Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       4       5       end
  

Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.

  
 
LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Since Leica first introduced Triple Resolution (in-camera pixel binning) in the base M11 rangefinder camera, Leica announced a slight DR and Noise advantage to the smaller in-camera pixel binned files, M-DNG and S-DNG.

Til now, I don't think I've ever seen anyone able to confirm this Leica marketing claim L-DNG vs M-DNG, VS S-DNG :

As usual MathPhotographer, applies some math to the claim in his Q3 video, "Leica Q3 ISO-Invariance, Dynamic Range, High ISO & OIS" *Seems M-DNG is the best DR/Noise performance ratio.

https://youtu.be/YH3LT4229ug?si=Hfy2qjr_LUOwBiin








The Leica Marketing Claim







Calculating the Results




Apr 02, 2024 at 09:02 AM
retrofocus
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #2 · p.1 #2 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Following mathphotographer since a while on YouTube. One thing always strikes me there: he instantly gets and reviews all the new Leica gear. His content is good, but I ask myself always if he works for Leica - he certainly must have some very close connections there.


Apr 02, 2024 at 09:28 AM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #3 · p.1 #3 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


If M-DNG has less noise, it's because it also has less detail compared to resizing the L-DNG in Photoshop to the same dimensions. To me, that's not a benefit.

^ Referring to the M11 files, I have not tested the Q3.



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:30 AM
LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #4 · p.1 #4 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


retrofocus wrote:
Following mathphotographer since a while on YouTube. One thing always strikes me there: he instantly gets and reviews all the new Leica gear. His content is good, but I ask myself always if he works for Leica - he certainly must have some very close connections there.


Apparently he has a very good relationship with his local Leica shop which "might" also be the reason for the early access to "demo" the latest gear. I don't know one way or the other. He was however, invited to attend the Leica SL3 Launch which I think is a first for him.

Either way, look at his approach, analysis and the results aka the math with regards to the marketing claim.



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:36 AM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


I believe the point is that downsampling an image reduces noise, but that's not necessarily an advantage since it can be done with any image. Less noise usually means a higher dynamic range. However, this advantage primarily benefits the shadows and not the highlights.

With that said, I've personally tested this when I first got the M11, and I found that I could achieve slightly better results by resizing images in post-processing. So, unless someone specifically wants smaller files and a deeper buffer, I don't see the image quality advantage here.



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:48 AM
LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #6 · p.1 #6 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


highdesertmesa wrote:
If M-DNG has less noise, it's because it also has less detail compared to resizing the L-DNG in Photoshop to the same dimensions. To me, that's not a benefit.

^ Referring to the M11 files, I have not tested the Q3.


Yes, it would be interesting if he could test and compare with the same between Q3, M11 and now the SL3. But also a lot of work!



Apr 02, 2024 at 09:59 AM
LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #7 · p.1 #7 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe the point is that downsampling an image reduces noise, but that's not necessarily an advantage since it can be done with any image. Less noise usually means a higher dynamic range. However, this advantage primarily benefits the shadows and not the highlights.

With that said, I've personally tested this when I first got the M11, and I found that I could achieve slightly better results by resizing images in post-processing. So, unless someone specifically wants smaller files and a deeper buffer, I don't see the image quality advantage here.


This is an interesting result, both mathematically and visibly, and not too dissimilar to how many of us test for ourselves, minus the math:









Apr 02, 2024 at 10:08 AM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #8 · p.1 #8 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


LBJ2 wrote:
This is an interesting result, both mathematically and visibly, and not too dissimilar to how many of us test for ourselves, minus the math:



The difference in image dimension makes it clear that they are not equating for the same output size. Without doing so, I don't think it is a fair comparison. You can't know if the camera is doing a better job at making the files smaller than software would in post and whether there is actually a gain in DR or the files just look better because you are magnifying them less.

The first post has a strange oddity as well. You would expect a big loss in DR between ISO 200 and ISO 3200. Specifically you would expect a four stop drop in DR, but the numbers there are surprisingly similar between ISO 200 and ISO 3200. That suggests that signal to noise ratio being reported there are not tracking DR well and don't suggest what seems to be implied that the middle size has the best DR.



Apr 02, 2024 at 11:50 AM
LBJ2
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #9 · p.1 #9 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Steve Spencer wrote:
The difference in image dimension makes it clear that they are not equating for the same output size. Without doing so, I don't think it is a fair comparison. You can't know if the camera is doing a better job at making the files smaller than software would in post and whether there is actually a gain in DR or the files just look better because you are magnifying them less.

The first post has a strange oddity as well. You would expect a big loss in DR between ISO 200 and ISO 3200. Specifically you would expect a four
...Show more

He is very transparent with his approach and results regarding in-camera pixel binning L/M/S with side by side sample photos to include ISO comparison. Hopefully you've had a chance to review the entire video and results posted. Admittedly long video with maybe too many detail for most, but worth it to vet his process and results if interested.



Apr 03, 2024 at 04:57 PM
RustyRus
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #10 · p.1 #10 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


retrofocus wrote:
Following mathphotographer since a while on YouTube. One thing always strikes me there: he instantly gets and reviews all the new Leica gear. His content is good, but I ask myself always if he works for Leica - he certainly must have some very close connections there.


He is an executive for a Swiss bank I believe-



Apr 03, 2024 at 06:43 PM
 


Search in Used Dept. 

RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #11 · p.1 #11 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Fred Miranda wrote:
I believe the point is that downsampling an image reduces noise, but that's not necessarily an advantage since it can be done with any image. Less noise usually means a higher dynamic range. However, this advantage primarily benefits the shadows and not the highlights.

With that said, I've personally tested this when I first got the M11, and I found that I could achieve slightly better results by resizing images in post-processing. So, unless someone specifically wants smaller files and a deeper buffer, I don't see the image quality advantage here.


I'm not too deeply following this one, but I recall others also saying they could do a better job in Post when down sizing than what can be done in camera with the M11.


My point would be that I think folks need to take Leica's position that the in camera downsampling offers advantages as stated. BUT, I don't think that was ever to mean that the convenience of having it available in camera was ever to ascribe that it would be the MOST SUPERIOR method available (vs. post processing on a much larger computational platform).

My takeaway is they added the feature / benefit as a convenience that is pretty darn good. But, of course ... if one needs better than pretty darn good, there's always the full file and head for the Big Boy Tools to get the most possibly available.

Imo, that's like saying a pickup truck can carry the biggest load, it's ever been able to do before ... but, it still can't carry as big a load as a dump truck or a semi. I wouldn't expect the in camera binning feature to outperform post. Not sure where folks ever got the sentiment that it could, would or should be the best option ... just that it's a handy option of reasonable capability / quality. So, if the in camera feature is only beat out by a small amount from the PC ... I'd say that's pretty darn good (for in camera convenience).




Apr 03, 2024 at 06:48 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #12 · p.1 #12 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


RustyBug wrote:
I'm not too deeply following this one, but I recall others also saying they could do a better job in Post when down sizing than what can be done in camera with the M11.

My point would be that I think folks need to take Leica's position that the in camera downsampling offers advantages as stated. BUT, I don't think that was ever to mean that the convenience of having it available in camera was ever to ascribe that it would be the MOST SUPERIOR method available (vs. post processing on a much larger computational platform).

My takeaway is they added the
...Show more

It's a solid choice, but I believe it's more focused on convenience rather than maximizing image quality.
For those who only shoot in JPG format (using Leica's new "Looks" profiles), sharing an 18MP file is likely preferable to a 60MP one.



Apr 03, 2024 at 07:05 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #13 · p.1 #13 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


RustyBug wrote:
I'm not too deeply following this one, but I recall others also saying they could do a better job in Post when down sizing than what can be done in camera with the M11.

My point would be that I think folks need to take Leica's position that the in camera downsampling offers advantages as stated. BUT, I don't think that was ever to mean that the convenience of having it available in camera was ever to ascribe that it would be the MOST SUPERIOR method available (vs. post processing on a much larger computational platform).

My takeaway is they added the
...Show more

When there's a claim of increased DR, the automatic and only logical assumption in photography means that improvement is beyond what the L-DNG could do if reduced to the same pixel dimensions as M or S-DNG. If anyone would take Leica's side on this, it would be folks like Leica Miami, who have straight up tested it and said the claim by Leica is untrue.

Any image when reduced in size will see a boost in DR because the image will always have less noise. Mathphotographer in this case can't see the tree because he's looking at the forest. It's a incorrect premise, therefore the results have little meaning in the context of Leica's claim.



Apr 03, 2024 at 08:15 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #14 · p.1 #14 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


highdesertmesa wrote:
When there's a claim of increased DR, the automatic and only logical assumption in photography means that improvement is beyond what the L-DNG could do if reduced to the same pixel dimensions as M or S-DNG. If anyone would take Leica's side on this, it would be folks like Leica Miami, who have straight up tested it and said the claim by Leica is untrue.

Any image when reduced in size will see a boost in DR because the image will always have less noise. Mathphotographer in this case can't see the tree because he's looking at the forest. It's a
...Show more

I saw the video that Leica Miami did ... all I'm saying is I find little surprise that the computing power and processing algorithms that have variability (vs. pre-programmed in camera) of application for use adjustments and refinements has the ability to do a better job than the algorithm's programmed in camera.

The additional aspect of having a person making analytical assessments of the capture, and making their "best fit" adjustments to the inherent aspects of the captured image ... vs. a pre-programmed, canned algorithm of "one size fits all" ... I would certainly EXPECT a talented, experienced person well versed in the post-process tools of the day to be able to do the best job possible.

The same thing can be said of in camera sharpening vs. someone who is deftly applying the sharpening attributes that work best for the structure of the scene, vs. in camera sharpening that is incapable of making the same level of interpretive assessments as a (skilled) person.

Not much different than saying a race car driver with a manual transmission can perform at a different level than an automatic transmission in the hands of a regular driver. The mfr can make a better shifting, "sport mode" for the automatic shifter, and it can be a really good experience without the extra work and skill development needed for the max possible.

When we think of the "simplicity" of the M operation, some folks don't want to wade through all the processing tools, and will simply want to use the convenience of the in camera feature. All I'm saying is ... I'm not gonna trash a car mfr because their paddle shifter on automatic trans isn't as good as a fully manual trans. I think this one gets a bit silly when folks are as bothered by the fact that a post-processing program and full fledged computing with both CPU and GPU capabilities with human adjustability is better than in camera, hands-off convenience can achieve.

Imo ... it is sequitur that post-processing power is capable of producing a better result than an in camera result. Seems perfectly logical to me. Not sure what the buzz to the contrary is all about.

It seems to me like folks are over-reaching a bit, wrt Leica saying it does what it does and them thinking that means that it is supposed to better than any other means possible. I mean, did they ever claim it would be better than is possible with post-processing software, computing power and human assessment adjustments to optimize results. If so, I missed that along the way. Or, are folks making assumptions that such was Leica's assertion?

And, yes ... Miami Leica manually did a better job on many things, than in camera did automatically. Imo, that's no surprise.




Apr 03, 2024 at 08:52 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #15 · p.1 #15 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


RustyBug wrote:
I saw the video that Leica Miami did ... all I'm saying is I find little surprise that the computing power and processing algorithms that have variability (vs. pre-programmed in camera) of application for use adjustments and refinements has the ability to do a better job than the algorithm's programmed in camera.

The additional aspect of having a person making analytical assessments of the capture, and making their "best fit" adjustments to the inherent aspects of the captured image ... vs. a pre-programmed, canned algorithm of "one size fits all" ... I would certainly EXPECT a talented, experienced person well versed
...Show more

Resizing in Photoshop is a one step operation. Without changing any of the PS defaults, the result is superior to the M and S-DNG with regard to resolved detail at high magnification.

I guess if I were Leica, I could say that wow, exporting my 60mp M11 image for Instagram from Capture One at 2048 px wide resulted in a 4 stop DR increase! That would be comically ridiculous to tout as something unique, but it's exactly the type of impact shooting M and S-DNG has on the resulting images.

Furthermore, the feature to save RAW images in smaller sRAW size has been around a while. Nikon did this back in 2014, not sure how long ago Canon introduced it. I don't think either ever claimed a DR increase. So when Leica introduced the M-DNG/S-DNG feature alongside a DR increase claim, it was logical to assume their DR increase claim meant they had some sort of new technology that improved upon the benefits achieved from simple downsizing.



Apr 03, 2024 at 10:18 PM
zhangyue
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #16 · p.1 #16 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


Per pixel, of course it offer DR improvement. The advantage of DR disappeared if you compare downsized L raw to small raw. The point is if you donít need resolution, this give you option to have the same DR at target output size you need without take lots of harddisk space and save process time etc.
I donít need 60M for most of my images so I default use small raw full time.
Both Nikon and canon implementation are crap at the time. This is the one I bet more manufacture will adapt in the future once we reach 100M plus for most 35mm camera. You donít need 100M snap raws.

Edited on Apr 03, 2024 at 10:45 PM · View previous versions



Apr 03, 2024 at 10:41 PM
RustyBug
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #17 · p.1 #17 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


highdesertmesa wrote:
Resizing in Photoshop is a one step operation. Without changing any of the PS defaults, the result is superior to the M and S-DNG with regard to resolved detail at high magnification.

I guess if I were Leica, I could say that wow, exporting my 60mp M11 image for Instagram from Capture One at 2048 px wide resulted in a 4 stop DR increase! That would be comically ridiculous to tout as something unique, but it's exactly the type of impact shooting M and S-DNG has on the resulting images.

Furthermore, the feature to save RAW images in smaller sRAW size has
...Show more

There's that word ... assumption.

BTW, since when did "logical" become a pre-requisite aspect to how Leica marches to their own tune. It's illogical to think logically wrt Leica. IBIS and EVF are still absent in the M bodies ... which cost more than the SL line, which has both. One person's "logic" is another ... well, let's just say I figured out it's better if I don't try to "figure out" Leica. They march to the tune and pace (which is often slow / later than others) of their own drum. If they decided to "state the obvious", oh well, not losing sleep over the "logic" of why they did that.

My only "guess" would be that some of their customer base isn't as savvy as seasoned FM'ers.




Apr 03, 2024 at 10:42 PM
highdesertmesa
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #18 · p.1 #18 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


RustyBug wrote:
There's that word ... assumption.

BTW, since when did "logical" become a pre-requisite aspect to how Leica marches to their own tune. It's illogical to think logically wrt Leica. IBIS and EVF are still absent in the M bodies ... which cost more than the SL line, which has both. One person's "logic" is another ... well, let's just say I figured out it's better if I don't try to "figure out" Leica. They march to the tune and pace (which is often slow / later than others) of their own drum. If they decided to "state the obvious", oh
...Show more

It doesn't matter what was assumed, the claim of increased DR is misleading, and Leica should stop making the claim.

Instead of faulting the buyer, let's hold manufacturers as the ones who should be accountable.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:17 PM
Fred Miranda
Offline
Admin
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #19 · p.1 #19 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


highdesertmesa wrote:
It doesn't matter what was assumed, the claim of increased DR is misleading, and Leica should stop making the claim.

Instead of faulting the buyer, let's hold manufacturers as the ones who should be accountable.


Many M11 'reviews' merely parrot Leica's marketing without providing meaningful insights. Photographers unfamiliar with these technical aspects often end up accepting the narrative. Perhaps Leica has realized they can get away with it.



Apr 03, 2024 at 11:34 PM
gordec
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.1 #20 · p.1 #20 · Leica Triple Resolution marketing vs reality. Another look.


This probably never makes a real life difference even if it's true that M-DNG has 1 stop DR advantage over L-DNG. We all know everyone bought M11 for it's USB-C charging just like every iPhone 15 user.


Apr 04, 2024 at 12:39 AM
       2       3       4       5       end






FM Forums | Leica & Alternative Gear | Join Upload & Sell

       2       3       4       5       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username       Or Reset password



This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.