Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Interesting Leica product announcements today ...
18 views
Skip to first unread message
Bruce
May 10, 2012, 12:44:11 PM5/10/12
to
... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
the USA have concluded.
I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
the USA have concluded.
I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
Bruce
May 10, 2012, 3:50:53 PM5/10/12
to
revealed:
1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
up to ISO 10,000.
2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
The seminar will continue tomorrow and may include further
announcements. However the M10 rangefinder and new mirrorless system
camera/lenses are unlikely to appear before Photokina in September.
Rol_Lei Nut
May 10, 2012, 4:26:49 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 21:50, Bruce wrote:
1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home
processing (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the
process itself and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is
still unmatched by any other digital-compatible printing process.
The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
really lots) of film.
2) Good news, if you like the 50mm FL... ;-)
3) Lots of very good competition in that sector. The Leica is unlikely
to make any breakthrough there, either.
Seriously now, when will some manufacturer come out with a full-frame
EVIL camera which will accept any 35mm format lens ever made?
> Bruce<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
>
> 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
> 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
> of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
>
None of them seem especially interesting....
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
>
> 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
> 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
> of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
>
1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home
processing (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the
process itself and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is
still unmatched by any other digital-compatible printing process.
The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
really lots) of film.
2) Good news, if you like the 50mm FL... ;-)
3) Lots of very good competition in that sector. The Leica is unlikely
to make any breakthrough there, either.
Seriously now, when will some manufacturer come out with a full-frame
EVIL camera which will accept any 35mm format lens ever made?
Message has been deleted
RichA
May 10, 2012, 4:48:20 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 3:50 pm, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
couple new lenses). But seriously, if I wanted to go to that kind of
level for B&W, I'd get the D800E. However, this is very exciting. I
can't wait to see the output.
> Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>
> >The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
> >the USA have concluded.
>
> >I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
> >that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
> The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
> revealed:
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
Oh God....$8000.00 that I really DO want to spend! (Plus, $4000+ for a
> >... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>
> >The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
> >the USA have concluded.
>
> >I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
> >that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
> The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
> revealed:
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
couple new lenses). But seriously, if I wanted to go to that kind of
level for B&W, I'd get the D800E. However, this is very exciting. I
can't wait to see the output.
Alan Browne
May 10, 2012, 5:26:43 PM5/10/12
to
On 2012-05-10 15:50 , Bruce wrote:
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
Should find fans in some art circles and portraiture. Possibly fashion
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
editorial work.
I suppose one could do still work (tripod essential) with color filters
over the lens and then combine in PS afterwards - could make for great
landscapes, documenting museum artifacts and some product work.
Then again, there are several MF digitals that do such work more than
well enough.
--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.
Trevor
May 10, 2012, 6:41:36 PM5/10/12
to
"Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Ka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a12mk9...@mid.individual.net...
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
> 1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
> argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
> show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home processing
> (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the process itself
> and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is still unmatched by
> any other digital-compatible printing process.
> The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> really lots) of film.
But where can you buy film that has "low noise up to 10,000 ISO" with
> argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
> show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home processing
> (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the process itself
> and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is still unmatched by
> any other digital-compatible printing process.
> The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> really lots) of film.
resolution to match an 18MP camera?
Like *ALL* Leica equipment though, it's not for everyone.
Trevor.
Nick Fotis
May 10, 2012, 7:03:01 PM5/10/12
to
On 10/05/2012 22:50, Bruce wrote:
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
This reminds me the Kodak DCS760M, which was probably the best
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
black&white CCD camera.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml
N.F.
PeterN
May 10, 2012, 7:09:47 PM5/10/12
to
--
Peter
Noons
May 10, 2012, 7:09:41 PM5/10/12
to
On May 11, 8:41 am, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
> > The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> > really lots) of film.
Very true.
> > The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> > really lots) of film.
> But where can you buy film that has "low noise up to 10,000 ISO" with
> resolution to match an 18MP camera?
> Like *ALL* Leica equipment though, it's not for everyone.
Rich
May 10, 2012, 8:14:09 PM5/10/12
to
Alan Browne <alan....@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in
news:LqidnVpPj9AOrzHS...@giganews.com:
> On 2012-05-10 15:50 , Bruce wrote:
>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Should find fans in some art circles and portraiture. Possibly fashion
> editorial work.
>
> I suppose one could do still work (tripod essential) with color filters
> over the lens and then combine in PS afterwards - could make for great
> landscapes, documenting museum artifacts and some product work.
>
> Then again, there are several MF digitals that do such work more than
> well enough.
>
More cumbersome than the Leica. Would be interesting though in addition
to black and white to do tri-colour combinations with high quality
filters (i.e., not from camera companies).
news:LqidnVpPj9AOrzHS...@giganews.com:
> On 2012-05-10 15:50 , Bruce wrote:
>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Should find fans in some art circles and portraiture. Possibly fashion
> editorial work.
>
> I suppose one could do still work (tripod essential) with color filters
> over the lens and then combine in PS afterwards - could make for great
> landscapes, documenting museum artifacts and some product work.
>
> Then again, there are several MF digitals that do such work more than
> well enough.
>
to black and white to do tri-colour combinations with high quality
filters (i.e., not from camera companies).
RichA
May 10, 2012, 8:38:59 PM5/10/12
to
On May 10, 7:09 pm, Noons <wizofo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 11, 8:41 am, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > > The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> > > really lots) of film.
>
> Very true.
>
> > But where can you buy film that has "low noise up to 10,000 ISO" with
> > resolution to match an 18MP camera?
>
> And who the heck would need ISO 10000?
>
Someone replicating Tri-X grain?
> On May 11, 8:41 am, "Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote:
>
> > > The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> > > really lots) of film.
>
> Very true.
>
> > But where can you buy film that has "low noise up to 10,000 ISO" with
> > resolution to match an 18MP camera?
>
> And who the heck would need ISO 10000?
>
Mike Benveniste
May 10, 2012, 11:43:28 PM5/10/12
to
On 5/10/2012 7:09 PM, PeterN wrote:
> And the purpose for your posting is?
To demonstrate that he reads LeicaRumors.com, I guess.
> And the purpose for your posting is?
--
Mike Benveniste -- m...@murkyether.com (Clarification Required)
You don't have to sort of enhance reality. There is nothing
stranger than truth. -- Annie Leibovitz
David J Taylor
May 11, 2012, 2:18:23 AM5/11/12
to
"Bruce" <docne...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:lj6oq79a6ttesk9v2...@4ax.com...
[]
camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a filter
is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
missing as it's a monochrome camera.
David
news:lj6oq79a6ttesk9v2...@4ax.com...
[]
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
The omission of an AA filter is typical Leica marketing, particularly on a
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a filter
is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
missing as it's a monochrome camera.
David
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 11, 2012, 7:37:08 AM5/11/12
to
Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
I wish them luck. There should be more dedicated monochrome
cameras.
No AA filter also means that the:
> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
can be detected before the situation has ended.
-Wolfgang
Noons
May 11, 2012, 8:18:03 AM5/11/12
to
Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge together
>
> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> up to ISO 10,000.
three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern autochrome @ 10000.
> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
David Dyer-Bennet
May 11, 2012, 10:44:54 AM5/11/12
to
Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>
>>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> autochrome @ 10000.
It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>
>>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> autochrome @ 10000.
theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
merges are at <http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd...@dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
RichA
May 11, 2012, 12:47:14 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 10:44 am, David Dyer-Bennet <d...@dd-b.net> wrote:
CCD cameras for astronomy. They'd set him straight.
> Noons <wizofo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
> > Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>
> >> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> >> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> >> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> > Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> > together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> > autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at <http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
> --
> David Dyer-Bennet, d...@dd-b.net;http://dd-b.net/
> > Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>
> >> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> >> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> >> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> > Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> > together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> > autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at <http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
> --
> Snapshots:http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
> Photos:http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera:http://dragaera.info
Whoever did those needs to consult someone familiar with the use of
> Photos:http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
> Dragaera:http://dragaera.info
CCD cameras for astronomy. They'd set him straight.
Bowser
May 11, 2012, 2:43:04 PM5/11/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:50:53 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>>
>>The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
>>the USA have concluded.
>>
>>I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
>>that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
>
>The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
>revealed:
>
>1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>up to ISO 10,000.
Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.
wrote:
>Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>>
>>The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
>>the USA have concluded.
>>
>>I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
>>that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
>
>The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
>revealed:
>
>1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>up to ISO 10,000.
RichA
May 11, 2012, 3:04:45 PM5/11/12
to
On May 11, 2:43 pm, Bowser <ooo...@mmmmyyy.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:50:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
images. Detail and sharpness are good though.
> On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:50:53 +0100, Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>
> >>The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
> >>the USA have concluded.
>
> >>I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
> >>that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
> >The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
> >revealed:
>
> >1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> >need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> >up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.
It's kind of odd. There appear to be a few blown areas in some of the
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >Bruce <docnews2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
>
> >>The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
> >>the USA have concluded.
>
> >>I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
> >>that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
>
> >The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
> >revealed:
>
> >1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
> >need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
> >up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.
images. Detail and sharpness are good though.
Alan Browne
May 11, 2012, 4:15:39 PM5/11/12
to
well use a MF camera from the get-go. The Hassy H series is not
cumbersome at all - and is guaranteed to lighten ones wallet even more
than the Leicas.
Trevor
May 11, 2012, 6:07:39 PM5/11/12
to
"Noons" <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:joj01p$m9p$1...@dont-email.me...
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> autochrome @ 10000.
Leica will be glad if there really are people that stupid, but somehow I
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
> autochrome @ 10000.
doubt that's the target market!
>> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
>> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
>> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
>
> Yummy! Pity the price...
You really are dreaming!
Trevor.
Trevor
May 11, 2012, 6:16:32 PM5/11/12
to
"David Dyer-Bennet" <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote in message
news:ylfkpqaa...@dd-b.net...
>> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>> autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at <http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
And I used to do it for special effects 40 years ago, I sure as hell don't
>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>> autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at <http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
need to do it for normal photo's though.
And I'm even more sure I don't need to buy a Mono Leica to take color
photo's! :-)
Now B&W photography where that 10,000 ISO would be really usable might be
another matter however, but only if Canon or Nikon decided to offer a body
with such a sensor.
Trevor.
PeterN
May 11, 2012, 8:22:15 PM5/11/12
to
On 5/11/2012 10:44 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Noons<wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>> Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>
>> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>> autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at<http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
Interesting experiments.
> Noons<wizo...@yahoo.com.au> writes:
>
>> Bruce wrote,on my timestamp of 11/05/2012 5:50 AM:
>>
>>>
>>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>
>> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>> autochrome @ 10000.
>
> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
> merges are at<http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
--
Peter
Mxsmanic
May 11, 2012, 9:42:35 PM5/11/12
to
David J Taylor writes:
> The omission of an AA filter is typical Leica marketing, particularly on a
> camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a filter
> is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
> missing as it's a monochrome camera.
Any artifacts from aliasing can be corrected in post.
> The omission of an AA filter is typical Leica marketing, particularly on a
> camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a filter
> is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
> missing as it's a monochrome camera.
Mxsmanic
May 11, 2012, 9:43:13 PM5/11/12
to
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
What filters are needed on the lens?
> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
Mxsmanic
May 11, 2012, 9:44:34 PM5/11/12
to
Bowser writes:
> Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.
Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
> Great specs, but the images look like crap on DP Review. What a waste.
Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
Laszlo Lebrun
May 11, 2012, 11:22:02 PM5/11/12
to
On 11/05/2012 13:37, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
Filters on the lens will be needed in some very specific situations
> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
(landscapes, studio) for those a high ISO usually don't be required.
nospam
May 12, 2012, 12:16:42 AM5/12/12
to
nospam
May 12, 2012, 12:17:25 AM5/12/12
to
In article <p0grq791mfh86a7hs...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> > to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
>
> What filters are needed on the lens?
usual ones for b/w are red or yellow, but also polarizer and others.
> > Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
> > to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
>
> What filters are needed on the lens?
nospam
May 12, 2012, 12:18:54 AM5/12/12
to
In article <r2grq7pcu4h1nvns5...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
to 16-18 mp.
to 16-18 mp.
David J Taylor
May 12, 2012, 12:59:11 AM5/12/12
to
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:avfrq7d1ee0tdno1k...@4ax.com...
No, that's not always possible, and it would involve degradation of the
image.
news:avfrq7d1ee0tdno1k...@4ax.com...
image.
Trevor
May 12, 2012, 3:58:42 AM5/12/12
to
"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4fadad3c$0$31601$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
>>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>>> autochrome @ 10000.
>>
>> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
>> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
>> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
>> merges are at<http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
>
>
> Interesting experiments.
Why? I'm puzzled that he didn't realise people were doing this over 50 years
>>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>>
>>> Hmmm.... I can see already plans for a Photoshop add-on tool to merge
>>> together three images taken with R,G,B filters. Kinda like a modern
>>> autochrome @ 10000.
>>
>> It's easy enough to do without any special tool. I did it testing my
>> theories about what caused certain background effects in the famous
>> Prokudin-Gorsky photos (<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/>); my RGB
>> merges are at<http://dd-b.net/ddbcms/2001/05/composite-color/>.
>
>
> Interesting experiments.
ago with multiple exposures on color film using real filters, and the main
aim was to get those colored ripples on water, or rainbow colored clouds
etc. That's the only reason to do it these days too, not try to eliminate
it as David suggests. Obviously Prokudin-Gorsky would have seen this effect
immediately and taken steps to avoid it when he didn't want it.
However if Prokudin-Gorsky used a 3 lens projector, why could he not use a 3
lens camera and take simultaneous images? Are we sure he didn't? The image
of the Nilova Monastery shows no colored ripples on the water or clouds at
all, so either it's been very heavily doctored, or he did take simultaneous
images.
Trevor.
Savageduck
May 12, 2012, 4:59:43 AM5/12/12
to
versions of the earlier Adolf Miethe camera produced by Bermpohl
Company.
< http://www.vintagephoto.tv/mb.shtml >
< http://sechtl-vosecek.ucw.cz/en/expozice5.html >
< http://www.vintagephoto.tv/bermpohl_img.shtml >
< http://www.fototv.com/threecolor_photography >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
J. Clarke
May 12, 2012, 4:56:44 AM5/12/12
to
In article <jokqn0$uih$1...@dont-email.me>, david-
tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says...
Degrade before, degrade after, it's still degradation.
tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says...
Mxsmanic
May 12, 2012, 6:54:20 AM5/12/12
to
nospam writes:
> no they can't
Yes they can, nyah-nyah.
An AA filter just blurs the image so that no detail is beyond the Nyquist
limit. You can do that in post, too.
But to be honest, it's very, very rare for me to see any kind of moiré
artifacts in an image these days, anyway. I don't worry about it.
> no they can't
Yes they can, nyah-nyah.
An AA filter just blurs the image so that no detail is beyond the Nyquist
limit. You can do that in post, too.
But to be honest, it's very, very rare for me to see any kind of moiré
artifacts in an image these days, anyway. I don't worry about it.
Mxsmanic
May 12, 2012, 6:55:16 AM5/12/12
to
David J Taylor writes:
> No, that's not always possible, and it would involve degradation of the
> image.
An AA filter degrades the image, too, unless it is magically, perfectly sharp
> No, that's not always possible, and it would involve degradation of the
> image.
in its cutoff frequency, which is never the case. An AA filter will either
allow some aliasing, or it will remove some detail.
Mxsmanic
May 12, 2012, 6:55:53 AM5/12/12
to
nospam writes:
> usual ones for b/w are red or yellow, but also polarizer and others.
Why? I never use filters for black and white, and the results are just fine.
> usual ones for b/w are red or yellow, but also polarizer and others.
Mxsmanic
May 12, 2012, 6:57:58 AM5/12/12
to
nospam writes:
> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> to 16-18 mp.
Roger can believe what he wants, but I got far better than that. I could
> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> to 16-18 mp.
distinguish extra details by examining the negatives with a microscope. Of
course, you need a lens that can step up to the challenge, but many Leica
lenses can do just that (such as the 90 mm Summicron that I liked to use).
Me
May 12, 2012, 7:03:23 AM5/12/12
to
(outdoors/daylight), you're probably not going to want or need to use
above base ISO, so that's probably not a significant disadvantage.
The Leica M9 sensor however was hardly state of the art for quantum
efficiency or read noise, so I wouldn't be surprised if the mono version
was not as good in any way (including resolution) as current FX canon
and nikon "colour" cameras at high ISO, simply converted to B&W, with
filter effects done in PP.
Noons
May 12, 2012, 9:43:10 AM5/12/12
to
Trevor wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 8:16 AM:
> And I'm even more sure I don't need to buy a Mono Leica to take color
> photo's! :-)
Fancy that! You bad consumer, you!...
> And I'm even more sure I don't need to buy a Mono Leica to take color
> photo's! :-)
LOL!
Noons
May 12, 2012, 9:58:01 AM5/12/12
to
nospam wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 2:18 PM:
>> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
>> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
>
> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> to 16-18 mp.
Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. I
>> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
>> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
>
> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> to 16-18 mp.
have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives with a
microscope proves it beyond any doubt. Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
higher rez to show it at its best.
The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
years ago with shit lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
show high resolution. Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
incapable of high resolution.
nospam
May 12, 2012, 11:04:08 AM5/12/12
to
In article <3bgsq71pti7jgm228...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
aliasing degrades the image, far more than anything an aa filter would
ever do.
ever do.
nospam
May 12, 2012, 11:04:07 AM5/12/12
to
In article <d8gsq79olt9d1l0u8...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
no, they can't. it's *not* possible since there is no way to discern
between aliased data and real data after the fact.
> An AA filter just blurs the image so that no detail is beyond the Nyquist
> limit. You can do that in post, too.
no you can't, since anything beyond nyquist is now folded back below
and there's no way to remove that without removing real detail below
nyquist. plus, there can be low frequency artifacts which are all but
impossible to remove without *seriously* affecting the image.
> But to be honest, it's very, very rare for me to see any kind of moiré
> artifacts in an image these days, anyway. I don't worry about it.
if you say so.
no, they can't. it's *not* possible since there is no way to discern
between aliased data and real data after the fact.
> An AA filter just blurs the image so that no detail is beyond the Nyquist
> limit. You can do that in post, too.
and there's no way to remove that without removing real detail below
nyquist. plus, there can be low frequency artifacts which are all but
impossible to remove without *seriously* affecting the image.
> But to be honest, it's very, very rare for me to see any kind of moiré
> artifacts in an image these days, anyway. I don't worry about it.
nospam
May 12, 2012, 11:04:09 AM5/12/12
to
In article <0dgsq7ph6v1kb51nf...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
and other parts of the subject.
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > usual ones for b/w are red or yellow, but also polarizer and others.
>
> Why? I never use filters for black and white, and the results are just fine.
typically to darken the sky. other filters can affect foliage, skin,
> > usual ones for b/w are red or yellow, but also polarizer and others.
>
> Why? I never use filters for black and white, and the results are just fine.
and other parts of the subject.
nospam
May 12, 2012, 11:04:10 AM5/12/12
to
In article <qegsq7d58lptost19...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> I could
> distinguish extra details by examining the negatives with a microscope. Of
> course, you need a lens that can step up to the challenge, but many Leica
> lenses can do just that (such as the 90 mm Summicron that I liked to use).
with a microscope, you'll only see grain.
post comparison photos, in particular, resolution charts (which is what
roger did).
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> > to 16-18 mp.
>
> Roger can believe what he wants, but I got far better than that.
and you can believe what you want.
> > no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> > to 16-18 mp.
>
> Roger can believe what he wants, but I got far better than that.
> I could
> distinguish extra details by examining the negatives with a microscope. Of
> course, you need a lens that can step up to the challenge, but many Leica
> lenses can do just that (such as the 90 mm Summicron that I liked to use).
post comparison photos, in particular, resolution charts (which is what
roger did).
nospam
May 12, 2012, 11:04:11 AM5/12/12
to
In article <jolq81$hvs$1...@dont-email.me>, Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:
> >> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
> >> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
> >
> > no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> > to 16-18 mp.
>
> Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise.
> I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives
> with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt.
no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
> Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
> higher rez to show it at its best.
> The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
> years ago with shit lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
> show high resolution.
they aren't comparing to images taken 30 years ago.
> Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
> of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
> incapable of high resolution.
the thing these film luddites miss is that digital is much better than
film ever was.
wrote:
> >> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
> >> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
> >
> > no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
> > to 16-18 mp.
>
> Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise.
> I have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP. Looking at the negatives
> with a microscope proves it beyond any doubt.
> Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
> higher rez to show it at its best.
> The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
> years ago with shit lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
> show high resolution.
> Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
> of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
> incapable of high resolution.
film ever was.
Gary Eickmeier
May 12, 2012, 11:40:11 AM5/12/12
to
"Trevor" <tre...@home.net> wrote in message
news:johg6k$edu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
> "Rol_Lei Nut" <Speleo_Ka...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:a12mk9...@mid.individual.net...
>>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
>> 1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
>>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>>> up to ISO 10,000.
>
>> argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
>> show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home
>> processing (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the
>> process itself and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is
>> still unmatched by any other digital-compatible printing process.
>> The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
>> really lots) of film.
>
> But where can you buy film that has "low noise up to 10,000 ISO" with
> resolution to match an 18MP camera?
> Like *ALL* Leica equipment though, it's not for everyone.
I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
Curious.
Gary Eickmeier
Alan Browne
May 12, 2012, 12:18:41 PM5/12/12
to
information at every pixel site. eg: a red pixel site removes
luminance. Luminance in blue and green are gone. Lost. Then estimated
from surrounding green and blue pixels and recovered artificially.
There is some loss of true resolution due to estimation.
Further, of course, this camera uses large photosites (full frame
sensor) and does not use a softening AA filter. It is a "raw visible
light" collector.
Of course it's the combination of several things that make the camera
theoretically[1] superb in monochromatic signal gathering at the expense
of color information. Without the AA and bayer the signal to noise is
immediately better. (I suspect there is an IR filter but I don't know
offhand).
And of course Leica's lenses are near unbeatable and deliver sharp
images to the sensor.
One could use color filters over the lens and take 3 photos and combine
that in PS. Not much use for action or w/o a tripod.
Hasselblad's approach to high DR true color is to take 3 successive
photos while slightly (1 pixel width/height) moving the sensor to
collect color at each registration location (plus a 4 th image as a
registration check). Like potentially using the Leica monochrome for
such, it requires a tripod too.
[1] I only say theoretically as I haven't seen any full sized images
from the camera yet. Coming from Leica, I expect that such images will
have superlative qualities with the caveat that Leica's earliest range
finder digital camera had image consistency issues in exposure and color
- but I doubt they'll screw up again.
--
"A person with a new idea is a crank until the idea succeeds."
-Samuel Clemens.
Doug McDonald
May 12, 2012, 1:05:37 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
> Curious.
>
1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%. Thus, three
>
> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
> Curious.
>
times the ISO. This is a big deal if you want B&W.
2) because no "guess" is needed to generate a mono image at each pixel.
Doug McDonald
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 12, 2012, 1:20:58 PM5/12/12
to
Noons <wizo...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> nospam wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 2:18 PM:
>>> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
>>> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
>> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
>> to 16-18 mp.
> Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. I
> have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP.
13,5 cm? As in "4x5 inch large format camera"?
> nospam wrote,on my timestamp of 12/05/2012 2:18 PM:
>>> Eighteen megapixels is low resolution for monochrome. I used to shoot
>>> Technical Pan in B&W, which will blow 18 megapixels away easily.
>> no it won't. according to roger clark, tech pan is roughly equivalent
>> to 16-18 mp.
> Roger is yet another idiot with pretentions to scanning and film expertise. I
> have 135mm tech pan that easily exceeds 24MP.
Of course you should see *way* more than 24 MPix there.
But the others are talking about 24x36mm film.
http://clarkvision.com
finds that then the resolution is around 18 MPix. Yes, you
can probably do more with superb lenses and technique. Much
better? I doubt it. Yes, you should overscan. But the extra
pixels don't translate 1:1 into detail recovered.
> Looking at the negatives with a
> microscope proves it beyond any doubt. Only wish I had a scanner capable of much
> higher rez to show it at its best.
> The thing these "experts" totally miss is that starting from an image taken 30
> years ago with shit lenses and technique is no proof whatsoever that film cannot
> show high resolution. Most of the "comparison" sites around the net have some
> of the worst film images I have ever seen, parading as "proof" that film is
> incapable of high resolution.
-Wolfgang
RichA
May 12, 2012, 5:04:39 PM5/12/12
to
which can't be done now.
RichA
May 12, 2012, 5:09:16 PM5/12/12
to
to do a comparison. Or, you could go back and shoot something with
the same lenses that you shot on Tech Pan and this time use a digital
camera. Since Tech Pan rated at 25 ASA for pictorial work, whatever
you shot was probably static (buildings, etc) so are probably still
where they used to be.
http://www.freestylephoto.biz/42220111-Rollei-ATP1.1-Advanced-Technical-Pan-Film-35mm-x-36-exp.-Single-Roll?pg=2
Doug McDonald
May 12, 2012, 5:19:30 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/11/2012 8:43 PM, Mxsmanic wrote:
Red ones for very dark sky, for example.
Doug McDonald
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
>
>> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
>> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
>
> What filters are needed on the lens?
The same ones as for B&W film!
>
>> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
>> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
>
> What filters are needed on the lens?
Red ones for very dark sky, for example.
Doug McDonald
William Hamblen
May 12, 2012, 6:09:11 PM5/12/12
to
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
one-shot color sensor because the Bayer array of color filters will
be gone. Resolution will be better because pixels from a color imager
have to be synthesized from adjacent photosites on the image sensor.
I can see this monochrome camera being useful for scientific imaging.
Bud
On 2012-05-12, Gary Eickmeier <geic...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
> Curious.
>
A monochrome sensor will have at least twice the sensitivity of a
>
> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
> Curious.
>
one-shot color sensor because the Bayer array of color filters will
be gone. Resolution will be better because pixels from a color imager
have to be synthesized from adjacent photosites on the image sensor.
I can see this monochrome camera being useful for scientific imaging.
Bud
Robert Coe
May 12, 2012, 6:21:07 PM5/12/12
to
On Thu, 10 May 2012 20:50:53 +0100, Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
: Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: >... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
: >
: >The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
: >the USA have concluded.
: >
: >I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
: >that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
:
:
: The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
: revealed:
:
: 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
: 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
: aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
: sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
:
: 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
: 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
: of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
:
: The seminar will continue tomorrow and may include further
: announcements. However the M10 rangefinder and new mirrorless system
: camera/lenses are unlikely to appear before Photokina in September.
I suppose the gazillionaires in the group may be thrilled. I, OTOH, couldn't
possibly care less about the contents of this or any other Leica product
announcement.
As for the "Monochrom", I'll be surprised if they make enough money on it to
pay off the marketing firm that thought up the name.
Bob
: Bruce <docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
:
: >... but I cannot reveal what they are. Sorry! :-(
: >
: >The news is embargoed worldwide until Leica product seminars across
: >the USA have concluded.
: >
: >I will say that the product news is well worth waiting for. It shows
: >that Leica are working hard and investing for a strong future.
:
:
: The deadline has passed and the three products announced today can be
: revealed:
:
: 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
: need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
: up to ISO 10,000.
:
: up to ISO 10,000.
: 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
: aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
: sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
:
: 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
: 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
: of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
:
: The seminar will continue tomorrow and may include further
: announcements. However the M10 rangefinder and new mirrorless system
: camera/lenses are unlikely to appear before Photokina in September.
I suppose the gazillionaires in the group may be thrilled. I, OTOH, couldn't
possibly care less about the contents of this or any other Leica product
announcement.
As for the "Monochrom", I'll be surprised if they make enough money on it to
pay off the marketing firm that thought up the name.
Bob
PeterN
May 12, 2012, 9:52:40 PM5/12/12
to
I used to mix my own developers, not to save money, which I didn't, but
to learn how the different times and chemicals affected the images. see
no reason to trivialize his experiments.
--
Peter
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 12, 2012, 9:45:51 PM5/12/12
to
J. Clarke <jclark...@cox.net> wrote:
> In article <jokqn0$uih$1...@dont-email.me>, david-
> tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says...
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> In article <jokqn0$uih$1...@dont-email.me>, david-
> tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid says...
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> > David J Taylor writes:
>> >> The omission of an AA filter is typical Leica marketing, particularly
>> >> on a
>> >> camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a
>> >> filter
>> >> is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
>> >> missing as it's a monochrome camera.
>> > Any artifacts from aliasing can be corrected in post.
Yes, though you might have to recreate the image from scratch
>> >> The omission of an AA filter is typical Leica marketing, particularly
>> >> on a
>> >> camera designed for high-quality lenses where the need for such a
>> >> filter
>> >> is greater. At least the more objectionable colour artefacts will be
>> >> missing as it's a monochrome camera.
>> > Any artifacts from aliasing can be corrected in post.
for that, painting every single pixel. Have fun and nothing
else to do for a couple months.
>> No, that's not always possible, and it would involve degradation of the
>> image.
> Degrade before, degrade after, it's still degradation.
illness, no vaccine will mean you'll be seriously ill (or dead)
after you contract the illness.
I'm really not betting on not coming into contact with tetanus ...
Though, if you can always find out fast enough and retake the
shot a bit differently so that no more aliasing happens ...
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 12, 2012, 9:37:23 PM5/12/12
to
Laszlo Lebrun <lazlo_...@laszlomail.com> wrote:
> (landscapes, studio) for those a high ISO usually don't be required.
Filters are needed (just ask any B/W photographer) to define
the way objects are rendered darker or brighter depending on
their colour. Since the camera doesn't seem to contain filters,
all rendering will be done in the native QE of silicon for each
frequency otherwise. This is usually *not* what one wants.
Hence: in anything but the most basic usage filters will be needed.
And the sensor isn't much high iso anyway.
-Wolfgang
> On 11/05/2012 13:37, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
>> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
> Filters on the lens will be needed in some very specific situations
>> Niche product, needs filters on the lens (instead of being able
>> to do that in post) which negates the high ISO partially or fully.
> (landscapes, studio) for those a high ISO usually don't be required.
Filters are needed (just ask any B/W photographer) to define
the way objects are rendered darker or brighter depending on
their colour. Since the camera doesn't seem to contain filters,
all rendering will be done in the native QE of silicon for each
frequency otherwise. This is usually *not* what one wants.
Hence: in anything but the most basic usage filters will be needed.
And the sensor isn't much high iso anyway.
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 12, 2012, 9:49:52 PM5/12/12
to
Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>> Curious.
>>
> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
How do you come to that number?
> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>> Curious.
>>
> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
> Thus, three
> times the ISO.
that's 2 stops or 4 times ...
> This is a big deal if you want B&W.
ISO 10.000 isn't much ...
> 2) because no "guess" is needed to generate a mono image at each pixel.
near IR, too. What if you want some other rendition?
-Wolfgang
PeterN
May 12, 2012, 10:13:55 PM5/12/12
to
Please understand that some of us believe the portion of Goethe's
philosophy that man should never stop striving.
--
Peter
Doug McDonald
May 12, 2012, 10:33:13 PM5/12/12
to
On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>> Curious.
>>>
>
>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>
> How do you come to that number?
Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
>>>
>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>> Curious.
>>>
>
>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>
> How do you come to that number?
A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
worse, except for red.
>
>> Thus, three
>> times the ISO.
>
> Nope. ISO isn't linear. If you go from 25% to 100% signal,
> that's 2 stops or 4 times ...
needs three times the exposure. In fact, your example above
says the same thing.
>
>> This is a big deal if you want B&W.
>
> Because all B/W is in the darkness?
its about shutter speed.
Doug
William Hamblen
May 13, 2012, 12:30:13 AM5/13/12
to
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.equipment.35mm.]
On 2012-05-13, Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>
> Nope. ISO isn't linear. If you go from 25% to 100% signal,
> that's 2 stops or 4 times ...
>
The number on the left hand side of the virgule (e.g. the 400 in 400/27)
>
> Nope. ISO isn't linear. If you go from 25% to 100% signal,
> that's 2 stops or 4 times ...
>
is linear. The "ISO" setting on my digital camera is linear. But it is
true that 100 divided by 25 is 4. Our other correspondent should have
said 33% instead of 25%. Actually, because there is considerable overlap
in the spectral response of red, green and blue pixels, the light absorbed
by the Bayer filters is not quite 2/3rds. You can find spectra sensitivity
charts for some on-shot color image sensors on line. Some enterprising
soul with access to a monochromator ought to measure the sensitivity of
current dSLRs. I've seen measurements for first generation cameras on line,
but not measurements for recent cameras.
I suppose that the 25% might have come from the fact that data for a single
pixel is collected from four photosites (usually), but the three colored
filters in the Bayer array each absorb only roughly 2/3 of the light.
Bud
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:27:38 AM5/13/12
to
Gary Eickmeier writes:
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting?
No. Almost all the image information is removed by the color filter in color
> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
> switch to BW shooting?
sensors. It is not possible to duplicate B&W spectral response with a color
sensor.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:30:57 AM5/13/12
to
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
> Nope. ISO isn't linear.
ISO ratings are indeed linear. Aperture stops are not.
> Nope. ISO isn't linear.
> Because all B/W is in the darkness?
> Yep, you just take the native QE of the sensor. Maybe block
> near IR, too. What if you want some other rendition?
with filters. Just like B&W film.
With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been destroyed
by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of color
with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:34:52 AM5/13/12
to
nospam writes:
> aliasing degrades the image, far more than anything an aa filter would
> ever do.
That is a matter of opinion.
> aliasing degrades the image, far more than anything an aa filter would
> ever do.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:36:07 AM5/13/12
to
nospam writes:
> typically to darken the sky. other filters can affect foliage, skin,
> and other parts of the subject.
For special purposes, one can filter. But unfiltered B&Q usually looks just
> typically to darken the sky. other filters can affect foliage, skin,
> and other parts of the subject.
fine if the spectral response of the sensor is not too different from that of
human vision. The main difference between silicon and a retina is that silicon
has much more extensive IR sensitivity.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:37:02 AM5/13/12
to
Doug McDonald writes:
> The same ones as for B&W film!
I never saw a reason to use filters for B&W film.
> The same ones as for B&W film!
> Red ones for very dark sky, for example.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:39:14 AM5/13/12
to
nospam writes:
> no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.
> no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
> they aren't comparing to images taken 30 years ago.
exploiting the potential of film. And they probably cannot afford the best
lenses in existence.
Mxsmanic
May 13, 2012, 6:40:22 AM5/13/12
to
Robert Coe writes:
> As for the "Monochrom", I'll be surprised if they make enough money on it to
> pay off the marketing firm that thought up the name.
Their margins are so high that I can't imagine them not making money, unless
> As for the "Monochrom", I'll be surprised if they make enough money on it to
> pay off the marketing firm that thought up the name.
management is really, really bad.
The partial positioning of Leica as a luxury brand rather than a quality brand
will hurt it in the long run.
Paul Furman
May 13, 2012, 2:53:24 PM5/13/12
to
Rol_Lei Nut wrote:
> On 5/10/2012 21:50, Bruce wrote:
>
> 3) Lots of very good competition in that sector. The Leica is unlikely
> to make any breakthrough there, either.
>
>
> Seriously now, when will some manufacturer come out with a full-frame
> EVIL camera which will accept any 35mm format lens ever made?
That's exactly what the monochrome model should be able to do. If money
wasn't an issue, I'd absolutely get one but $8k is a problem.
> On 5/10/2012 21:50, Bruce wrote:
>> Bruce<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>
>
>>
>> 1. Leica M Monochrom, with 18 MP black and white full frame sensor. No
>> need for a Bayer pattern, no AA filter, no interpolation. Low noise
>> up to ISO 10,000.
>>
>> 2. Leica Summicron 50mm f/2 ASPH. The first 50mm Summicron with an
>> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
>> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
>>
>> 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
>> 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
>> of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
>>
>
> None of them seem especially interesting....
>> aspherical element. The previous (pre-ASPH) model was one of the
>> sharpest lenses ever made. This one will be even better.
>>
>> 3. Leica X2 autofocus compact P&S with 16 MP APS-C sensor (up from the
>> 12 MP of the X1), 24mm f/2.8 lens (full frame equivalent focal length
>> of 35mm) and a socket for an accessory EVF.
>>
>
>
> 1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
> argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
> show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home
> processing (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the
> process itself and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is
> still unmatched by any other digital-compatible printing process.
> The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> really lots) of film.
>
> 2) Good news, if you like the 50mm FL... ;-)
> 1) B&W is the main area where film can remain distinct from digital (an
> argument could be made for colour slides as well, but the classic "slide
> show" is had to get across now). Part of it is the ease of home
> processing (at least negative developing), part the fascinaton of the
> process itself and part the final results - a good B&W "wet print" is
> still unmatched by any other digital-compatible printing process.
> The problem is, for the price of the M Monochrom, you can buy lots (and
> really lots) of film.
>
>
> 3) Lots of very good competition in that sector. The Leica is unlikely
> to make any breakthrough there, either.
>
>
> Seriously now, when will some manufacturer come out with a full-frame
> EVIL camera which will accept any 35mm format lens ever made?
That's exactly what the monochrome model should be able to do. If money
wasn't an issue, I'd absolutely get one but $8k is a problem.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:15 PM5/13/12
to
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:16 PM5/13/12
to
In article <773vq7h9n4991ajge...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
possible to get the results people get.
therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
little is.
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been destroyed
> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of color
> with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
> With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been destroyed
> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of color
> with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
possible to get the results people get.
therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
little is.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:17 PM5/13/12
to
In article <vh3vq75tcchr3nkon...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
no it isn't. aliasing is bogus detail. an aa filter removes what the
sensor can't resolve (so no real loss there) and aliasing is additional
detail that wasn't in the original subject, which *is* a problem.
sensor can't resolve (so no real loss there) and aliasing is additional
detail that wasn't in the original subject, which *is* a problem.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:18 PM5/13/12
to
In article <ji3vq7te4a7treggh...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
nobody is advocating using the filters all the time.
> But unfiltered B&Q usually looks just
> fine if the spectral response of the sensor is not too different from that of
> human vision. The main difference between silicon and a retina is that silicon
> has much more extensive IR sensitivity.
different issue.
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > typically to darken the sky. other filters can affect foliage, skin,
> > and other parts of the subject.
>
> For special purposes, one can filter.
that's the whole point. for some situations, filters are very useful.
> > typically to darken the sky. other filters can affect foliage, skin,
> > and other parts of the subject.
>
> For special purposes, one can filter.
nobody is advocating using the filters all the time.
> But unfiltered B&Q usually looks just
> fine if the spectral response of the sensor is not too different from that of
> human vision. The main difference between silicon and a retina is that silicon
> has much more extensive IR sensitivity.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:19 PM5/13/12
to
In article <kl3vq7tmroqqj32ad...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> > Red ones for very dark sky, for example.
>
> The real sky isn't very dark, however.
so what? and in some cases, it can be.
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > The same ones as for B&W film!
>
> I never saw a reason to use filters for B&W film.
others do.
> > The same ones as for B&W film!
>
> I never saw a reason to use filters for B&W film.
> > Red ones for very dark sky, for example.
>
> The real sky isn't very dark, however.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 3:39:20 PM5/13/12
to
In article <ko3vq7d3jv85iol42...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
intents, not there.
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
>
> A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.
if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
> > no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
>
> A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.
intents, not there.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
nospam
May 13, 2012, 8:52:53 PM5/13/12
to
In article <d8j0r7tguvmcnj0ge...@4ax.com>, John A.
huh what? if you have to resort to a microscope to see a difference,
then there's not really much of a difference in the first place, thus
his claim that it's much better is wrong.
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> > no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
> >>
> >> A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.
> >
> >if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
> >intents, not there.
>
> Huh?
> >> > no it doesn't. a microscope proves nothing.
> >>
> >> A low-power microscope allowed me to see detail that I was unable to scan.
> >
> >if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
> >intents, not there.
>
huh what? if you have to resort to a microscope to see a difference,
then there's not really much of a difference in the first place, thus
his claim that it's much better is wrong.
nospam
May 13, 2012, 8:52:54 PM5/13/12
to
In article <upi0r7t2o1q6dedd2...@4ax.com>, John A.
yes
> I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, or right, but are you certain
> it's not possible to get the results people get with most of the image
> information destroyed?
if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
> It seems to me there are a lot more details in any scene than has ever
> been captured in any photo.
there's almost always something beyond the sensor's capabilities which
needs to be filtered out with an aa filter or you'll have aliasing.
<jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >> With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been
> >> destroyed
> >> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of
> >> color with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
> >
> >if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
> >possible to get the results people get.
> >
> >therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
> >little is.
>
> Are you sure about that logic?
> >> With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been
> >> destroyed
> >> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of
> >> color with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
> >
> >if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
> >possible to get the results people get.
> >
> >therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
> >little is.
>
yes
> I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, or right, but are you certain
> it's not possible to get the results people get with most of the image
> information destroyed?
if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
> It seems to me there are a lot more details in any scene than has ever
> been captured in any photo.
there's almost always something beyond the sensor's capabilities which
needs to be filtered out with an aa filter or you'll have aliasing.
Message has been deleted
Message has been deleted
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 2:51:42 AM5/14/12
to
nospam writes:
> if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
> possible to get the results people get.
But it would still be impossible to get the results that they don't get. For
> if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
> possible to get the results people get.
example, you cannot shoot infrared with color filters over the photosites. Nor
can you convert a color photo to the same result that you'd get with a
monochrome camera and a narrowband filter. Many other examples could be given.
> therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
> little is.
information, and so they don't miss all that is removed by the color filter.
But most of the original information in the scene is gone.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 2:52:53 AM5/14/12
to
nospam writes:
> if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
A little bit of the information.
> if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
> there's almost always something beyond the sensor's capabilities which
> needs to be filtered out with an aa filter or you'll have aliasing.
when you put color filters on the photosites, by design.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 2:54:28 AM5/14/12
to
nospam writes:
> of course it's possible, and very easily too.
Try post-processing a RGB image to produce the same result as a narrowband
> of course it's possible, and very easily too.
yellow filter over a monochrome sensor. You may be surprised by what happens.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 2:55:13 AM5/14/12
to
nospam writes:
> no it isn't. aliasing is bogus detail.
The importance of this is a matter of opinion.
> no it isn't. aliasing is bogus detail.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 2:56:16 AM5/14/12
to
nospam writes:
> if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
> intents, not there.
Remember, you can enlarge film. And then you see the additional detail. If you
> if you have to go to such extents just to see it, then it's for all
> intents, not there.
enlarge a digital image, all you see is bigger pixels.
Trevor
May 14, 2012, 4:08:10 AM5/14/12
to
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2012051201594311272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> Why? I'm puzzled that he didn't realise people were doing this over 50
>> years
>> ago with multiple exposures on color film using real filters, and the
>> main
>> aim was to get those colored ripples on water, or rainbow colored clouds
>> etc. That's the only reason to do it these days too, not try to
>> eliminate
>> it as David suggests. Obviously Prokudin-Gorsky would have seen this
>> effect
>> immediately and taken steps to avoid it when he didn't want it.
>> However if Prokudin-Gorsky used a 3 lens projector, why could he not use
>> a 3
>> lens camera and take simultaneous images? Are we sure he didn't? The
>> image
>> of the Nilova Monastery shows no colored ripples on the water or clouds
>> at
>> all, so either it's been very heavily doctored, or he did take
>> simultaneous
>> images.
>>
> It is thought Prokudin-Gorsky probably used a personally customized
> versions of the earlier Adolf Miethe camera produced by Bermpohl Company.
That camera doesn't take simultaneous images, so the question remains why no
color artifacts are visible in the Prokudin-Gorsky photo's. If they have in
fact been doctored to the extreme, it should have beeen stated what was done
IMO.
Trevor.
Trevor
May 14, 2012, 4:34:01 AM5/14/12
to
"PeterN" <pete...@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message
news:4faf13f4$0$31521$8f2e...@news.shared-secrets.com...
> As I posted elsewhere, experiments are part of understanding a process. I
> used to mix my own developers, not to save money, which I didn't, but to
> learn how the different times and chemicals affected the images.
Me too, along with thousands of other darkroom experiments.
>see no reason to trivialize his experiments.
OK, not trivializing them, just surprised he didn't realise his findings
were well known for well over half a century. Of course it's nice to see
these things for yourself, but then there is no need to post as if it's a
new discovery. However I'm not having a shot at him if he didn't already
know, and I'm sure many others hadn't thought about it.
I'm sure Prokudin-Gorsky knew about it however.
Trevor.
Chris Malcolm
May 14, 2012, 5:26:28 AM5/14/12
to
In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>> Curious.
>>>>
>>
>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>>
>> How do you come to that number?
> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
> A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
> color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
> for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
> worse, except for red.
That suggests that there's a trade off in Bayer colour filter design
between best colour rendering filters and best light
transmission, i.e. best high ISO performance.
--
Chris Malcolm
> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>>> Curious.
>>>>
>>
>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>>
>> How do you come to that number?
> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
> A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
> color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
> for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
> worse, except for red.
That suggests that there's a trade off in Bayer colour filter design
between best colour rendering filters and best light
transmission, i.e. best high ISO performance.
--
Chris Malcolm
Martin Brown
May 14, 2012, 5:42:32 AM5/14/12
to
On 14/05/2012 10:26, Chris Malcolm wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>>>> Curious.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>>>
>>> How do you come to that number?
>
>> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
>> A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
>> color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
>> for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
>> worse, except for red.
You are using the wrong numbers for transmitted luminance.
> In rec.photo.digital Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>>>> Curious.
>>>>>
>>>
>>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>>>
>>> How do you come to that number?
>
>> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
>> A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
>> color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
>> for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
>> worse, except for red.
Roughly for Bayer GR,BG mask the effective luminance score is
55+34+55+11 = 155/400 = 39%
Taking G=55, R=34, B=11 as rough transmissions
> That suggests that there's a trade off in Bayer colour filter design
> between best colour rendering filters and best light
> transmission, i.e. best high ISO performance.
of extra low light capability. Obsolete now but one example:
http://www.optcorp.com/product.aspx?pid=319-320-1542-13238
The score for CM,YG is 66,45,89,55 = 255/400 = 64%
Depending on how the image is used this can be useful particularly in
low light interlaced video modes. There is a hit in colour fidelity.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Chris Malcolm
May 14, 2012, 6:05:36 AM5/14/12
to
occur at pixel boundaries will be captured, whereas those same
transitions occuring inside a pixel won't. So a less than pixel width
diagonal hair or twig can turn into a series of beads. Given
appropriate visual context, viewing distance, etc, the eye will pick
that up as a fine line. Move closer looking more carefully and it will
dissolve into the false detail of beads.
Now remove the aliasing artefacts with an AA filter. Gone are both the
artificial detail of the beads and the hair. The artefacts are lost,
but so is some real detail.
Do you think that applying an AA filter to a painting by one of the
Pointilists such as Seurat would improve it?
--
Chris Malcolm
Savageduck
May 14, 2012, 6:48:09 AM5/14/12
to
You may be surprised by what happens.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
RichA
May 14, 2012, 8:28:38 AM5/14/12
to
resolution or print size? You can enlarge to the point where you are
resolving the grain. Go much beyond that, you are not seeing more
detail. In fact, one of the claims made by filmists is that film
contains much more detail than a digital image, and they a base this
on scanning images being "X" size. The reason scanned images of film
are large is that the highest resolution scanners are actually
recording the shape of grain particles, which is why a high ISO film
image (though it clearly containes less image detail than a low ISO
film image) is larger for a given scan.
You aren't recording detail you are recording detail about the grain.
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 14, 2012, 8:30:23 AM5/14/12
to
Doug McDonald <mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>>> Curious.
>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>> How do you come to that number?
> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
Misnomer. They don't use strict R G or B filters. The
> On 5/12/2012 8:49 PM, Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Doug McDonald<mcdo...@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2012 10:40 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>>> I am wondering if it is necessary to come out with a BW only camera.
>>>> Wouldn't any color 18mp camera have exactly the same resolution if you
>>>> switch to BW shooting? Or simply delete the color info in Photoshop?
>>>> Curious.
>>> 1) because the Bayer filter reduces the light by about 75%.
>> How do you come to that number?
> Each pixel in a Bayer sensor has a filter in front of it, R, G, or B.
filter curves are overlapping and quite wide.
> A "perfect" filter for saving light (which is very imperfect for
> color rendition) would transmit only 1/3 of the visual spectrum
> for R, 1/3 for G, and 1/3 for B. The actual filters probably are a bit
> worse, except for red.
green filter with green light will pass around 90%.
>>> Thus, three
>>> times the ISO.
>> Nope. ISO isn't linear. If you go from 25% to 100% signal,
>> that's 2 stops or 4 times ...
> ISO IS linear ... 1/3 the ISO (e.g going from 600 to 200)
> needs three times the exposure.
OK. So how comes "reduces the light by about 75%" comes out
to 3 times the ISO?
>>> This is a big deal if you want B&W.
>> Because all B/W is in the darkness?
> No, of course not. But sometimes it is, and sometimes
> its about shutter speed.
And that's specific to B&W? How comes?
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
May 14, 2012, 8:21:27 AM5/14/12
to
John A <jo...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:52:54 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> Without even doing any math, I fell safe saying that even a perfectly
> recorded 100MP analog RGB image would contain less than 50% of the
> available information about the scene depicted, even allowing that it
> is a 2D projection.
You could record a million MPix and still not record every single
atom in the scene. So what? Can you see single atoms with your
bare eyes?
The point is that the claim was that the *colour filter* destroyed
most of the information --- apparently in contrast to monochrome
sensors (which record less information).
> But what we're really talking about here is the Bayer filter and its
> use in recording digital RGB images. Rather than getting the red,
> green, and blue levels at every pixel, only one of the three is
> recorded.
Not even that is true. What we get is luminances after a camera
specific band pass filter. Ah, I must correct myself, it's not
even a sharply defined bandpass filter ...
> Adjacent pixels are used to estimate what was there, and
> that estimate is, due to clever use of the spatially staggered nature
> of the sampling in the three color bands, admittedly better than you
> would get upscaling an RGB image 2x in each direction, but that's
> still more or less what you're doing, and it's still an estimation
> compensating for having only 1/3 the actual data for each pixel.
The 'actual data' is luminosity and a bit chromaticy. Our eyes
don't report chroma to our brain even half as well as Bayer does
... and our eyes only record one colour (if at all) at each point.
So your 'actual data' is spurious. It's only interesting in
some science measurements. For images it's not.
>>> It seems to me there are a lot more details in any scene than has ever
>>> been captured in any photo.
If you can press your nose against an ideal photo with infinite
resolution and still not see some detail in the photo, what does
that additional, invisible detail give you? Do you really want
to use a loupe on such photos? A microscope?
-Wolfgang
> On Sun, 13 May 2012 20:52:54 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
>>> >> With a color sensor, most of the image information has already been
>>> >> destroyed
>>> >> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of
>>> >> color with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
>>> >if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
>>> >possible to get the results people get.
>>> >therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
>>> >little is.
>>> Are you sure about that logic?
>>yes
>>> I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, or right, but are you certain
>>> it's not possible to get the results people get with most of the image
>>> information destroyed?
>>if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
> A fraction of the available information less than 50% of the whole.
>>> >> destroyed
>>> >> by the color filter. The filter allows you to shoot an approximation of
>>> >> color with one sensor, but you sacrifice a lot in the process.
>>> >if 'most of the image information' was destroyed, then it wouldn't be
>>> >possible to get the results people get.
>>> >therefore, most of the information is not destroyed. in fact, very
>>> >little is.
>>> Are you sure about that logic?
>>yes
>>> I'm not saying your conclusion is wrong, or right, but are you certain
>>> it's not possible to get the results people get with most of the image
>>> information destroyed?
>>if most of the information is destroyed, then what will you have left?
> Without even doing any math, I fell safe saying that even a perfectly
> recorded 100MP analog RGB image would contain less than 50% of the
> available information about the scene depicted, even allowing that it
> is a 2D projection.
You could record a million MPix and still not record every single
atom in the scene. So what? Can you see single atoms with your
bare eyes?
The point is that the claim was that the *colour filter* destroyed
most of the information --- apparently in contrast to monochrome
sensors (which record less information).
> But what we're really talking about here is the Bayer filter and its
> use in recording digital RGB images. Rather than getting the red,
> green, and blue levels at every pixel, only one of the three is
> recorded.
Not even that is true. What we get is luminances after a camera
specific band pass filter. Ah, I must correct myself, it's not
even a sharply defined bandpass filter ...
> Adjacent pixels are used to estimate what was there, and
> that estimate is, due to clever use of the spatially staggered nature
> of the sampling in the three color bands, admittedly better than you
> would get upscaling an RGB image 2x in each direction, but that's
> still more or less what you're doing, and it's still an estimation
> compensating for having only 1/3 the actual data for each pixel.
The 'actual data' is luminosity and a bit chromaticy. Our eyes
don't report chroma to our brain even half as well as Bayer does
... and our eyes only record one colour (if at all) at each point.
So your 'actual data' is spurious. It's only interesting in
some science measurements. For images it's not.
>>> It seems to me there are a lot more details in any scene than has ever
>>> been captured in any photo.
resolution and still not see some detail in the photo, what does
that additional, invisible detail give you? Do you really want
to use a loupe on such photos? A microscope?
-Wolfgang
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 9:52:38 AM5/14/12
to
Chris Malcolm writes:
> That suggests that there's a trade off in Bayer colour filter design
> between best colour rendering filters and best light
> transmission, i.e. best high ISO performance.
That goes without saying. A color filter over the sensor reduces light
> That suggests that there's a trade off in Bayer colour filter design
> between best colour rendering filters and best light
> transmission, i.e. best high ISO performance.
sensitivity by at least 2/3 and often more, depending on the transmission
curves of the filters.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 9:53:51 AM5/14/12
to
Martin Brown writes:
> You are using the wrong numbers for transmitted luminance.
> Roughly for Bayer GR,BG mask the effective luminance score is
>
> 55+34+55+11 = 155/400 = 39%
Filters have transmission curves, not transmission points. Sensors have
> You are using the wrong numbers for transmitted luminance.
> Roughly for Bayer GR,BG mask the effective luminance score is
>
> 55+34+55+11 = 155/400 = 39%
sensitivity spectrums, not sensitivity points. So it's more complicated than
that, and the results are acutally worse.
Mxsmanic
May 14, 2012, 10:01:11 AM5/14/12
to
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:
> You could record a million MPix and still not record every single
> atom in the scene. So what? Can you see single atoms with your
> bare eyes?
As long as you have unused information, you can continue to enlarge the image.
> You could record a million MPix and still not record every single
> atom in the scene. So what? Can you see single atoms with your
> bare eyes?
> The point is that the claim was that the *colour filter* destroyed
> most of the information --- apparently in contrast to monochrome
> sensors (which record less information).
The problem is that each photosite can produce only one number within a finite
range of numbers, and the sensor can only be divided into a finite number of
photosites. So huge amounts of information are lost.
The problem with color filters is that they capture only certain information
and discard all other information. If you put a blue filter over a photosite,
you get a reliable number for blue light, but you get nothing for any other
frequency of light. In cases where the information you want is part of the
information that is thrown away, you're stuck.
> The 'actual data' is luminosity and a bit chromaticy.
filter, that number is luminance only. With a filter, that number is intensity
for a specific color, but the luminance number is lost, as is any information
about other colors. So you end up interpolating most of the required numbers
from the handful that you've actually developed from the sensor.
> Our eyes don't report chroma to our brain even half as well as Bayer does
> ... and our eyes only record one colour (if at all) at each point.
results, the sky's the limit on data collection.
> If you can press your nose against an ideal photo with infinite
> resolution and still not see some detail in the photo, what does
> that additional, invisible detail give you? Do you really want
> to use a loupe on such photos? A microscope?
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages