the monochrom - CCD vs CMOS

[docmoore]

I miscalculated that they would continue to sell a flawed product.

I expected the color and moire issues of M9 would be absent in tne MM but did not expect the exfoliating cover glass. I thought they would have learnt from M9 and fixed it (as they are doing now) instead to selling MM with the same cover glass.

Great learning experience, no doubt.

No

Painful, however most of us are willing to impart a small amount of grace to a company that errs ... but where the limit exists is a personal issue.

Found mine with the S ... but since the only other mono sensor is $57K ... I am willing to put my pride in me pocket ... so to speak.

Have not stepped back into the dance but am not far from it.

And I still maintain that BW conversions from a Bayer are a compromise ... no matter how skilled you are at post process.

As Bilbo Baggins suggested ... “Some believe it is only great power that can hold evil in check, but that is not what I have found.
It is the small everyday deeds of ordinary folk that keep the darkness at bay. Small acts of kindness and love..."

Grace and thankfulness may be the key to a long and perhaps blessed life ....

I am thankful that I have seen all the technological advances that have allowed us to capture the light in so many amazing forms.

Not worth the energy to live with the frustration of empty claims and failed promises.

Bob

 

[Vivek]

And I still maintain that BW conversions from a Bayer are a compromise ... no matter how skilled you are at post process.



Bob

That I fully agree with, Bob.

This was the reason for the MM’s purchase and now the A7RII (m) (monochrome converted A7rII) upgrade.

Grace, blessings, acts of kindness and such in real life experiences and in life and death situations are well outside of the discussions of a piece of camera gear whether they are made of grass or gold.

 

[DezFoto]

Well, since colors don't actually exist, it can only be about perception. But there are standard models for human perception that work very well--hence reproduction photography. And since you recognize that skin needs to be reproduced well, then I imagine you want a certain degree of fidelity. The idea that inaccurate colors are some ideal, even if perceive as more pleasing, is not a great way to work. And this has been true long before digital photography. Digital photography just gives more control over color.

Well, colours are measurable as wavelengths of light, so it's in the scientific realm it's not about perception, it's about absolute measurements. Different companies use different combinations of lens designs, lens coatings, colour filter arrays, analogue to digital converters, firmware, software etc. to try and give you their interpretation of colour. This is why no two cameras give the same colour reproduction, even among the same manufacturer.

You can also put two people in front of the same camera with the same lighting setup seconds apart and while one may have very accurate looking skin tones, the next may look too pink, orange, yellow, magenta, etc. Everyone's skin reflects light differently and thus will not usually look same to a camera as to the eye. Skin tone can even shift when going from soft to hard lighting, even when your macbeth chart reads the same. Then there's also the fact that everyone perceives colour slightly differently, which means as a camera manufacturer you're pretty much chasing your tail.

 

[Oren Grad]

Human eyes are brilliant at doing localised WB adjustment (which cameras still can’t do).

Tangential nitpick, from Ricoh's page for the GR Digital III (thanks to Ricoh for not ruthlessly pruning their website!):

Effective solution for mixed light sources.
Multi-pattern auto white balance

In scenes mixing multiple light sources—such as sunlight and shadow, ambient light and flash—the optimum white balance of each is determined by segmenting the image. For both subject and background, you get well-balanced coloration closer to what you saw while shooting.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/r_dc/gr/gr_digital3/features.html

The Japanese version of the page is clearer about it, in that it doesn't just say the camera will assess each segment, but also says that the corresponding white balance will be applied to each segment respectively (highlighted in red):

ミックス光源に有効な、マルチパターンAUTOホワイトバランス

日向と日陰、フラッシュ光と定常光。このように複数の光源が混在するシーンでも、光源に応じて画面を領域分割し、それぞれに最適なホワイトバランスを適用。被写体と背景、どちらも撮影時の印象に近い色合いで、バランスよく表現できます。

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/dc/gr/digital3/point.html

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

 

[Robert Campbell]

This is what I like about GetDPI. It is the only place where you can talk about color in a thread about monochrome cameras...

Agreed!

Not only that, colour is entirely imaginary, a sort of 'brain illusion', so it's appropriate to discuss this virtually.

But, when discussing 'colour perception' we should have more female voices, for so many of them are biologically (anatomically, genetically) equipped to have better colour discrimination than mere males.

 

[MGrayson]

My kids (who else would want a cat pic? ) asked me why I made the window blue. It was dawn, and I tried to explain that their eyes automatically adjust for the huge color temperature difference. They gave me "Dad is being weird again" stares - which, come to think of it, is exactly what Soup (the cat) is giving me.



Matt

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Tangential nitpick, from Ricoh's page for the GR Digital III (thanks to Ricoh for not ruthlessly pruning their website!):

Effective solution for mixed light sources.
Multi-pattern auto white balance

In scenes mixing multiple light sources—such as sunlight and shadow, ambient light and flash—the optimum white balance of each is determined by segmenting the image. For both subject and background, you get well-balanced coloration closer to what you saw while shooting.

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/r_dc/gr/gr_digital3/features.html

The Japanese version of the page is clearer about it, in that it doesn't just say the camera will assess each segment, but also says that the corresponding white balance will be applied to each segment respectively (highlighted in red):

ミックス光源に有効な、マルチパターンAUTOホワイトバランス

日向と日陰、フラッシュ光と定常光。このように複数の光源が混在するシーンでも、光源に応じて画面を領域分割し、それぞれに最適なホワイトバランスを適用。被写体と背景、どちらも撮影時の印象に近い色合いで、バランスよく表現できます。

http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/japan/dc/gr/digital3/point.html

We now return to our regularly scheduled programming...

Oren, is this something that is done to JPGs only? I don't see how they could apply selective white balance across a raw file, where it is done in postprocessing and DNG files, at least (I forget what Ricoh uses) have only a single place to encode AWB information.

 

[Oren Grad]

Oren, is this something that is done to JPGs only? I don't see how they could apply selective white balance across a raw file, where it is done in postprocessing and DNG files, at least (I forget what Ricoh uses) have only a single place to encode AWB information.

Excellent question, to which I don't know the answer. It's a plausible guess that it's jpg-only, for the reason you say. But unfortunately I've never owned a III nor have I had an opportunity to test one, so I haven't been able to observe for myself what the camera does in that respect, nor am I aware of anyone who has written about it based on evidence rather than just repeating the promotional text. (Links appreciated if anyone knows of such!) But this feature claim by Ricoh was so remarkable and so unusual that I haven't forgotten it.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Excellent question, to which I don't know the answer. It's a plausible guess that it's jpg-only, for the reason you say. But unfortunately I've never owned a III nor have I had an opportunity to test one, so I haven't been able to observe for myself what the camera does in that respect, nor am I aware of anyone who has written about it based on evidence rather than just repeating the promotional text. (Links appreciated if anyone knows of such!) But this feature claim by Ricoh was so remarkable and so unusual that I haven't forgotten it.

I have owned all four Ricoh GR-Ds and the II, III, IV are still working, as far as I know. Let's figure out a test. The GR gets some use (I gave mine to an in-law, and then bought another). It's my Q.

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Re: Does M9 firmware differentiate the new sensor from theold ones?

In reference to a point made several flames back in this thread, I checked the firmware # in my M9, purchaed about 2009 and sensor-upgraded at the last possible moment, in summer 2017. It is 1.216. That version, as well as 1.210, is available for download on the Leica websites, but dated 11/29/17 since it recognizes the Thambar and the 75 Noctilux. I don't have either so I never noticed this. The date on firmware 1.210 is a year earlier. It may be that 1.210 is what came back from Wetzlar last summer and the 1.216 was a recent update, since I just do those when I hear about them without paying much attention. The last firmware update that I saved was 1.98 in 2012. I probably switched to the M[240] around then. So are there still folks around running old sensors and old firmware?

 

[DezFoto]

But, when discussing 'colour perception' we should have more female voices, for so many of them are biologically (anatomically, genetically) equipped to have better colour discrimination than mere males.

This is why a lot of the best colourists (the people who colour grade dailies and finished films) in Hollywood are women.

 

[airfrogusmc]

I have gotten both my M-E and original MM back and I to love both cameras. The M 262 is also a gem. I have both the M 262 and the M 10 and the top on the M 10 seems to be the same chrome plated brass that is on the original MM. Not at all like the M 262. The M 10 is the most responsive of the other 3 cameras I own (MM, M-E and M 262) and also has the best low light capabilities by far. This isn't some abstract it is personal experience with files from all 4 cameras.

The 2nd gen MM seems to be a real gem but I am perfectly happy with the original so I really have not plans to upgrade. Nice to have these choices over all the other cameras out there.

If someone else is happy with their choices good but what i don't like is when someone else tries to convince me of the errors of my ways with my choices. I have said this before I have tried and worked with both professionally and personally with many different cameras and formats. For the way I work and see and the type of work I do professional and personally my choice is a very good fit.

And to the color issue with men and women many men are deficient in the green spectrum. It is very common. Woman as a rule are better at evaluating and judging color than most men. Not always but in most cases. Color and the way we all perceive it is in many cases subjective.

 

[Shashin]

Color and the way we all perceive it is in many cases subjective.

But it is also a skill. And a difficult one where you need to get past the fact that your vision will adapt to whatever color is in front of it--auto WB of the mind. I have found that as photographers develop they get more critical over color. Slight changes that most don't notice are significant for the image. I am not sure it is random either--the more skilled the photographer, the more controlled the color. And not just in single images, but across a body of work. Less experienced photographers seem to prefer higher contrast and saturation.

Color is a really complex topic.

 

[airfrogusmc]

But it is also a skill. And a difficult one where you need to get past the fact that your vision will adapt to whatever color is in front of it--auto WB of the mind. I have found that as photographers develop they get more critical over color. Slight changes that most don't notice are significant for the image. I am not sure it is random either--the more skilled the photographer, the more controlled the color. And not just in single images, but across a body of work. Less experienced photographers seem to prefer higher contrast and saturation.

Color is a really complex topic.

Not saying it's not a skill just that many of us see colors in different ways. You and I might see and perceive say red in a slightly different shade. My wife is a retired graphic designer and any time I need to make sure I have a good color match I always enlist her eyes. Color on a printed page can be vary from color on back lit monitor. Density (light/dark) effects color.

Even with something like pantone things can be perceived differently. Many men do not see subtle changes in greens the way women can. It's a genetic thing. You can't develop a skill in something you can't see.

I printed custom color both professionally and for my personal work (color negative) and printed color work for clients. These days I have to supply clients with mostly color corrected files and designers usually tweak for the final ads, annual reports and other printed pieces. But it is not an exact science because of our individual perceptions, materials used, etc.

 

[Shashin]

Not saying it's not a skill just that many of us see colors in different ways.

But is it significant? I had a color blind student. By looking at his work, you could not tell. If you look through this forum, there is far more similarity among the color than there are differences. But you can also tell by looking when a photographer might bias that color and the consistency of that bias. I am not saying that color is not subjective, it is as subjective as sound perception, but musicians are able to tune their instruments. To say that color perception is as random as personal taste is not supported by science, one reason AWB works so well in machines that perceive color very differently from the human eye and people color manage their workflow. The fact that there is color blindness in a population or some can actually perceive mores color than average (tetrachromats) does not mean the experience of color is simply a preference unique to an individual. If that were the case, then we would never be able to agree that grass is pink and the sky purple...

 

[airfrogusmc]

Will it can be especially if you can't see subtle difference between say pantone 5807 and pantone 5797 and someone else can.

This is a monochrom thread though so I guess we should get back on topic. I am VERY happy my MM is back and functioning correctly.

 

[Robert Campbell]

The fact that there is color blindness in a population or some can actually perceive mores color than average (tetrachromats) does not mean the experience of color is simply a preference unique to an individual.

Women have two copies of the X chromosome, and in perhaps 20% - 50% of them they have more than one 'green' cone. A few even seen to have five cones.

However, the cones don't perceive colours. Cones respond to wavelengths in the electro-magnetic spectrum in a rather bell-curve. Maximal response at one wavelength, but some response to wavelengths on either side. The theory is that those women with four 'green' cones have two that respond maximally to slightly different wavelengths which gives them the ability to discriminate between subtlety different shades. (As we don't have receptors that can detect IR or UV wavelengths, or even radio wavelengths, so we can't 'see' them.)

Colour 'perception' is a brain function, with the brain colouring different wavelengths to make it easier for us to separate them. In evolutionary terms, the advantage seems to be in detecting fruit that is safe to eat from the poisonous stuff, and knowing when food goes 'off'. It's also been suggested that men blush slightly when telling porkies; men can't see the colour change, but many women can...

Which all implies that the natural world is in reality greyscale — colour is imaginary.

And therefore the camera that captures in world in the most accurate way is the Monochrom. (And everything else is faking it.)

 

[algrove]

Let's just go out and take B&W images for this monochrom thread.

 

[DwF]

Let's just go out and take B&W images for this monochrom thread.

I'll post to that -here's to shooting Monochrom!

 

[algrove]

Me too