Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Leica R Digital module

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 1:49:11 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Anyone seen any news of final release ?
Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...

=bob=

More about : leica digital module

June 18, 2005 1:49:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote in message
news:42b36173$0$11343$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> Anyone seen any news of final release ?
> Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...
>
> =bob=
>
>
Perhaps their recent financial woes have caused some delay.
Jim
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:06:22 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
> "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:

>> Anyone seen any news of final release ?
>> Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...
>>
> Perhaps their recent financial woes have caused some delay.

Perhaps the realization that the specs are a joke is causing them to delay
it. It's a 1.37x crop factor (high enough to mess up wide angle, not large
enough to make telephoto lenses significantly more fun), 10MP, no-AA-filter
Bayer sensor (a seriously bad idea). At least it's got microlenses.

If you own Leica SLR glass, you'd be much better off getting a 1Dsmk2 and
lens adaptors. No crop factor, 25% better (linear) resolution, far better
high-ISO performance (if other Kodak sensors are any indication).

Heck, between the lack of an AA filter and the Kodak sensor, you'd be better
off with a 350D.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Related resources
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 3:06:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Friday 17 June 2005 19:06, David J. Littleboy wrote:

>
> "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
>
>>> Anyone seen any news of final release ?
>>> Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...
>>>
>> Perhaps their recent financial woes have caused some delay.
>
> Perhaps the realization that the specs are a joke is causing them to
> delay it. It's a 1.37x crop factor (high enough to mess up wide angle,
> not large enough to make telephoto lenses significantly more fun),
> 10MP, no-AA-filter Bayer sensor (a seriously bad idea). At least it's
> got microlenses.

Was at Leica's web site last night reading about the module. (I'm too
poor to buy one or a Leica R, but I can read about it. ;-) ) Yes. No
AA filter, but in-camera software is used to compensate for the lack of
one. Whether that will truly be effective remains to be seen.
Besides, having one would compromise the micro-lens filter in front of
the CCD used to correct off-axis illumination fall-off due to the
Cosine Effect.

So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
effects of any design compromises.

--
Stefan Patric
NoLife Polymath Group
tootek2@yahoo.com
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 7:35:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
> On Friday 17 June 2005 19:06, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>>>
>>> Perhaps their recent financial woes have caused some delay.
>>
>> Perhaps the realization that the specs are a joke is causing them to
>> delay it. It's a 1.37x crop factor (high enough to mess up wide angle,
>> not large enough to make telephoto lenses significantly more fun),
>> 10MP, no-AA-filter Bayer sensor (a seriously bad idea). At least it's
>> got microlenses.
>
> Was at Leica's web site last night reading about the module. (I'm too
> poor to buy one or a Leica R, but I can read about it. ;-) ) Yes. No
> AA filter, but in-camera software is used to compensate for the lack of
> one. Whether that will truly be effective remains to be seen.

Anyone who knows the math can assure you that it can't possibly be. The
reason aliasing is nasty is that you can't differentiate between an alias of
a high frequency and a real signal in the pass band.

> Besides, having one would compromise the micro-lens filter in front of
> the CCD used to correct off-axis illumination fall-off due to the
> Cosine Effect.

That's two new items that no one's ever heard before: (1) that the
microlenses have anything to do with the cosine^4 falloff (they're about
improving the fill factor; if anything, they are blamed for aggravating
cosine^4 problems), and (2) that AA filters are problematic with
microlenses.

> So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
> flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
> done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
> effects of any design compromises.

We've already seen the disaster Moire is on the Kodak and MF backs. Sure,
some people are in denial about it, but if you start looking around, you'll
find more an more people recognizing it as a problem. I really don't see how
one could shoot anything with fabric in it in a studio context with a non-AA
filter camera. And that's the main use for those cameras.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:24:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 90fj9$aol$1@nnrp.gol.com...
>
> "Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote:
SNIP
>> No AA filter, but in-camera software is used to compensate for the
>> lack of one. Whether that will truly be effective remains to be
>> seen.
>
> Anyone who knows the math can assure you that it can't possibly be.
> The reason aliasing is nasty is that you can't differentiate between
> an alias of a high frequency and a real signal in the pass band.

That's right. Aliases of too high spatial frequencies, manifest
themselves as larger structures, mixed with real sampled content. They
cannot be separated reliably after the sampling took place.
There are some possibilities for reducing some of the visibility of
related false color artifacts, but that's only a partial solution for
something that should have been avoided in the first place.
GIGO (Garbage in Garbage out) still applies.

>> Besides, having one would compromise the micro-lens filter in front
>> of the CCD used to correct off-axis illumination fall-off due to
>> the Cosine Effect.
>
> That's two new items that no one's ever heard before: (1) that the
> microlenses have anything to do with the cosine^4 falloff (they're
> about improving the fill factor; if anything, they are blamed for
> aggravating cosine^4 problems), and (2) that AA filters are
> problematic with microlenses.

New to me as well, and I don't believe it.
The microlenses improve the fill-factor and thus sensitivity and it
also reduces (not eliminates but reduces) a bit of the natural
aliasing tendency of regular discrete sampled images/signals.
The shape of the microlenses should also improve part of the
vignetting tendency, if the shape accommodates for the angle of
incidence (which could however make the dependency on lens design more
critical). Some vignetting is a natural phenomenon due to the longer
distance light rays have to travel to the corners (again, depends also
on lens design).
http://146.201.224.61/primer/digitalimaging/concepts/mi...

Bart
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 8:43:38 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Yeah, I saw a few pictures taken with 20D with adapted Carl Zeiss lens .
They are just breathtaking !
http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?t=116970&high...




"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 900fb$5tf$1@nnrp.gol.com...

> If you own Leica SLR glass, you'd be much better off getting a 1Dsmk2 and
> lens adaptors. No crop factor, 25% better (linear) resolution, far better
> high-ISO performance (if other Kodak sensors are any indication).
June 18, 2005 8:57:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stefan Patric" <writeme@addressbelow.com> wrote in message
news:f9Ose.1623$Lr4.1158@fed1read03...
> On Friday 17 June 2005 19:06, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>
> >
> > "Jim" <j.n@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> "[BnH]" <b18[at]ii[dot]net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Anyone seen any news of final release ?
> >>> Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...
> >>>
> >> Perhaps their recent financial woes have caused some delay.
> >
> > Perhaps the realization that the specs are a joke is causing them to
> > delay it. It's a 1.37x crop factor (high enough to mess up wide angle,
> > not large enough to make telephoto lenses significantly more fun),
> > 10MP, no-AA-filter Bayer sensor (a seriously bad idea). At least it's
> > got microlenses.
>
> Was at Leica's web site last night reading about the module. (I'm too
> poor to buy one or a Leica R, but I can read about it. ;-) ) Yes. No
> AA filter, but in-camera software is used to compensate for the lack of
> one. Whether that will truly be effective remains to be seen.
> Besides, having one would compromise the micro-lens filter in front of
> the CCD used to correct off-axis illumination fall-off due to the
> Cosine Effect.
>
> So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
> flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
> done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
> effects of any design compromises.
>
The best place for an AA filter is before the sensor. A software filter
will require significant processor power and time as well.
Jim
Anonymous
June 18, 2005 9:49:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Jim wrote:
[]
> The best place for an AA filter is before the sensor. A software
> filter will require significant processor power and time as well.
> Jim

An AA filter /must/ be before the sampling (sensor), otheriwse it's too
late and the alias artefacts has already been created.

David
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:06:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

[BnH] wrote:
> Anyone seen any news of final release ?
> Strange .. I thought Leica specified 15 June as the launch date ...

(I have no such news).

Here are some Raw images from this module. They are in DNG format, of
course. They can be opened in ACR 2.4, or ACR 3.1, or be processed by
Dave Coffin's software.

http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
June 20, 2005 12:15:10 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stefan Patric wrote:
[snip]
> Was at Leica's web site last night reading about the module. (I'm too
> poor to buy one or a Leica R, but I can read about it. ;-) ) Yes. No
> AA filter, but in-camera software is used to compensate for the lack of
> one. Whether that will truly be effective remains to be seen.
> Besides, having one would compromise the micro-lens filter in front of
> the CCD used to correct off-axis illumination fall-off due to the
> Cosine Effect.
>
> So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
> flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
> done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
> effects of any design compromises.

It is interesting, and relevant, that the software delivered with the
Leica DMR to process Raw, TIFF, and JPEG files, is Photoshop Elements
3.0. Not a Leica-specific product.

I've done Raw conversions of the Leica's images using ACR 2.4 under
Photoshop CS (which accepts DNG, used by Leica), and ACR 3.1 under
Photoshop CS2 (DNG again). (Using downloaded images - I don't have this
module!). I didn't spot AA problems - but I doubt if I have the skills
to do so, compared with others posting here.

http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 5:01:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
>> flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
>> done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
>> effects of any design compromises.
>
> It is interesting, and relevant, that the software delivered with the
> Leica DMR to process Raw, TIFF, and JPEG files, is Photoshop Elements
> 3.0. Not a Leica-specific product.
>
> I've done Raw conversions of the Leica's images using ACR 2.4 under
> Photoshop CS (which accepts DNG, used by Leica), and ACR 3.1 under
> Photoshop CS2 (DNG again). (Using downloaded images - I don't have this
> module!). I didn't spot AA problems - but I doubt if I have the skills
> to do so, compared with others posting here.

Just shoot Bart's star target that he uses here.

http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/foto/scan/se5400/se5...

(Bart has nice clean files with that target for 300/600 and 360/720 printers
somewhere on his site, I think.)

Note that you should compare the Leica images to 300D and 70D images: it may
not be all that much worse<g>, since both those cameras have rather weak AA
filters.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 3:29:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:D 97f2p$629$1@nnrp.gol.com...
SNIP
> (Bart has nice clean files with that target for 300/600 and 360/720
> printers somewhere on his site, I think.)

Yes, as separate downloads at:
For HP/Canon inkjet printers (3.8MB):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Jtf60cy-10...
For Epson inkjet printers (5.3MB):
http://www.xs4all.nl/~bvdwolf/main/downloads/Jtf60cy-10...

Print it at the indicated ppi *without* printer or color management
enhancements on glossy Photopaper which should produce a 100x100mm
target, and shoot it with your (digi)cam from a (non-critical)
distance like between 25-50x the focal length (the larger distance is
better in compensating for lower quality prints).

Bart
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 6:50:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> >>
> >> So, before concluding that the lack of an AA filter is a serious design
> >> flaw, let's wait until the module is actually out, evalutions have been
> >> done, and images have been posted, then we can fairly judge it and the
> >> effects of any design compromises.
> >
> > It is interesting, and relevant, that the software delivered with the
> > Leica DMR to process Raw, TIFF, and JPEG files, is Photoshop Elements
> > 3.0. Not a Leica-specific product.
> >
> > I've done Raw conversions of the Leica's images using ACR 2.4 under
> > Photoshop CS (which accepts DNG, used by Leica), and ACR 3.1 under
> > Photoshop CS2 (DNG again). (Using downloaded images - I don't have this
> > module!). I didn't spot AA problems - but I doubt if I have the skills
> > to do so, compared with others posting here.
>
> Just shoot Bart's star target that he uses here.
[snip]
> Note that you should compare the Leica images to 300D and 70D images: it may
> not be all that much worse<g>, since both those cameras have rather weak AA
> filters.

I can't shoot such a target, because I don't have the Module. I
downloaded the images I tried from:
http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/

But a question I have is: "can the effect of an AA filter be simulated
post-capture by firmware/software?"

I realise that some things have to be done pre-capture. You can't
simulate the effects of a polarising filter, because the polarisation
is lost by the time the sensor data is captured. Essential information
has been lost.

But does a similar principle apply for an AA filter? In theory, could
relatively unintelligent processing of the Raw sensor data achieve
similar effects? (I could think of arguments why not, but my arguments
would probably also rule out colour interpolation from Bayer sensors,
so I am dubious about them!)

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
Anonymous
June 21, 2005 7:05:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Barry Pearson wrote:

> But a question I have is: "can the effect of an AA filter be simulated
> post-capture by firmware/software?"

Once out-of-band signals are mixed ("aliased") into the bandpass by the
sampler, short of some model or other compromises you wish to make, the
answer to your question is "no".
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 2:27:52 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> writes:

>But a question I have is: "can the effect of an AA filter be simulated
>post-capture by firmware/software?"

Not if your output file has the same number of pixels as the sensor.
The job of the AA filter is to suppress high-frequency information that
will turn into (incorrect) low-frequency information in the output
image. Once that has happened, you cannot separate aliased (wrong)
detail from real (correct) detail. It's too late.

On the other hand, if you want to simulate the effect of different AA
filters, you can take an image captured at high resolution and
downsample it. If you start with (say) a 16 MP original image and
reduce it to 1 MP, then the reduction step includes its own
anti-aliasing. With a 4:1 reduction in image scale, the final result
primarily shows the effect of the digital antialiasing. The effect of
the original AA filter in the camera is mostly irrelevant, because the
image information that it acted on has been removed by the
downsampling.

>But does a similar principle apply for an AA filter? In theory, could
>relatively unintelligent processing of the Raw sensor data achieve
>similar effects?

No, because once you've sampled the continuous image into a set of
discrete points, any aliasing that happened can't be separated from real
image detail that you want to keep.

Dave
Anonymous
June 22, 2005 1:01:00 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
> David J. Littleboy wrote:
>>
>> Just shoot Bart's star target that he uses here.
> [snip]
>> Note that you should compare the Leica images to 300D and 70D images: it
>> may
>> not be all that much worse<g>, since both those cameras have rather weak
>> AA
>> filters.
>
> I can't shoot such a target, because I don't have the Module. I
> downloaded the images I tried from:
> http://www.leicaphoto.net/Download/DMR_Raw/
>
> But a question I have is: "can the effect of an AA filter be simulated
> post-capture by firmware/software?"

The answer here is an emphatic no. In aliasing, the sensor samples a higher
frequency at too low a period, so it "sees" a much lower frequency. This
lower frequency is called an "alias".

You can't tell the difference between an alias and a correct response to a
real signal that's within the pass band of the sensor.

> I realise that some things have to be done pre-capture. You can't
> simulate the effects of a polarising filter, because the polarisation
> is lost by the time the sensor data is captured. Essential information
> has been lost.

Good analogy!

> But does a similar principle apply for an AA filter? In theory, could
> relatively unintelligent processing of the Raw sensor data achieve
> similar effects? (I could think of arguments why not, but my arguments
> would probably also rule out colour interpolation from Bayer sensors,
> so I am dubious about them!)

See above. Do a Google search for "discrete sampling" and aliasing and/or
Nyquist.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
Anonymous
June 27, 2005 5:46:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

David J. Littleboy wrote:
> "Barry Pearson" <news@childsupportanalysis.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> > But a question I have is: "can the effect of an AA filter be simulated
> > post-capture by firmware/software?"
>
> The answer here is an emphatic no. In aliasing, the sensor samples a higher
> frequency at too low a period, so it "sees" a much lower frequency. This
> lower frequency is called an "alias".
>
> You can't tell the difference between an alias and a correct response to a
> real signal that's within the pass band of the sensor.
>
> > I realise that some things have to be done pre-capture. You can't
> > simulate the effects of a polarising filter, because the polarisation
> > is lost by the time the sensor data is captured. Essential information
> > has been lost.
>
> Good analogy!
>
> > But does a similar principle apply for an AA filter? In theory, could
> > relatively unintelligent processing of the Raw sensor data achieve
> > similar effects? (I could think of arguments why not, but my arguments
> > would probably also rule out colour interpolation from Bayer sensors,
> > so I am dubious about them!)
>
> See above. Do a Google search for "discrete sampling" and aliasing and/or
> Nyquist.

Thanks to you and the others. I now see that, like the example of the
polarising filter, the problem is "simply" that essential information
(high frequencies) is never captured, therefore it isn't possible even
in theory to do certain types of post-capture recovery.

--
Barry Pearson
http://www.barry.pearson.name/photography/
http://www.birdsandanimals.info/
!