I have just resized a 61MP raw file to 24MP and ended up with a DNG file (much lower in noise)
The only downsize is that "Use Lossy Compression" must be checked for this to work.
the raw file size changed from 62 MB (61MP) to 9.3 MB (24MP)
Fred Miranda wrote:
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?
You might search some Astro imaging forums – sounds like something they might discuss.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just realized this can be done in LR:
I have just resized a 61MP raw file to 24MP and ended up with a DNG file (much lower in noise)
The only downsize is that "Use Lossy Compression" must be checked for this to work.
Fred Miranda wrote:
Is there a post-processing software that performs DNG pixel binning?
Where do Leica say it's pixel binning? All I can find from Leica is things like this.
"Stay flexible and choose from 60, 36 or 18 Megapixel resolution for DNG and JPG: The exclusively developed Full Frame BSI CMOS Sensor with Triple Resolution Technology in the M11 is a masterpiece of imaging technology."
Triple Resolution Technology, doesn't mean binning, necessarily. And if they do how do they bin from 60 to 36MP? That's a wierd ratio for pixel binning. Me thinks it's likely to be a down res solution at the write to card phase. Just like Canon do on the 1Dx cameras.
Reviewers are assuming it's binning. But that's not coming from Leica.
They also mention that the sensor is developed *exclusively* for the M11, what ever that means.
highdesertmesa wrote:
Cool! I didn't know that existed.
According to this thread, the 'lossy compression' is not a big deal and although there is data loss from compression, it's not really an issue when pushing the shadows/highlights in post. There is also no artifacts similar to converting a raw file to jpeg.
The benefit is getting a DNG file with 1/3 the original size and lower resolution when needed. In my example I went from 61MP to 24MP.
For the first time ever on a Leica digital camera, the M11 offers variable resolution with hardware-based pixel binning and smart remapping of the Bayer filter array.
I want to get my first M camera but the fact that the black version of the M11 does not have the top plate in brass is very disappointing, I actually like the heavy feeling. I'm wondering if maybe I should wait to see if the price of the M10-R drops a bit and go for that instead. I'm not really sure I need 60mpx and not having IBIS has me a little worried about shooting at night with slower shutter speeds. Same time it would be nice to have the latest and greatest.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I just realized this can be done in LR:
I have just resized a 61MP raw file to 24MP and ended up with a DNG file (much lower in noise)
The only downsize is that "Use Lossy Compression" must be checked for this to work.
You mean less noise per pixel right, not if we are comparing images at the same print/view size
(I know you know that, just thought that some people might think shrinking the DNG would produce magic image level noise reduction)
leetmode wrote:
I want to get my first M camera but the fact that the black version of the M11 does not have the top plate in brass is very disappointing, I actually like the heavy feeling. I'm wondering if maybe I should wait to see if the price of the M10-R drops a bit and go for that instead. I'm not really sure I need 60mpx and not having IBIS has me a little worried about shooting at night with slower shutter speeds. Same time it would be nice to have the latest and greatest.
M10-R color is one of my all time favorites, right there next to the original Q. The black chrome on brass feels great. I'm thinking about getting a discounted M10-R, at least until the M11 Safari or Black Paint editions come around, both of which should be brass.
But there is also no reason why the current M11 paint could not be applied to brass for the M11-P. It's the same kind of anti-scratch paint used for the M10-P Reporter (brass), where it had a much more premium feel than when applied to my Q2 Reporter (aluminum).
highdesertmesa wrote:
M10-R color is one of my all time favorites, right there next to the original Q. The black chrome on brass feels great. I'm thinking about getting a discounted M10-R, at least until the M11 Safari or Black Paint editions come around, both of which should be brass.
But there is also no reason why the current M11 paint could not be applied to brass for the M11-P. It's the same kind of anti-scratch paint used for the M10-P Reporter (brass), where it had a much more premium feel than when applied to my Q2 Reporter (aluminum).
+1 ... wonder about the M11-P.
Wish it wouldn't be so long till we learn about it ... but, maybe the M10-R will be sufficient step up from my M-P (240). Too bad we can't fast forward the crystal ball.
leetmode wrote:
I want to get my first M camera but the fact that the black version of the M11 does not have the top plate in brass is very disappointing, I actually like the heavy feeling. I'm wondering if maybe I should wait to see if the price of the M10-R drops a bit and go for that instead. I'm not really sure I need 60mpx and not having IBIS has me a little worried about shooting at night with slower shutter speeds. Same time it would be nice to have the latest and greatest.
Someone said that maybe the ‘P’ version in black will be brass. Frankly, for a carry camera, I wouldn’t mind a 1/4 difference in weight.
Wish it wouldn't be so long till we learn about it ... but, maybe the M10-R will be sufficient step up from my M-P (240). Too bad we can't fast forward the crystal ball.
The M10-R is a step up even from the M10-P, at least with regard to image quality, IMO. But you're going to take a 60% hit to battery capacity moving from the M-P 240 to any M10 variant. With the M11, you wouldn't be losing anything, so it might be a more logical jump.
anselwannab wrote:
Someone said that maybe the ‘P’ version in black will be brass. Frankly, for a carry camera, I wouldn’t mind a 1/4 difference in weight.
20% reduction in weight, but point taken. My issue is I will be using a black chrome brass lens sometimes, and I think it may feel front-heavy and the black finishes may look and feel strange together.
Kind of like Leica made my decision easy this time. Will get silver one to match silver glasses. (Though I don’t mind black body with silver glass actually)
I don't really mind weight and love the dense feeling.
flash wrote:
They also mention that the sensor is developed *exclusively* for the M11, what ever that means.
Thats perfectly normal.
All digital Leica M's (with the possible exception of the M8 ? Not sure about that one) have sensors exclusively developed for them. Finer structures(1), variable size micro lenses(2), very thin sensor glas(3), and possibly even more, just so they can handle steep angles of incidence of the light better than any other digital sensor.
While Leica SL line uses regular sensors that cannot handle as steep angles of incidence of the light as the Leica M sensors.
Thats why if you want to use Leica M glas there is no better camera than an original digital Leica M for that.
(1): Not sure if current Leica M sensors still actually have finer structures than the competition. In the past that definitely was the case. With backlit technology though its probably no longer necessary.
(2): Leica has a patent on variable size micro lenses, which is why the competition cannot make sensors like that.
(3): While everybody else including Leica SL has thick sensor glas because then dust on the sensor glas is less likely to show up on the recorded image.
zhangyue wrote:
Kind of like Leica made my decision easy this time. Will get silver one to match silver glasses. (Though I don’t mind black body with silver glass actually)
I don't really mind weight and love the dense feeling.
I was always a stickler for black lenses and black bodies until I put a Summicron Rigid on a black M246 and realised how much I liked that look.
All digital Leica M's (with the possible exception of the M8 ? Not sure about that one) have sensors exclusively developed for them. Finer structures(1), variable size micro lenses(2), very thin sensor glas(3), and possibly even more, just so they can handle steep angles of incidence of the light better than any other digital sensor.
While Leica SL line uses regular sensors that cannot handle as steep angles of incidence of the light as the Leica M sensors.
Thats why if you want to use Leica M glas there is no better camera than an original digital Leica M for that.
(1): Not sure if current Leica M sensors still actually have finer structures than the competition. In the past that definitely was the case. With backlit technology though its probably no longer necessary.
(2): Leica has a patent on variable size micro lenses, which is why the competition cannot make sensors like that.
(3): While everybody else including Leica SL has thick sensor glas because then dust on the sensor glas is less likely to show up on the recorded image....Show more →
The SL series has thin cover glass. Not as thin as the M but half of the Sony and three times than the older Nikon DSLRs. They also have a modified microlens array to improve M glass usage. They're the best besides a Kolari modified sensor.
Leica mention a new cover glass bonding process in the M11 release but don't specify thickness. From memory the SL was 1mm and Sony was 2mm. M's were about 0.6mm. I'd have to look it up to confirm exact numbers.
All digital Leica M's (with the possible exception of the M8 ? Not sure about that one) have sensors exclusively developed for them. Finer structures(1), variable size micro lenses(2), very thin sensor glas(3), and possibly even more, just so they can handle steep angles of incidence of the light better than any other digital sensor.
While Leica SL line uses regular sensors that cannot handle as steep angles of incidence of the light as the Leica M sensors.
Thats why if you want to use Leica M glas there is no better camera than an original digital Leica M for that....Show more →
The combination of 1, 2 and 3 ... makes it.
While folks talk a lot about the size of the sensor glass thickness, and Kolari, etc. might help with that ... not sure I know of anyway to address the variable size (and shape) of the micro-lenses. Imo, the variable size micro lenses are the commitment and testament of Leica's optical engineering. If one really understands what is happening ... and what it took to properly correlate the micro-lenses with variable size, I think it is hard to be talking about wanting to get the best out of M glass and then start talking about modding cameras.
That's not to say that the "M" is the best camera ... many will debate that for valid reasons. BUT, it is hard to (knowledgably) debate it being the best camera for using M lenses. Others are acceptable to varying degree, no problem there. But, when talking about achieving the optimal from your M lenses, I think the light path to the sensor that Leica has constructed to accompany their lenses is likely the best you can find.
When I learned of the variable microlenses ... that was the catalyst that took my mind out of the realm of over-priced "luxury" brand, to "oh crap, that's freakin' awesome optical engineering" brand.
flash wrote:
The SL series has thin cover glass. Not as thin as the M but half of the Sony and three times than the older Nikon DSLRs. They also have a modified microlens array to improve M glass usage. They're the best besides a Kolari modified sensor.
Leica mention a new cover glass bonding process in the M11 release but don't specify thickness. From memory the SL was 1mm and Sony was 2mm. M's were about 0.6mm. I'd have to look it up to confirm exact numbers.
Gordon
"M10-R included a new one layer cover glass with UV cut filter and one IR cut filter cemented together. 0,9mm filter thickness vs M10 0,8mm." (Source: Stefan Daniel )
BSI + microlenses + thin cover glass/filters=
"...the M11 should be the best digital camera that M lenses can be mounted on."-Richard Butler
"With the M11, Leica appears to have spent a lot of time trying to address the M's greatest photographic requirement: to create the best possible platform for its other brand-defining products: the M-mount lens range.
Right back to the earliest digital M, Leica has adopted offset microlenses, to ensure that the pixels near the edge of the sensor can cope with light rays approaching the sensor at a very shallow angle. This is a particular challenge for lenses that mount very close to the sensor, especially when some of these optics were designed with film in mind.
The M11 makes two significant steps further in this regard. The first is the adoption of a BSI CMOS sensor for the first time in the M range. This puts the light-sensitive part of each pixel closer to the front of the sensor, improving the angles from which the sensor can accept incoming light, which takes some pressure off the microlenses, as the light doesn't need to be channeled down into the sensor to the same degree.
On top of this, Leica's super-thin cemented two-layer filter promises to provide precise UV/IR filtering, even with low-angle light rays. The thinness of the filter again reduces the risk of shallow-angle light rays being reflected or refracted too far as they pass through.
In terms of what's promised, the M11 should be the best digital camera that M lenses can be mounted on."
The author goes on to write "And yet, while Leica has done a lot to make the M11 a great platform for M lenses, the other work its done may have chipped away at another leg on which the M legend stands: the classic rangefinder shooting experience."
One think I like about the M11 is the weight difference. Even more with the right lens: M10 + 50/1.4 ASPH = around 1kg, M11black + 50/1.5 Voigt: slightly more than 700g.
But so far, I like everything: the touch screen, the shutter noise, matrix metering... But I just had the opportunity to play with it for half an hour this morning before going to work (and one need to work a lot to afford to pay Leica prices)
