DMR (Update) and M7, 50/1.4 ASPH ... Go to Hollywood.

[fotografz]

... or 48 bit color, like the Imacon scanners provide.

 

Those interested in further info on 16 bit digital performance and it's effect on the quality of

color data you have to work with, need merely to Google it.

[Brad_]

And there's a huge difference between scanners that can benefit from image integration over

many seconds or minutes to yield meaningful 16 bit results. And a camera that needs to

capture an image in say, 1/125th of a second.

[Brad_]

Marc, let me know if you'd like an explanation on how scanners exploit integration

(averaging) over a period of time to yield results commensurate with measurements to 16 bit

accuracy.

[patricks]

man, there is nothing like an occational visit to this forum to have your opinions beaten up/question/misinterpreted...

 

Marc, needless to say, the print is the only place that matters (even though I occationally enjoy viewing my images on a well calibrated monitor as well) and I'm happy that you can tell a real difference in the output from your DMR.

 

Imagine, it would be a sad world if there was no visual difference between files from a DMR, Nikon or Canon...

[Spearhead]

<i>Imagine, it would be a sad world if there was no visual difference between files from a DMR, Nikon or Canon...</i><p>

 

Wouldn't it be a lot sadder if all photographs had the same content? If they all had similar looks, some of the people here might spend more time looking at what was <i>in</i> the photos, rather than thinking about what equipment made them.

[fotografz]

Thanks Brad, I understand the difference, and was just responding to the "32 bit hole "

comment.

 

Thanks Patrick, all I wanted to do is share some experiences with folks that may be

interested in this camera. It is the Leica forum after all.

 

I posted some shots and gave my impressions. As I said, I see a bit better control of

highlight/shadow areas, perhaps inaccurately attributing it to 16 bit color depth, and took

Imacon/Leica's word on the heat dissipation technique that they went to great lengths to

explain. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. All I know is what I see ... apparent better tonal range

resulting in controlled highlights without blocked shadows when faced with high contrast

lighting situations.

[guy_mancuso]

see the 1 shot wonder. Dmr 180 F2 handheld at f4 ISO 200. Billy mayfair in case anyone was wondering . Some may think I missed the shot , i didn't

[guy_mancuso]

Try this again

[guy_mancuso]

Well I guess i did something wrong here . Never posted a photo here

[guy_mancuso]

Well I guess i did something wrong here . Never posted a photo here. i kept it at 500 pixels wide. Hmmm

[nels]

Guy - you must give a caption to your pic for it to show in-line.

[working camera]

Guy you need to fill in the caption dialogue box. Then the pic will appear in line.

[jtdnyc]

Brad, thanks for your technical explanation of 16-bit vs. 12-bit. Although I still trust Marc's eyeball judgment as to the appearance of images from the DMR vs. the 1dsII, I accept that the difference must be explained by other factors.

 

But I have two questions: 1. In your opinion, for the types of photography for which these cameras are intended, is there any technical benefit at all from having 16-bit over 12-bit? 2. If there is no benefit, and it really is just a matter of markeing hype, how much of a factor is 16-bit over 12-bit in the cost of producing the DMR?

 

I'm curious. Thanks.

[guy_mancuso]

Thans Guys for the upload info. What I have found before Brad answers the 12 vs 16 bit from a technical point of view is the DMR has much better Dynamic range than the 1dsMKII , now according to the techincasl end of this that 16 bits should have better range than the 12 bit. At least that is what has been said since digital hit the streets. From my testing of the 2 it turns out the DMR does have much better range now i don't really care how it is done , I just know it is there but will let others speak of it in technical terms

[guy_mancuso]

Okay one more time<div></div>

[Brad_]

Just to be clear, I'm not taking anything away from or questioning what Marc reports - I

trust his judgement on the output quality of the DMR. But, being the curious type, I

wonder where the extra performance comes from in the image capture through processing

chain.

 

CCD sensors have been around for a long time and I suspect Kodak must a have a few

thousand patents that cover technological advances that have occurred in that area over

the last 30 years. That said, CCD technology is very mature. I haven't read about any

recent breakthroughs where all of a sudden the dynamic range is significantly better, with

respect to devices used at room temperature - whether from Kodak or Dalsa. Dalsa

acquired Phillip's portfolio of devices a few years ago. Sensor dynamic range is usually

listed in spec sheets in units of dB, or, by specing the full-well saturation along with total

noise, measured in electrons. Knowing that information, you can then go about speccing

an ADC (analog-to-digital converter).

 

Many sensors have a dynamic range in the 65 dB neighborhood. One of Kodak's best

imagers, a 22 MP device, lists a dynamic range of 73 dB, which is pretty good. The

dynamic range of an ADC is: 6.02 * n + 1.76 , where n is the number of bits in the ADC.

 

So, a *perfect* 12 bit ADC would support 74 dB of dynamic range - a pretty good match

for the 73 dB sensor. BUT, ADCs are not perfect, and you'd want a bit of headroom, so it

would best to use a 14 bit ADC. By the way, that's what Huw is going with in his digital M

project. If you went with a 12 bit ADC (which because it is not perfect, gives you 11 bits of

accuracy), you would lose one stop of dynamic range. I think the ADC Huw is using is

around $20 in small quantities, and that's a dual. He uses two of those to read the sensor

out faster.

 

You could go with a 16 bit device, which would be quite a bit more costly. In fact, I can

think of only one device, by Analog Devices, that would be fast enough to read out the

sensor in a timely manner. You can also gang two smaller ADCs to try and get 16 bit

resolution, but you would end up getting much less than 16 bit performance. But this is all

academic as the 16 bit device will provide no extra performance benefits over a 14 bit

device - at room temperature. Cool that sensor down to 0C and the noise will be 1/4 of

what it was at 25C. THEN, a 16 bit ADC makes sense.

[guy_mancuso]

Well I got it . Okay to show somne DR on the subject . here is a shot in San Miguel mexico about 6300 ft up the sun is very strong here and stronger than were i am in the Southwest. look inside the door and you can see detail inside, most camera would not even come close to handling this range from pure white with detail to these heavy shadows<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Okay one more image here , just walking the street her in full sun. Look at the whole image than look at the crop following it , the web stinks here but the detail in the darkest shadow is easily seen<div></div>

[guy_mancuso]

Now the crop<div></div>

[EricM]

"most camera would not even come close to handling this range from pure white with detail to these heavy shadows"

 

we need to measure the light difference. that interior door looks very close to the exterior, maybe two stops diff at the most?

[guy_mancuso]

On my screen the real image i can see detail all the way to the very top were the birds are. i was shooting a location job the other day with colored lights and grid spots to really control the darkness in the room and under a table was the wiring , i actually had to burn that part of the image in to get rid of the detail

[guy_mancuso]

Eric i am talking even further inside the door than the painting , there is detail . The web really is a bad place to show you this stuff. It is blocking up pretty bad.

[guy_mancuso]

Maybe this will post better<div></div>

[msitaraman]

Marc, some observations and a few questions...

 

Although rationally speaking, I would agree with the poster who stated that it is impossible to judge lens quality from these tiny, few hundred pixel square jpegs, I also observe, empirically, that in fact one is able to do so (i.e.judge "lens quality") on photo.net fairly often and unmistakably.

 

Again, irrational though it is, several of these pictures are unmistakably from Leica glass. Don't ask me to explain what qualities unique to the marque are apparent - I cannot do so. But after 30 years of (decidedly amateur) shooting with Leica and Nikon, and some Zeiss experience, these pictures have that "look".

 

Question 1: Is there anything you deliberately do in Photoshop to either give your jpegs a "Leica look" (in terms of color, sharpening etc), or accentuate a "Leica look" that is already apparent in the jpegs?

 

Question 2: If you do, could you share some details?

 

Question 3: If you do in fact apply a "Leica look" in PS, in your experience are you able to add some or all of this Leicaish quality to pictures taken with non-Leica lenses ?

 

Many thanks in advance :-)

[paulmoore]

I will be so glad to see the digital m come out and hopefully alot of the traditional m users

will have some hands-on experience with the it. Of course the few die-hards will squeal

louder but I sometimes feel like a morman missionary in italy with the dmr. One, it is

digital, but two, it is the R. From my experiece with photography I am very happy with the

camera, the lenses and files..I am only on this site to share those experiences and photos

attained with it. I have no interest on going to the other forums of say canon and

questioning their thinking.. some folks I guess like the banter. This is not directed at any

one person so please don't get bothered, just my observation of the past couple of months

here.

Marc and Guy have some equally pleasing experiences with the dmr - I'd like to hear and

see others here but feel there are some who won't bother with posting, and I understand.

I have never been into the nitty gritty science of photography - while I can teach the zone

system, I would be hard pressed to describe how silver gains density on the film..umm, I

know it does but don't really care how. I chose the dmr not based on pure specs.. as I said

I'm not into the nitty gritty, but I know dynamic range/color when I see it and the quailty

of the lens is, while hard to describe, palpable. I have never bought equipment based on

marketing materials..I have been in the ad business for many years. Seeing is believing.