm...
www.rangefinderforum.com
The same code also restores under-performing Columns on the CCD. What I found: "Bad Columns" were not dead. They had a DC offset issue. On the theory that the pixel cannot change value so quickly, compute the DC offset for the column looking on each side of it- and add it back.
There are a certain few programmers with screwdrivers who refute the rule. You seem to be doing magic with that M9 sensor. Leica, of course, does not care as this is a 15 year-old product. It is what is known as "mature" which is company-speak for "we don't care anymore". And that is too bad as the old M9 is kind of the gold standard.
Well, the world is still an imperfect place but there are a certain few making it a more pleasant imperfect place. Thanks.
Flogging the dead horse again. I am really charmed by the color of the two Thypochs that I have. The Eureka is nice but not as sharp as the Simera by design. It is touted as a retro or retro inspired design. Obviously they did not have CZJ in mind. ;o) Anyway, the Simera seems sharper to me. I like them both for their "romantic" cinema captures of color. The LLL Elcan is nice but does not have a romantic bent to it, at least in my eyes. And I like that cinema style look of light and, say, dreaminess. It is in the Cooke Amotal, too, a lens made by a cinema lens company for a still camera made by a cinema camera company, Bell & Howell's Foton (Foton - Camera-wiki.org - The free camera encyclopedia). I may be wrong - it has happened in the past but I cannot remember when ;o) - but I feel that cinema lens folks want to convey more emotion than sharpness. Kubrick's Barry Lyndon candle-lit scenes with that special CZJ 50mm f/0.7 NASA lens. The overall effect was glorious, even with a sharp non-cinema lens. You are not going to have much overall sharpness at f/0.7.
So while I am fond of the Sonnar family lenses I have for their kind honesty in imaging I always have a soft spot for cinema inspired lenses. I am linking in here three folders I have on Flickr for the Eureka, the Simera and the Elcan. See what you think.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
GAMMA by fiftyonepointsix, on Flickr
