Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2006/10/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter, that's a very helpful and interesting post, thank you. I downloaded the suggested DNG and printed it with an extremely minimal crop, to A4 (near letter), following my normal workflow for printing and with just a light luminance sharpen first. The detail captured is certainly extremely impressive, with that digital look missing any grain, of course. With my calibrate environment, the tones and colurs reproduced on the print very faithfullt to the on-screen versio. My inkjet (Epson R800) faithfully reproduced coloured fringing visible in the shadow around the car's fuel filler cap and door frame. It is there just visible to the naked eye in my print. These areas show up as warnings when viewing the DNG. Since I have no experience with any of the Raw converters (I used the Adobe plug in for CS2) I didn't attempt any correction. So it would be an area perhaps requiring attention, as you said. I have to say that I have absolutely no good reason not to buy this camera now, for my particular circumstance, except for finding the dollars, of course. Thanks again for a great post on this Cheers Hoppy -----Original Message----- From: lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org [mailto:lug-bounces+hoppyman=bigpond.net.au@leica-users.org] On Behalf Of Peter Klein Sent: Sunday, 29 October 2006 14:12 To: lug@leica-users.org Subject: [Leica] Playing with an M8 DNG Uwe and Bettina Steinmuller have posted an M8 mini-review on their site. It includes a DNG that we can download and play with. Since I could not go to Wetzlar/Solms or Rockport (sob), this represents the first chance I've had to play with a real-world M8 file. http://www.outbackphoto.com/reviews/equipment/leica_m8/Leica_M8_review.html# Klein's First Law of Pixel Peeping states that "Sufficiently magnified, all photographs look terrible." I've learned that pixel-peeping is counterproductive unless you qualify it by how big you're blowing something up. Otherwise, it's like looking at a Monet painting from four inches away and declaring that the painter had sloppy technique. So, I made some prints of Uwe's file, a sun-lit shot at ISO 160. I opened the DNG file in Picture Window Pro's RAW converter, which is a fairly generic tool. I then used some fairly standard adjustments--just curves and a bit of USM. I easily got a file with levels and colors very similar to Uwe's JPG examples. I then made letter-size prints of the file, both in color and converted to black and white. I also made a couple of 5x7 prints of sections of the file, blown up to the magnification of a 16x20 print. The general impression of quality is pretty astounding. Sean Reid is right on--the prints indeed look like they were made from a medium format negative. The 16x20 magnification prints have unbelievably subtle details that I have not seen in samples from other digital cameras save perhaps the 1DSMkII. These details hold with magnifications beyond the point where you can see the individual pixels. With most other DSLRs, such extremely fine details "smear out" before you can see the pixels, probably because of the AA filter. If a few color artifacts represent the price one must pay for that level of detail, it is a worthwhile trade. There was a thread on Rangefinder forum bemoaning some moire and purple fringing people noticed in Uwe's sample. I looked at this carefully, both from a pixel-peeping and a real-world standpoint. I'm referring to specifics on Uwe's photo, so take a look at the URL above so you can see what I'm talking about. On a letter-size print, I just barely see the purple fringing from full sun reflections on the car's chrome trim. It only bothers me if I "smell" the print. On the B&W print, it just looks like normal specular-highlight glare. At 16x20 magnification, the fringing is more bothersome. I also see some color artifacts at boundaries between the white plaster and darker shadows. There are also faint reddish rings around the number "160" on the restaurant door. If I pixel-peep at 200%-400% magnification, I see significant color speckling in the gray molding that runs across the upper part of the picture just above the door. This appears to be not moire, but Bayer-pattern artifacting on tiny bits of flaking paint on the molding. It's barely detectable at 16x20 magnification. I can also see an occasional false-color speckle on the plaster dome above the door, but this is only visible on the screen at 200% and larger--not in the final print. To which, I say a rousing SO WHAT? The only extra work I would have needed on this file to print at letter size in color would be on the sun-reflection highlights. Most cameras, even the best, have this issue. Heck, I've gotten such fringing on such highlights on film scans. It cleaned up with a minute's work with a quick mask and the Moire reduction transformation in Picture Window Pro. For a 16x20 print, I would have needed to do the same thing on the dark grey molding above the door. For B&W, I wouldn't have needed to do anything extra at all. It's possible that the Leica-tailored edition of Capture One supplied with the camera deals with these issues in the converter. Despite what some less-informed people on digital camera forums think, there are laws of physics and some real-world trade-offs to be made in camera design. I've now seen some LUGger's samples, including low-light stuff, and Uwe's sunny DNG. Based on what I've seen so far, I think Leica made some *very* good decisions on this camera. Heaven help me, I want one. --Peter _______________________________________________ Leica Users Group. See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information