Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 49 of 49

Thread: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

  1. #1
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    I have an M9, so I have no reason to be pouty about the new M-M at all, and I love the idea, except that I am having trouble with a few details regarding whether this camera makes sense to most people (which it clearly does not).

    The biggest one is the claim of higher resolution. We all know that the 100% higher resolution that Leica is claiming is nonsense (why do they do that, I wonder?). I could see 15% better, some people have said 30% better, but it's going to be in that range, not 100%.

    I get that the Bayer filter interpolation in the raw file will reduce resolution, and that each pixel can be taken at it's own site without requiring any manipulation.

    However, does that actually happen? Can Leica actually bypass the interpolation in the software? If the camera outputs DGN files and the image is then rendered in a regular program like Lightroom, then doesn't the software apply a Bayer interpolation to the file regardless?

    If the files are TIFF or something similar, I could see the claim for improved resolution, but unless there is a way to skip the interpolation in the software, how is it possible to produce a higher resolution image? Since every RAW file requires interpolation for color images, I can't imagine that the rendering engine interpolation can be turned off.

    Does anyone have any insight into this?


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  2. #2
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Hi Michael
    I'm not really a techie, but I'll try and answer

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    I have an M9, so I have no reason to be pouty about the new M-M at all, and I love the idea, except that I am having trouble with a few details regarding whether this camera makes sense to most people (which it clearly does not).

    The biggest one is the claim of higher resolution. We all know that the 100% higher resolution that Leica is claiming is nonsense (why do they do that, I wonder?). I could see 15% better, some people have said 30% better, but it's going to be in that range, not 100%.l
    I haven't seen Leica make the 100% claim - in the old days of the Kodak 760m there were claims of a 400% improvement.

    Personally I think it depends from scene to scene and ISO to ISO, but it's certainly there . . . although whether it's relevant is quite another matter.

    putting a percentage on it seems rash!


    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    I get that the Bayer filter interpolation in the raw file will reduce resolution, and that each pixel can be taken at it's own site without requiring any manipulation.

    However, does that actually happen? Can Leica actually bypass the interpolation in the software? If the camera outputs DGN files and the image is then rendered in a regular program like Lightroom, then doesn't the software apply a Bayer interpolation to the file regardless?
    No it doesn't apply Bayer interpolation - there is a new DNG format for monochrome files, and there is no Bayer interpolation. This is why the DNG files can't yet be read in most other software packages
    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    If the files are TIFF or something similar, I could see the claim for improved resolution, but unless there is a way to skip the interpolation in the software, how is it possible to produce a higher resolution image? Since every RAW file requires interpolation for color images, I can't imagine that the rendering engine interpolation can be turned off.

    Does anyone have any insight into this?
    Absolutely - it's turned off - no question.

    I hope this helps
    all the best

    Just this guy you know

  3. #3
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Michael, It is M9M. It still outputs 18MP resolution in RGB.

    Tonality should be better (and it looks quite clearly so).

    100% better resolution?! I have no clue how they arrived at that number either.

  4. #4
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post


    No it doesn't apply Bayer interpolation - there is a new DNG format for monochrome files, and there is no Bayer interpolation.


    Absolutely - it's turned off - no question.
    Jono, How do you get RBG output and not greyscale one?

  5. #5
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    It's not that there are more pixels, folks. It's that in a color image (M9. M9-P) 25% of the pixels are red, 25% are blue, and 50% are green. So there is physically only 4.5 mpx available. Software interpolation fills in the gaps and brings the count back up to 18 mpx.

    The M9-M has no Bayer filter. A pixel is a pixel. No color channels. Only brightness. This is why there is no headroom on the bright end and plenty of legroom in the dark end.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  6. #6
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Jono,

    OK, so that's the key, a new uninterpolated DNG file. Makes sense...

    The 100% claim is on the Leica website:

    Incomparably sharp

    With a full native resolution of 18 megapixels, the Leica M Monochrom delivers 100% sharper images than with colour sensors. As its sensor does not ‘see' colours, every pixel records true luminance values - as a result, it delivers a ‘true' black-and-white image. The combination of the brilliant imaging qualities of Leica M-Lenses and the image sensor results in images with outstanding sharpness and natural brilliance.
    I read 100% sharper to mean it can resolve to 1/2 the smallest lppm at a given contrast compared to the color camera. The 400% you mention is probably people using the 'area method' of resolution definition rather than the 'linear method' (incorrect, but commonly applied by many people).


    I am mostly a B&W shooter, and still have difficulty seeing this camera make sense (timing, etc.) unless, and this is what I most fear, there will be no traditional RF style M10, and Leica sees the 18MP camera as the end of the line for this camera chassis.

    Otherwise, why not wait until the next camera and sensor to introduce this varient as the camera is probably close to the end of the product cycle now (note the hermes versions, etc.).
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  7. #7
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    I am positive that it is interpolated file. Jono is wrong, I am afraid.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Take a picture of a blue-striped or red-striped object with the M9 and with the M9M. Let me know how it works out.

    There is no reason to interpolate the output of a monochrome sensor.

    I can put up my FORTRAN program for the KAF-1600 used in the DCS200ir. No interpolation. I did not put my spline interpolation routine into it.

    If the Leica DNG convertor performs interpolation, it would be easy enough to do a raw processor without it.

    I can believe that a non-uniformity correction is done for the output, but this would correct intensity from individual pixels and does not perform spatial processing. the DCS460 had non-uniformity correction done outside of the camera. I have not written code for digital cameras in almost 15 years. Of course, it has almost been that long since Monochrome digital cameras were on the market in any number. I read that there were only Two DCS760m's made. By comparison, Kodak told me that they were going to make 50 DCS200ir's when I bought mine.

  9. #9
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    jonoslack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    East Anglia & Cornwall (UK)
    Posts
    11,778
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    I am positive that it is interpolated file. Jono is wrong, I am afraid.
    HI Vivek
    It's not what I understood -especially with reference to the modified DNG standard - but I certainly understand that you understand these things better than I do! Brian, however, does understand them - so I'll leave you to fight it out . . . . and go to bed knowing that, for whatever reason, the MM files are different and do offer more resolution.

    However, personally, I'm not even sure what 100% increase in resolution means!

    Just this guy you know

  10. #10
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan63 View Post
    It's not that there are more pixels, folks. It's that in a color image (M9. M9-P) 25% of the pixels are red, 25% are blue, and 50% are green. So there is physically only 4.5 mpx available. Software interpolation fills in the gaps and brings the count back up to 18 mpx.
    This isn't really correct either...

    Each photosite has a pixel, but the actual RGB information for each photosite is a combination of that pixel, and the mathematical prediction of the valuse for that pixel based on the sites surrounding it.

    This is partly why I don't think the 100% claim is correct, because the information is never a 100% interpolation for a photosite (there are no site gaps that the software fills in, but color gaps in every site) , but every site is an interpolation.

    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  11. #11
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    There is no reason to interpolate the output of a monochrome sensor.
    There is a reason. In fact, two. I did post this earlier in Jono's thread.

    1. Price. If it had been a true monochrome camera, it would have been at least 3X the price.

    2. Use of Nik pluggin and digital filters after the capture.

  12. #12
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    There is no reason to interpolate the output of a monochrome sensor.
    Brian, that's exactly my point, and if Jono is correct, then that resolves most of my original question.
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  13. #13
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by jonoslack View Post
    HI Vivek
    It's not what I understood -especially with reference to the modified DNG standard - but I certainly understand that you understand these things better than I do! Brian, however, does understand them - so I'll leave you to fight it out . . . . and go to bed knowing that, for whatever reason, the MM files are different and do offer more resolution.

    However, personally, I'm not even sure what 100% increase in resolution means!
    Hi Jono, See my post above ( I already posted these earlier- nothing new).

    I could catch this immediately because of my own on going projects.

    Leica should put out a vimeo on this, I think.

  14. #14
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    There is a reason. In fact, two. I did post this earlier in Jono's thread.

    1. Price. If it had been a true monochrome camera, it would have been at least 3X the price.

    2. Use of Nik pluggin and digital filters after the capture.
    Vivek,

    I think you may not understand how Bayer filters work (and please don't think I am talking down to you at all), or possibly I am not understanding what you said, but the Bayer filer on a camera is there to enable a sensor to see in color. Otherwise, a sensor is inherently a B&W device that happens to have a particular sensitivity curve to it (and there is a lot of discussion about this as well on the various fora).

    One way to make a camera see in color is to have three (or four if you want to do RGBK) photo sites with filtration for each actual pixel in the resultant image file. The problem with this is that your final file resolution is severely hampered by this approach.

    Another way to do it is to use the Bayer approach (a brilliant method, really), whereby each photosite only collects one RGB value, and then the neighboring sites color values are used to provide the rest of the information through a formula. This approach does not need 3x or 4x sites.

    Old cathode ray TV's used essentially the first method to work, as an example.

    Once the file in in the computer, the software triples the information into an RGB color file so that the NIK software can use it, and apply toning and other effects to the image.

    I do this all the time with B&W TIFF scans from B&W film when using the NIK software.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  15. #15
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Michael, I do understand how these work.

    I posted maxmax' site earlier. They do debayering of (2 models) canon DSLRs.

    I am working on my own (Sony sensors) for my own use since there is no commercial out fit that would do that for me.

    Another way to do it is to use the Bayer approach (a brilliant method, really), whereby each photosite only collects one RGB value, and then the neighboring sites color values are used to provide the rest of the information through a formula. This approach does not need 3x or 4x sites.
    I am afraid you are wrong with this understanding. There is a physical (color) filter in the Bayer array.

  16. #16
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    OK, then I am not understanding why you feel the camera would cost 3x the price...

    You leave the Bayer filter off, change the file processing a bit, and you suddenly have an image file that is the bit depth of the sensor (12 bit for the Kodak sensor IIRC), and the resolution of the sensor array.

    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  17. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Vivek is wrong. all there is to it. The CCD used in the M9M is a monochrome detector, no bayer pattern mosaic filter over it. I had a DCS200c and a DCS200ir. I processed the output of the monochrome-IR detector with my own software, and there was no need for interpolation. With the DCS200c, interpolation for the Bayer pattern mosaic filter was performed in the Kodak supplied drivers.

    I had Kodak make the IR version of the DCS200 20 years ago, talked with their engineers then. It cost an extra $4K over the standard $8,400 of the DCS200. Kodak did a run of 50 IR detectors. And about a year ago, called them up to ask what it would take to do a monochrome version of the KAF-18500 as a replacement for the one in the M9. They told me a run of about 50 detectors would make it worthwhile. I do not see where the 3x cost comes in. It did not happen 20 years ago, and things were expensive then.

    making a Monochrome Detector is just like making a Bacon and Tomato sandwich, leave out the lettuce and the color dye in the mosaic later. But making detectors was 30 years ago for me. We used detectors with different spectral response for multiple-color sensors, no mosaic pattern. But with Mid wave and Long-wave Infrared, much easier. The optics were expensive.

  18. #18
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Now I am confused...

    You state Leica says SHARP and you say RESOLVE....two different things...

    Bob

  19. #19
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Vivek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    13,611
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    OK, then I am not understanding why you feel the camera would cost 3x the price...

    You leave the Bayer filter off, change the file processing a bit, and you suddenly have an image file that is the bit depth of the sensor (12 bit for the Kodak sensor IIRC), and the resolution of the sensor array.

    ---Michael
    QC issues. The Achromatic+ digital back is expensive because they have to pick a "flawless" sensor (1 in 10 or so?) Pixel mapping and such can not be done there to mask the flaws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    Vivek is wrong. all there is to it.

    Yes, it is a monochrome sensor with no Bayer dyes but there is interpolation going on to get a RGB output. I will even categorically say that it is a M9 sensor without the Bayer dyes.

    I am not going to post anymore on this. But, eventually the truth will come out.

  20. #20
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Bob,

    Do you understand how optics systems are defined for performance testing? 'Sharpness' isn't really defined to my understanding, but 'resolution' is a definable term.

    Sharpness in a print is often considered a combination of resolution and acutance, and is more about perception, not about performance. Hence the purpose for unsharp masks, for example.

    At least that's how I've always interpreted when people use the term sharpness.

    Look here:
    Understanding resolution and MTF


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  21. #21
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Vivek View Post
    QC issues. The Achromatic+ digital back is expensive because they have to pick a "flawless" sensor (1 in 10 or so?) Pixel mapping and such can not be done there to mask the flaws.




    Yes, it is a monochrome sensor with no Bayer dyes but there is interpolation going on to get a RGB output. I will even categorically say that it is a M9 sensor without the Bayer dyes.

    I am not going to post anymore on this. But, eventually the truth will come out.
    OK, I think I see what you are saying, and I'll bet you are correct. No way to avoid the hot pixels and other flaws without some overlayment mapping to ensure they don't stand out.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  22. #22
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Considering recent history (ie: Nikon's claim that the D800e had no AA filter when, in fact, it has a "neutered" one), I can see why Vivek thinks the way he does. To produce a true monochrome sensor would require more than simply turning off the Bayer Filter Insertion step on the assembly line. Engineering considerations, changes in electronics, changes in the layering of the sensor, the new file spec, a whole new doping process, etc, etc, would greatly increase the cost. Perhaps Kodak/Platinum Group found a way to "neuter" the bayer filters like Nikon did to the AA filter in the D800e? As he said, either way the truth will eventually come to light.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO

  23. #23
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    Bob,

    Do you understand how optics systems are defined for performance testing? 'Sharpness' isn't really defined to my understanding, but 'resolution' is a definable term.

    Sharpness in a print is often considered a combination of resolution and acutance, and is more about perception, not about performance. Hence the purpose for unsharp masks, for example.

    At least that's how I've always interpreted when people use the term sharpness.

    Look here:
    Understanding resolution and MTF


    ---Michael
    Which is why Leica chose the term sharp....they could put ANY number they want on it and make it stick.

    Bob

  24. #24
    Senior Member mjm6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Sacramento, CA
    Posts
    526
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    15

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Bob,

    Yup...

    Thanks everyone for the comments and information... This forum is one of the best our there; highly knowledgeable and friendly people. It's always a pleasure to learn from others with a passion for this, and more knowledge than I.


    ---Michael
    a7r, a7rII, FE 16-35, FE 24-70GM, FE 70-200, Loxia 21mm, 35mm, 50mm

  25. #25
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,804
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by mjm6 View Post
    the claim of higher resolution. We all know that the 100% higher resolution that Leica is claiming is nonsense (why do they do that, I wonder?). I could see 15% better, some people have said 30% better, but it's going to be in that range, not 100%.


    Does anyone have any insight into this?


    ---Michael
    Here Erwin Puts agrees with you....

    Blog

    Bob

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by etrigan63 View Post
    Considering recent history (ie: Nikon's claim that the D800e had no AA filter when, in fact, it has a "neutered" one), I can see why Vivek thinks the way he does. To produce a true monochrome sensor would require more than simply turning off the Bayer Filter Insertion step on the assembly line. Engineering considerations, changes in electronics, changes in the layering of the sensor, the new file spec, a whole new doping process, etc, etc, would greatly increase the cost. Perhaps Kodak/Platinum Group found a way to "neuter" the bayer filters like Nikon did to the AA filter in the D800e? As he said, either way the truth will eventually come to light.
    All of the detectors used with Digital cameras are monochrome in nature, and Silicon based. All of the commercially available detectors use color dye in front of the photo-sensitive elements to produce color. Most do it with a mosaic filter, most using a 2x2 Bayer pattern. Foveon layers three monochrome planes with different color filters in front of each, more like film.

    The alternative would be to fabricate detectors using different material, each with a different spectral response and use a series of beamsplitters for each. No one is doing that. Fabricating a single detector with individual photosensitive sites using different material on the same chip to eliminate the need for a mosaic filter- anybody know how to make one?

    The Leica M9M uses a monochrome detector. It's easy to do, and Kodak has been offering detectors like this for decades. That is the truth, been there, done that with Monochrome cameras and with "color" (multi-spectral) cameras using beam-splitters and detectors with different spectral response.

    The Kodak Sensor Group has offered monochrome sensors for decades.

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    No need to change the drive electronics when these devices were used in the color and monochrome version of the same camera. I have both.
    Last edited by Brian S; 16th May 2012 at 03:21.

  27. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    A different 16MPixel CCD from Kodak that was offered in Color and Monochrome. Part numbers supplied., but the part was recently discontinued. Maybe the KAF-18500 Monochrome did it in.

    Kodak Image Sensor Solutions - KAF-16802

    KAF-16802-CAA-DD-AA
    Color (Bayer RGB), No Microlens, CERDIP Package (sidebrazed, CuW), Clear Cover Glass with AR coating (both sides), Standard Grade

    KAF-16802-CAA-DD-AE
    Color (Bayer RGB), No Microlens, CERDIP Package (sidebrazed, CuW), Clear Cover Glass with AR coating (both sides), Engineering Grade
    KAF-16802-CA

    KAF-16802-AAA-DD-AA
    Monochrome, No Microlens, CERDIP Package (sidebrazed, CuW), Clear Cover Glass with AR coating (both sides), Standard Grade

    KAF-16802-AAA-DD-AE
    Monochrome, No Microlens, CERDIP Package (sidebrazed, CuW), Clear Cover Glass with AR coating (both sides), Engineering Grade
    KAF-16802-AA

  28. #28
    Senior Member bensonga's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    2,416
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    819

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...


  29. #29
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    so out of curiosity, why is Vivek saying there is RGB output from the MM?
    you could create a neutral gray (black and white) composed of RGB values and use the Bayer filter (M9 method), but if you eliminate the Bayer filter and the interpolating and simply record luminance values at each pixel, no need and no native ability to make RGB;
    If the luminance levels need to be represented as RGB values, that would be a simple chart of equal R,G and B values

  30. #30
    Super Duper
    Senior Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    3,676
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by bensonga View Post
    Ben,

    Interestingly I read Pete Myers review when it was first posted on LuLa some time ago It was then that I became so intrigued with the Kodak 760M Monchrome that a number of years later when one of the Kodak-Nikon Varients was actually put of for sale (used), I serious considered it and debated with myself it's purchase for a considerable time.

    Now after the Leica M9M has been announced, I too was perplexed with Leic's proclamation that its monochorme camera is 100% sharper. I was trying to understand exactly what they meant by that and if there was some matamatical or technical explanation how they derived at this figure.

    Less than a week ago I re-read Pete Myers article on the 760M and one line he wrote caught my eye, where he said the following:

    >>>"Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix."<<<

    I won't specifically provide conjecture for exactly what he meant and whether it had anything to do with the figure Leica came up with, but I've been mulling over both his and Leica's statement and trying to get a handle on all of it.

    I appreciate the extremely interesting discussion by everyone in this thread. I've personally have found it both enlightning, informative and yes, even when there is disagreement, it provides a vehicle to grasp a better understanding of some of the technology behind the camera and it's development.

    Dave (D&A)
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Well, this little guy thought the monochrome camera looked cool.



    Resized in Photoshop. R60 filter, Kodak DCS200ir. Circa 1993.



    8-Bit ADC, I am looking forward to the M9M. 6-bits extra. And $4,000 cheaper.
    Last edited by Brian S; 16th May 2012 at 08:34.

  32. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    All of the detectors used with Digital cameras are monochrome in nature, and Silicon based. All of the commercially available detectors use color dye in front of the photo-sensitive elements to produce color. Most do it with a mosaic filter, most using a 2x2 Bayer pattern. Foveon layers three monochrome planes with different color filters in front of each, more like film.

    The alternative would be to fabricate detectors using different material, each with a different spectral response and use a series of beamsplitters for each. No one is doing that. Fabricating a single detector with individual photosensitive sites using different material on the same chip to eliminate the need for a mosaic filter- anybody know how to make one?

    The Leica M9M uses a monochrome detector. It's easy to do, and Kodak has been offering detectors like this for decades. That is the truth, been there, done that with Monochrome cameras and with "color" (multi-spectral) cameras using beam-splitters and detectors with different spectral response.

    The Kodak Sensor Group has offered monochrome sensors for decades.

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    http://www.kodak.com/ek/uploadedFile...uctSummary.pdf

    No need to change the drive electronics when these devices were used in the color and monochrome version of the same camera. I have both.
    Brian, just to clarify - 3CCD color cameras have similar spectral responses in silicon, but filter wheels, interference filters and/or beamsplitters create the discrete RGB data streams.

    The downside of the beamsplitter is that it eats light and some MTF. Filter wheels, while inconvenient and failure-prone, retain sensitivity because a large interference filter can be very efficient. However, there are some spectral shifts across the CCD arising from the way in which interference filter respoonse characteristics interact with incidence angle to the detector.

    All that aside, there is no comparison between a bayer image and one made by a 3CCD camera. I think that is why a discussion of multi-image technologies arose in another topic.

    The M9M is really neat. To tell the truth, I am not a fan of M9 images. To my eye, however, the M images are much better at monochrome than the bayer CCD is at color. I do like the M9M (not enough to buy one). However, thinking of how Leica could create a truly revolutionary camera - put in a microstepper and do multishot. One compact camera could yield color images with the quality of the M9M (which could then be converted to monochrome), or just normal color images (in single mode). That would get me into Leica right quick.

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    The sensor that I worked with in the 1980s used different material for the two-arrays, so the arrays themselves had different spectral response.

    Minolta made a 3 CCD camera in the 90s, all three CCD's were Silicon, color filters in front of each, and beamsplitters used for the image. The Minolta RD-175.

    1995 I

    Hey! I need to send these guys an Email.

    1992

    They left off that Kodak offered the DCS200 in Infrared as well as color and monochrome.

  34. #34
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    Shashin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Florida, USA
    Posts
    4,505
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    141

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by cunim View Post
    All that aside, there is no comparison between a bayer image and one made by a 3CCD camera. I think that is why a discussion of multi-image technologies arose in another topic.
    Here is a comparison of Bayer color and tri-color non-interpolated. Both 100% crops. See the difference? The question is also whether you are seeing a difference in resolution or sharpness/contrast in the M9M.

  35. #35
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    446
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    The sensor that I worked with in the 1980s used different material for the two-arrays, so the arrays themselves had different spectral response.

    Minolta made a 3 CCD camera in the 90s, all three CCD's were Silicon, color filters in front of each, and beamsplitters used for the image. The Minolta RD-175.

    1995 I

    Hey! I need to send these guys an Email.

    1992

    They left off that Kodak offered the DCS200 in Infrared as well as color and monochrome.
    Wow, neat site. Kind of off topic, but I remember going down to Akihabara in the 1990's and picking up a 640x480 Fuji digital camera. I thought it was amazing and everyone marvelled at it when I brought it home. "Look, easy digital!" At least until it died a week later. I think a multishot Leica would give me the same feeling of wonder.

  36. #36
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by D&A View Post
    Now after the Leica M9M has been announced, I too was perplexed with Leic's proclamation that its monochorme camera is 100% sharper. I was trying to understand exactly what they meant by that and if there was some matamatical or technical explanation how they derived at this figure.
    I think the key is they said "100% sharper" not "100% more resolution". Resolution is something that is relatively easy to quantify. I don't think sharpness is. Isn't sharpness essentially perceptual, and based on both resolution and acutance?

    At least that's how I'm reading it The M-M should resolve more than the M9, but not 100% more.

  37. #37
    Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    4,043
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1253

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    my understanding:

    simplified by assuming equal distribution of R.G.B filters, interpolation scheme, blah, blah:

    at each pixel location, luminance is set by that pixel's reading (this is color blind)

    The R,G,B levels are averaged over adjacent pixels and then that average is assigned to the main pixel and output as separate R,G and B values for that pixel. This is the interpolation and since the adjacent pixels are spread out, the actual imaging data is spread out and averaged and therefore reduced in resolution from the total pixel count. there are still the same number of pixels, but, here you go again...the image is not as sharp!

    Now if the MM only uses the luminance value at the main pixel, the resolution would be equal to the pixel count and the image would be sharper than the interpolated version
    Last edited by jlm; 16th May 2012 at 10:32.

  38. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    What surprises me, lots of people end up resizing the color interpolated images to smaller images.

    Is there any software package that combines the 2x2 bayer site into a real RGB pixel? This would effectively make it a 4.5MPixel image without artifacts from moire.

    Take the average of the 2 green pixels, the red, and the blue- get an RGB pixel without interpolation. Of course, this is for the M9 and M8- not the M9M.

  39. #39
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    Is there any software package that combines the 2x2 bayer site into a real RGB pixel? This would effectively make it a 4.5MPixel image without artifacts from moire.
    I'm pretty sure that's what Raw Photo Processor does in one of it's modes.

    Raw Photo Processor (RPP)

  40. #40
    Senior Member Hosermage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Brian, why would you need two green pixels instead of one? This link comes to my mind: sonyalpharumors | Blog | (SR5) New Sony RGBW sensor coming in compact camera by end of the year!, which to me sounds reasonable to allocate 1 of the green to basically BW.

    On the same idea, doesn't that make the single pixel 4 times as big, which I'm sure will lead to other bad things
    David Young
    My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com

  41. #41
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Yes- Looks like RPP "Half" mode combines the pixels of the 2x2 bayer site into one RGB pixel.

  42. #42
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    a "Bayer Pattern Mosaic Filter" has two green pixels. The Sony sensor used in the Coolpix 950 and many others uses a different pattern, has four different colors for the 2x2 Mosaic sites.

    The M9 uses the Bayer pattern (named after the engineer at Kodak that originated it), so the easiest thing to do is to just average the two green cells.

  43. #43
    Senior Member Hosermage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    I see, you're talking about working within the constraints of the current sensor and using a purely software solution. My bad, I should have read more carefully.
    David Young
    My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com

  44. #44
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    The original Kodak KAF-1300 did not use a Bayer pattern, the DCS200c was the first to use it.

    Kodak even made a special mosaic filter for a color infrared camera, a DCS460cir. It basically emulated Infrared Ektachrome. The 2x2 site had dye's that operated in visible and infrared.

    Okay- Leica has come out with the M9M...

    M9cir anyone...

  45. #45
    Senior Member Hosermage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    I got curious and downloaded the RPP software and gave it a go...


    Left is lightroom with original DNG unprocessed viewed at 1:2 scale, and right is the 1:1 view in the RPP software. I think I prefer the left :P
    David Young
    My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com

  46. #46
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    430
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Well that saved me some time writing code!

    The left looks better to me as well. it would be interesting to try on images that suffer from moire.

  47. #47
    Super Duper
    Senior Member
    etrigan63's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Earth, Sol System (near Miami, FL)
    Posts
    2,501
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    21

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    The reason for two green pixels is because we evolved under a Class-G, Dwarf Yellow star. Our eyes filter out yellow naturally. Green is the complement of yellow on the color wheel and the reason plants are green is because it is the most efficient way to absorb yellow light.

    Had we evolved in a star system with a red sun or a blue-white sun things would look very different to us.

    Hmmm, thinking on that, Superman must have a pretty interesting view of the world (when he isn't viewing beyond the visible spectrum). The next time they do a reboot, they might have him diagnosed with some sort of color vision disorder as a kid.
    Carlos Echenique | Carlos Echenique Photography |Olympus OM-D E-M1 MK II | Olympus Pen-F - M.Zuiko 17mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 25mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 45mm f/1.8, Rokinon 12mm f/2 NCS, M.Zuiko 75mm f/1.8, M.Zuiko 12-40mm f/2.8 PRO, M.Zuiko 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  48. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    141
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    Well that saved me some time writing code!

    The left looks better to me as well. it would be interesting to try on images that suffer from moire.
    From the limited amount of time I've played around with RPP, the one thing that struck me is that it would take more than a limited amount of time to get good results out of it. That's not a criticism by the way. Lightroom and ACR handle color and contrast in a way that might initially seem 'better', but at times, I think it's just more saturated/contrasty. As in, I find LR/ACR's defaults to be a bit more 'amped up'.

  49. #49
    Senior Member Hosermage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA, USA
    Posts
    1,034
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: M-M Higher resolution, Really? Thinking this through a bit...

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian S View Post
    it would be interesting to try on images that suffer from moire.
    I tried... it seems my images are too unsharp to produce any moire
    David Young
    My journey into Leica: LeicaLux.com

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •