And yet Kodak's sensor (M8's) looks really good on paper...

So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?

Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to
Leica?

In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all known
problems now?



"RichA" wrote in message
oups.com...
Kodak, Kodak, Kodak...What IS going on? This thing looked really good.
The filter to fix the IR problem (if that will be their fix) is going
to cost at least as much as a high quality IR filter, around $200-$300.
Sensor replacement will likely wipe out any profit Kodak saw from this
endevour.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/dpq/site/...Specifications

Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
camera consumer."?????

Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?



"Rich" wrote in message
...
On Dec 10, 6:27 pm, "Leica" wrote:
So are the new (current) M8's free from the IR problem?

Has Kodak in fact begun supplying different/non-problematic sensors to
Leica?

In essence then, are current M8's being shipped from Leica free of all
known
problems now?


No idea, but apparently, they are selling. Kodak's sensors are
probably better from a technical standpoint than any of the sensors in
cameras from Canon, Nikon, etc, but better in spec from Kodak might
please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a camera
consumer.

John Smith wrote:
Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
camera consumer."?????

Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?



No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos.

Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want
complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses.

Doug MCDonald

What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
other that for taking photos?


"Doug McDonald" wrote in message
...
John Smith wrote:
Huh????????? What in heaven's name do you mean by "better in spec from
Kodak might please a scientific or industrial customer, but maybe not a
camera consumer."?????

Wouldn't Leica just perhaps qualify as an industrial customer?



No. He means actual "industrial" use ... not taking photos.

Some uses want no anti-aliasing at all, indeed, they want
complete independence of pixels. I have had some such uses.

Doug MCDonald

John Smith wrote:
What other "industrial use" for a photo sensor made by Kodak would there be
other that for taking photos?


"Industrial" or "scientific" use usually implies that
no person would look at the result. Only a computer.
It could be, for example, a photo-like use, like
computerized face recognition. Or it could be
quite unlike a plain photo use, such as using it to
measure dimensions and color of rocks passing down
a conveyor at a mine.

Or it could be character recognition.

None of these need antialiasing.

Doug McDonald

acl wrote:



You mentioned that there are applications that need complete
independence of pixels; what would those be? Measuring the intensity
of light emission from small areas, or what? I'm curious.

That's right. Many of these uses don't use color, but some do.

For example, cell counting. You have a microscope slide
with randomly placed cells on it, dyed to fluoresce.
Each cell fluoresces the same amount. Hence by looking at the
image on a computer you count cells in each pixel. If
a cell overlaps two or four pixels, you can usually assign
the center of it to one of the pixels. Having no
anti-aliasing helps this. You could use color if you
had two or three cell types, dyed to fluroresce red, green,
or blue. There are very common dyes that actually do this.

Doug McDonald

I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to
use.

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx

Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case.

--
Frank ess

In article ,
"Frank ess" wrote:

I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to
use.

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx

Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case.

I have been using the commercial version of Noiseware and am completely
satisfied. Using it as a plug-in with PSE 4.

As far as the learning curve, there is a simple method available that
requires no "learning".

That said, there are several other applications that do the same thing
which may be better or easier to use (though I doubt it).

--
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

On Wed, 12 Dec 2007 12:53:14 -0800, "Frank ess"
wrote:

I may have missed the discussion of Noiseware by Imagenomic Software.
The "Community" (free) version has been recommended, and I wonder if
it - or the pay-for versions - are worth the trouble of learning to
use.

http://www.imagenomic.com/download.aspx

Not that I don't like (most) noise ... Just in case.


I switched to Noise Ninja... Noiseware seemed to emphasise jpeg
artifacts a bit more when I was using it with scanned 35mm film. NN
as a Photoshop plugin is quite easy to use, especially if you simply
profile each shot individually. Not much of a learning curve to be
honest.

Jim

http://www.jamesphotography.ca