pmeheut wrote:
1 more EV of dynamic range and smaller files, i.e. less SD card space, disk space and computer power to process images when one does not need 60 Mpix.
They're advertising greater dynamic range with less information captured on the same sensor? That's quite a trick. I wish Sony could manage that on their line-skipped video output in the r series.
As for the space savings, you could accomplish that with a simple down-rez process when writing the DNG in camera. That's something software's been doing very well for many years now. This feels like grabbing a sledgehammer when a flyswatter will do.
freaklikeme wrote:
The pixel-binning modes are interesting. Is it a necessary feature? Are they concerned about people's continued pleasure with their beloved film-era lenses on such a high resolution sensor that they felt they had to offer lower res options? Otherwise, I'm not seeing the up-side given the amount of engineering it took to integrate it.
Canon cameras have had multiple raw resolutions available for years. Someone had said that this is different, but in reality I question what the real differences. It isn’t as useful on a 20-30mp camera because the megapixel count isn’t that high. But if you were going to shoot raw 60 megapixels that starts to add up to a lot of memory. Sometimes you don’t need 60 megapixels. Most of the time you don’t need 60 megapixels. So what are you to do if you don’t want 60 MB or so files? Shoot JPEG? And lose your ability to edit as well? So shoot with one of the lower resolutions and keep the raw processing ability, but don’t end up needing a NAS drive array at home.
LBJ2 wrote:
I've been wondering about the SL2 sensor read out speed. Where did you find the 1 second info?
For clarification the 1 second refers to the maximum exposure time on the SL2 when using electronic shutter, not the read out speed. It's the same on the Panasonic S1R. So for exposures longer than one second you need to use the mechanical shutter on the SL2.
freaklikeme wrote:
They're advertising greater dynamic range with less information captured on the same sensor? That's quite a trick. I wish Sony could manage that on their line-skipped video output in the r series.
As for the space savings, you could accomplish that with a simple down-rez process when writing the DNG in camera. That's something software's been doing very well for many years now. This feels like grabbing a sledgehammer when a flyswatter will do.
Pixel binning allows less noise per site and so a bit more usable DR because the noise floor is higher. Take any high res raw file and do the same in PS and you'll get a similar benifit.
I think the M11 is down rezzing when writing the smaller DNG's. I don't think it's hardware at all. Leica are touting their special algorithm for downsampling the bayer file. I haven't seen any mention of hardware binning from a reliable source.
freaklikeme wrote:
Nope, just trying to figure out the point of the feature.
When I shot Canon (many eons ago), we'd use the mRAW settings at wedding receptions for dancing etc and then the full raw for the serious stuff. Even then it sped up the workflow after the event. Files moved and loaded quicker. It was a noticable benifit. It's a feature I've missed in other systems.
Likely though Leica need to appeal to the few who already think the M10R files are too big. There will be some marketing in there for sure. Plus we're all talking about it. Exactly what a camera release wants.
Finally it allows Leica to simplify their range. If this tech moves to the SL then we won't have a SL3-S. Just an SL3. Less stuff to make the easier it is, especially with the current supply chain issues.
Unless I'm missing something, hardware binning means you combine multiple pixels into a single pixel. That means you can convert 2x2 = 4 into 1 pixel, 3x3 = 9 into 1 pixel, 4x4 = 16 into 1 pixel, etc. Well, actually instead of pixel you use the 2x2 Bayer matrix (2 green pixels, 1 blue, 1 red), because otherwise you would mix pixels of different colors, but still, thats the principle. Its mostly useful for supporting video, really, when you have to read the data from the sensor much faster and you need a lot less pixels.
But not freely reduce resolution. There is no way to get from 60 Megapixel to 36 and 18 Megapixel by combining just pixels, unless the actual pixels available are actually much, much, much higher. So for that you need an algorithm after the a/d converter, not simple hardware on the sensor itself.
freaklikeme wrote:
Nope, just trying to figure out the point of the feature.
I guess where one knows one isn't going to need to resolution? Some may have better mental organization than me and intentionally decide they don't need their cat at 60MP
flash wrote:
When I shot Canon (many eons ago), we'd use the mRAW settings at wedding receptions for dancing etc and then the full raw for the serious stuff.
I watched the YouTube M11 review/first impressions of Benj Haisch the other day.
He was talking along the same lines for weddings: 60MP for the big moments that you might want to print big, 18MP for the dancing and 36MP for all the rest...
Jan 17, 2022 at 09:57 AM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
pmeheut wrote:
1 more EV of dynamic range and smaller files, i.e. less SD card space, disk space and computer power to process images when one does not need 60 Mpix.
You can probably get that extra EV of dynamic range by downsizing the 60 MP files to the size of the smaller files (downsizing does make noise less prominent and therefore improves DR). We will see how that pans out as real tests of the camera can be made. If that is true, then the sole advantage is smaller files, which may be important some times. I would also like to see tests of the smaller files upscaled to 60 MP to see how much is lost (if anything) by selecting the smaller file size. I expect there will be some loss there, but with a good upscaling program it might be less than one would think.
stgrove wrote:
So I have been trying to see what differences occur in C1 processing an M10R file with the M10R profile and an M11 file with the generic dng profile.
Nothing extreme done in either image except for h/l down 100, shadows +18, mid levels -.30 (M11) and -0.15 (M10R) and haze +10.
A heads don't do a lot variant creation or post work on a C1 catalog of M11 files and hope that when C1 has a profile for the M11 all will be okay.
When the M10M was released C1 didn't have a profile for the M10M but it recognized the M10M as the camera and read the files fine everything worked until fine.
When C1 released the profile for the M10M all the M10M images became corrupted when opening the catalog. The files were recoverable but any cerated variant or processing was lost. A few of us had reported it to the folks at Capture One. Hopefully it doesn't happen with the M11 but be careful.
burningheart wrote:
A heads don't do a lot variant creation or post work on a C1 catalog of M11 files and hope that when C1 has a profile for the M11 all will be okay.
When the M10M was released C1 didn't have a profile for the M10M but it recognized the M10M as the camera and read the files fine everything worked until fine.
When C1 released the profile for the M10M all the M10M images became corrupted when opening the catalog. The files were recoverable but any cerated variant or processing was lost. A few of us had reported it to the folks at Capture One. Hopefully it doesn't happen with the M11 but be careful....Show more →
Steve Spencer wrote:
You can probably get that extra EV of dynamic range by downsizing the 60 MP files to the size of the smaller files
...
"probably" ?
How "probable", do you think, is 1+1=2 ?
Likewise, when I have four pixels with 14 db of signal to noise and take the average, I get a single pixel with 16 db of signal to noise. Because the signal, being an actual signal and not a random distribution, gets stronger, but the noise, being completely random, is as likely to cancel each other out as to amplify, so it stays at the same level in total.
Likewise, when I have four pixels with 14 db of signal to noise and take the average, I get a single pixel with 16 db of signal to noise. Because the signal, being an actual signal and not a random distribution, gets stronger, but the noise, being completely random, is as likely to cancel each other out as to amplify, so it stays at the same level in total.
Should be the same or similar. Downsize in camera or software with RAW file should achieve similar results.
This Leica feature is one of biggest reason I love this new camera personally. I don't want 60M file for each click period. At iso 800, the real resolution might already drop to half due to noise. And for me, I edit picked photo in 100%, at pixel level, 60M sucks compare to 18M (pixel binning one), and I am sure I cant nail focus at f1.4 or even f2 at portrait distance at 60M pixel level with rangefinder. (shooting landscape f5.6 or infinity focus is different story that I can turn on 60M easily ) Seeing those out of focus images sink my heart during editing
Not deny the entry ticket price for M, but nowadays, only Leica have the "innovation" for me such as this and internal 64G, electronic stabilized EVF or LCD etc....As I said, IQ reach its plateau (or close enough) a while ago but I will always upgrade with shooting experience side if possible.
Jan 17, 2022 at 02:30 PM
Steve Spencer Online • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Likewise, when I have four pixels with 14 db of signal to noise and take the average, I get a single pixel with 16 db of signal to noise. Because the signal, being an actual signal and not a random distribution, gets stronger, but the noise, being completely random, is as likely to cancel each other out as to amplify, so it stays at the same level in total.
I don't doubt that downscaling will increase the dynamic range, but will downscaling in post get as much of an increase in dynamic range as the downscaling in camera that Leica is using? I think it probably will, but that part is something that needs to be tested. That is the part where I am saying probably.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't doubt that downscaling will increase the dynamic range, but will downscaling in post get as much of an increase in dynamic range as the downscaling in camera that Leica is using? I think it probably will, but that part is something that needs to be tested. That is the part where I am saying probably.
The answer is yes, *if* the software you use is as good as what Leica has written for the in camera process. Basically you'll be testing which software is better, which I'm sure many will do. Me? I'm really just interested in the file sizes on the card.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Is there a post-processing software that accomplishes something similar to pixel binning and gives a DNG file?
Isn't direct access to the Bayer array on the sensor needed to do the kind of binning the M11 is doing? I thought anything done to the 60mp DNG would be downsampling because the choices as to how to interpret the data coming off the Bayer array have already been made.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Isn't direct access to the Bayer array on the sensor needed to do the kind of binning the M11 is doing? I thought anything done to the 60mp DNG would be downsampling because the choices as to how to interpret the data coming off the Bayer array have already been made.
Yes, I think you are right. Perhaps technically not binning but a post-processing app that reduces the file size but still provides a DNG file?
