If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
Over the last few days it has become clear that the M8 has far too weak
of an IR blocking filter. The problem is textiles that are dyed black often reflect a lot of IR, which the camera sees as both red and blue. The result is that many clothes that should be black photograph as magenta. In watching the Leica forums I find it interesting that a number of people are saying that this is not a problem since it is easy to change the colors in Photoshop. Now call me crazy but I would be more then a little upset if I paid $5,000 for a camera only to find out that I had to hand adjust colors in my photos. The problem is that you can't just do a global replace of black for magenta since the real world does have magenta in it. It will be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few days. Acott |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
Scott W wrote:
Over the last few days it has become clear that the M8 has far too weak of an IR blocking filter. And it also shows nasty streaking in some conditions with bright lights - perhaps related?... But Leica's damage control has swung into action: Leica statement: Dear Friends of Leica, Customer feedback to us following the start of shipment of the LEICA M8 points to a performance under certain conditions that does not meet the expectations in the Leica brand. Our technical and engineering teams have isolated the source of these concerns and have identified definitive solutions. Over the next two weeks we will communicate a plan to further assure you of your investment in the LEICA M8. We hope for your understanding and support. Please accept that I will not be able to answer all messages in the forum personally. Kind regards Leica Camera AG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...8statement.asp) Sounds like a recall is looming, but I'll bet it is only "for those customers who are experiencing problems...." Hmm. Where's Dallas to defend his beloved? (O; |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
And, after you find the bugs for them, they fix
the software and charge you for the "upgrade" (which fixes many of the things that did not work as advertised but introduced new ones ... Acronis "True Image" anyone ?) mikey "nathantw" wrote in message oups.com... Sounds like the beta testers, ahem I mean early adopters, have done a great service for Leica while instead of charging the company a salary they're paying the company $5000 each to test their camera. Wow, isn't the computer age wonderful? I remember the old days when stuff was tested before it went out the door, now companies just let their customers do the testing for them. wrote: Scott W wrote: Over the last few days it has become clear that the M8 has far too weak of an IR blocking filter. And it also shows nasty streaking in some conditions with bright lights - perhaps related?... But Leica's damage control has swung into action: Leica statement: Dear Friends of Leica, Customer feedback to us following the start of shipment of the LEICA M8 points to a performance under certain conditions that does not meet the expectations in the Leica brand. Our technical and engineering teams have isolated the source of these concerns and have identified definitive solutions. Over the next two weeks we will communicate a plan to further assure you of your investment in the LEICA M8. We hope for your understanding and support. Please accept that I will not be able to answer all messages in the forum personally. Kind regards Leica Camera AG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...8statement.asp) Sounds like a recall is looming, but I'll bet it is only "for those customers who are experiencing problems...." Hmm. Where's Dallas to defend his beloved? (O; |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
"Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote:
And, after you find the bugs for them, they fix the software and charge you for the "upgrade" (which fixes many of the things that did not work as advertised but introduced new ones ... Acronis "True Image" anyone ?) I doesn't work that way: the problems with the M8 can't be fixed in software. When you figure out for Leica that Bayer CFA filters are transparent to IR (which everyoner knew all along), and you figure out for Leica that Bayer cameras desperately need a low-pass (AA) filter (which everyone knew all along; heck the Foveon fans have been banging that into our heads for years now (they're right about Bayer arrays needing AA filtering, they're wrong about Foveon or monochrome sensors not needing it)), you'll realize that you spent US$5000 for a camera that is physically defective and simply not repairable. One completely and totally buck-nekked US$5000 emperor. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan mikey "nathantw" wrote in message oups.com... Sounds like the beta testers, ahem I mean early adopters, have done a great service for Leica while instead of charging the company a salary they're paying the company $5000 each to test their camera. Wow, isn't the computer age wonderful? I remember the old days when stuff was tested before it went out the door, now companies just let their customers do the testing for them. wrote: Scott W wrote: Over the last few days it has become clear that the M8 has far too weak of an IR blocking filter. And it also shows nasty streaking in some conditions with bright lights - perhaps related?... But Leica's damage control has swung into action: Leica statement: Dear Friends of Leica, Customer feedback to us following the start of shipment of the LEICA M8 points to a performance under certain conditions that does not meet the expectations in the Leica brand. Our technical and engineering teams have isolated the source of these concerns and have identified definitive solutions. Over the next two weeks we will communicate a plan to further assure you of your investment in the LEICA M8. We hope for your understanding and support. Please accept that I will not be able to answer all messages in the forum personally. Kind regards Leica Camera AG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...8statement.asp) Sounds like a recall is looming, but I'll bet it is only "for those customers who are experiencing problems...." Hmm. Where's Dallas to defend his beloved? (O; |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
wrote:
But Leica's damage control has swung into action: Leica statement: Dear Friends of Leica, Customer feedback to us following the start of shipment of the LEICA M8 points to a performance under certain conditions that does not meet the expectations in the Leica brand. Our technical and engineering teams have isolated the source of these concerns and have identified definitive solutions. Over the next two weeks we will communicate a plan to further assure you of your investment in the LEICA M8. We hope for your understanding and support. Please accept that I will not be able to answer all messages in the forum personally. Kind regards Leica Camera AG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...8statement.asp) Sounds like a recall is looming, but I'll bet it is only "for those customers who are experiencing problems...." And now the big problem, this statement has made a lot of people who have ordered the M8 happy, but they have their limits. This is the response from one such person "That's all the M8 purchasers wanted to hear. Well done (as long as the answer isn't filters!)." And this is the rub, Leica has already said the solution was filters in front on the lens. Will Leica change their mind on this and re-chip the cameras with a sensor that has a working IR blocking filter? Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right about now. Scott |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
Scott W wrote:
And now the big problem, this statement has made a lot of people who have ordered the M8 happy, but they have their limits. This is the response from one such person "That's all the M8 purchasers wanted to hear. Well done (as long as the answer isn't filters!)." And this is the rub, Leica has already said the solution was filters in front on the lens. Will Leica change their mind on this and re-chip the cameras with a sensor that has a working IR blocking filter? Well, maybe they'll retrofit IR filters in the existing cameras (unlikely, I suppose) and fix upcoming models (more likely, I'd say). Being such a small company, and not having much beyond their reputation to sell their cameras (for the asking price), I'd have thought they will make a serious effort to please the people who already bought the cameras; otherwise they're in serious trouble. Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right about now. Yes, it's pretty bizarre. You'd have thought that they (Kodak and Leica) would have taken into account the years of experience with the IR problems of sensors. Not to mention the streaking business, which is also strange (but that may be fixable by firmware, who knows? It depends on what it actually is). But anyway, I think this is pretty funny (if you're not one of the sufferers, of course). Especially given some of the statements about this camera made here recently. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
"David J. Littleboy" wrote in message
... "Mike Fields" spam_me_not_mr.gadget2@comcastDOTnet wrote: And, after you find the bugs for them, they fix the software and charge you for the "upgrade" (which fixes many of the things that did not work as advertised but introduced new ones ... Acronis "True Image" anyone ?) I doesn't work that way: the problems with the M8 can't be fixed in software. When you figure out for Leica that Bayer CFA filters are transparent to IR (which everyoner knew all along), and you figure out for Leica that Bayer cameras desperately need a low-pass (AA) filter (which everyone knew all along; heck the Foveon fans have been banging that into our heads for years now (they're right about Bayer arrays needing AA filtering, they're wrong about Foveon or monochrome sensors not needing it)), you'll realize that you spent US$5000 for a camera that is physically defective and simply not repairable. One completely and totally buck-nekked US$5000 emperor. David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan mikey "nathantw" wrote in message oups.com... Sounds like the beta testers, ahem I mean early adopters, have done a great service for Leica while instead of charging the company a salary they're paying the company $5000 each to test their camera. Wow, isn't the computer age wonderful? I remember the old days when stuff was tested before it went out the door, now companies just let their customers do the testing for them. wrote: Scott W wrote: Over the last few days it has become clear that the M8 has far too weak of an IR blocking filter. And it also shows nasty streaking in some conditions with bright lights - perhaps related?... But Leica's damage control has swung into action: Leica statement: Dear Friends of Leica, Customer feedback to us following the start of shipment of the LEICA M8 points to a performance under certain conditions that does not meet the expectations in the Leica brand. Our technical and engineering teams have isolated the source of these concerns and have identified definitive solutions. Over the next two weeks we will communicate a plan to further assure you of your investment in the LEICA M8. We hope for your understanding and support. Please accept that I will not be able to answer all messages in the forum personally. Kind regards Leica Camera AG (http://www.dpreview.com/news/0611/06...8statement.asp) Sounds like a recall is looming, but I'll bet it is only "for those customers who are experiencing problems...." Hmm. Where's Dallas to defend his beloved? (O; Can't be too hard to recall the 10 cameras sold ; ) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
Scott W wrote:
Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right about now. OK, here's a thought (advance warning: I just thought of this, so take it with a grain of salt). According to http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm the passband of these IR blocking filter depends on the angle of incidence of the light. If the angle of incidence is increased (0 angle is normal incidence), the peak wavelength is shifted to lower wavelengths (towards the visible). Since the distance of the lens' rear element from the filter/sensor is much less for the M8 than for SLRs, the largest possible angle of incidence will be larger than for SLRs. This means that they may not have been able to use a filter that cuts off low enough wavelengths, because then you would end up blocking some visible wavelengths at the edges of the frame (for some lenses). If that's the case, it's not very good news I'm afraid. But maybe someone who knows more about IR filters can chime in here and explain why I'm wrong. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
M is for Magenta
acl wrote: Scott W wrote: Digital cameras that are overly sensitive to IR are not new, but the other camera companies fixed the problems years ago. I would imagine that are some pretty tense phone calls between Kodak and Leica right about now. OK, here's a thought (advance warning: I just thought of this, so take it with a grain of salt). According to http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/filters/curves.htm the passband of these IR blocking filter depends on the angle of incidence of the light. If the angle of incidence is increased (0 angle is normal incidence), the peak wavelength is shifted to lower wavelengths (towards the visible). Since the distance of the lens' rear element from the filter/sensor is much less for the M8 than for SLRs, the largest possible angle of incidence will be larger than for SLRs. This means that they may not have been able to use a filter that cuts off low enough wavelengths, because then you would end up blocking some visible wavelengths at the edges of the frame (for some lenses). If that's the case, it's not very good news I'm afraid. But maybe someone who knows more about IR filters can chime in here and explain why I'm wrong. An interesting idea. I really don't know if Leica is using a interference filter or a absorption filter, I kind of think maybe an absorption filter. The reason I am thinking this is Leica talked about wanting to use a thinner then normal filter, most likely because they have very little working distance on their lenses. They said they are using a 0.5 mm filter, the standard thickness is 1.0mm and whereas this would not matter for a interference filter it is not good for an absorption filter. Scott |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
printing problem magenta cast canon i9900 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | October 18th 05 12:39 AM |
VC with color head - max magenta | jjs | In The Darkroom | 30 | September 8th 04 03:24 PM |