Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/05/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Peter according to some guy on the internet its not a matter of a few steps up from 12 to 14 bit. Its 4 times as many shades of intensity in a given range. That sounds like a big deal for me. And with a Terabyte hard disk costing $99 plus tax and license I don't car if they take up more space. Space is close to free. But they say its not really a vacuum. 12 bit has 4,096 Total distinct values (TDV's) 14 bit has 16,384 Total distinct values That's a lot more values! 12,288 of them! I value those values! Why not I have nothing else better to do in my spare time!? On 5/6/15 2:54 AM, "Peter Klein" <boulanger.croissant at gmail.com> wrote: > This is been discussed extensively on the LUF. A gentlemen > dubbed "lenshacker" has discussed how he sees pattern noise in M246 files, > but sees only random noise in the MM files. He's someone with extensive > experience in digital signal processing. What he saying is that the > stripping off two bits of real information causes the noise to get less > random, to go from not there to there in such a way that patterns start to > emerge. Faint bands as opposed to random quote peppering" of noise. It > sounds a lot like Schrodinger's cat, but you can see it if you pixel peep. > How much it will matter in real photographs, I don't know. > > As to why Leica made this choice, who knows? It might be a matter of > acceptably fast processing speed, or that the imaging hardware can't handle > the extra bits meaningfully. > > But I remember what Leica said about the M8 compressed DNG files. They > said that nobody could tell the difference between the compressed > vs. uncompressed files. But now we've discovered the way to make the M8 > output uncompressed raw files, and the truth is more complicated. The > compression doesn't matter in well-lit scenes where you're not going to > tweak the curves too far. But in low-light files it matters a lot. I've > seen the difference with my own eyes in my own photographs. So I wouldn't > discount this argument as one of those mythical medieval discussions about > the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. > > -- Peter, picking a peck of peppered pixels > > > On Tuesday, May 5, 2015, Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com> > wrote: > >> Jim, re: write speed >> 12 bits is a bit PITA to carry around. Usually 16 bits is used and the >> software just ignores the 4 unused bits. >> >> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 8:10 PM, Jim Nichols <jhnichols at lighttube.net >> <javascript:;>> wrote: >> >>> Wouldn't it also affect write speeds? What if Leica puts more value on >>> speed than on bit depths? >>> >>> Jim Nichols >>> Tullahoma, TN USA >>> >>> On 5/5/2015 10:04 PM, Doug Herr wrote: >>> >>>> Sometimes the published bit depth has more to do with marketing than >>>> anything else. >>>> >>>> Doug Herr >>>> Birdman of Sacramento >>>> http://www.wildlightphoto.com >>>> http://doug-herr.fineartamerica.com >>>> >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> >>>>> From: Richard Man <richard at richardmanphoto.com <javascript:;>> >>>>> Sent: May 5, 2015 6:01 PM >>>>> To: Leica Users Group <lug at leica-users.org <javascript:;>> >>>>> Subject: Re: [Leica] New M(246) Outputs 12 bit Files >>>>> >>>>> The "bit-depth" is not dependent on the format. If 12 bits is good >> enough >>>>> for 35mm sensor, then it would be good enough for medium format sensor, >>>>> and >>>>> vice versa. >>>>> >>>>> Note that I have not said what I think personally on the technical >>>>> merits. >>>>> I am just giving out the perspective that the decision is almost >>>>> certainly >>>>> financial related rather than based on technical analysis. >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information -- Mark William Rabiner Photographer http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/