Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/22

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware
From: drodgers at casefarms.com (David Rodgers)
Date: Thu Jan 22 05:43:28 2009

Seems to me that lens optimization should be done in a post processing
application and not in the camera's firmware. How often do you go
straight from the camera to making a big print? Usually you're going to
run files thorugh some type of imaging application. 

If not (i.e. you print directly from the camera or post directly from a
camera to a website) the pictures are smaller and so subtle corrections
aren't critical. Corrections may not even be noticeable. If small prints
require significant corrections, maybe something is seriously wrong with
the camera or lens or both.  

Further, firmware is proprietary. What if you want to use another
manufacturer's lens on a camera? The body manufacturer isn't going to
put corrections for third party lenses in their firmware. Firmware
resources are more limited than resources in a post processing
application. I can think of lots of reasons not to push for anything but
limited firmware modifications (i.e. something as as a lens number that
you can set on the body, which the post application can recognize. You
can configure corrections in the application -- or download a correction
algorithm that some expert has created -- which will run on file open).


So leave the firmware as it is and focus on post processing
applications. That makes more sense to me.

-----Original Message-----
From: Dante Stella [mailto:dstella1@ameritech.net] 
Sent: Wednesday, January 21, 2009 9:36 PM
To: Leica Users Group
Subject: Re: [Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in
firmware

There is no technical problem except approaching potential menus from  
the wrong direction.

Most users do not have, and will never own, 64 lenses.  In fact, I  
would bet that five lenses is probably the median collection.  Put a  
feature in the host software where you can define which lenses appear  
on the camera' s optimization menu (i.e., the ones you own).  Set up  
the camera so that if it can't read a bar code, it pops up the menu  
when the lens is mounted.  If the user fails to pick one of the  
options and starts shooting pictures instead, tough luck - no  
optimization.  This is amazingly easy.  The popup menu already exists  
for the Tri-Elmar.

Calculating the appropriate vignetting and color correction strength  
for any lens out there - and maintaining menus of presets - is not  
rocket science, even for end users.  It is something Kodak did with  
the SLR/n and SLR/c cameras - and it did not even require host  
software to do.  See it here:

http://download.kodak.com/professional/software/dcsproSLRn/Pro_SLRn_Lens
_Optimization_Overview.pdf

Leica might do well to open-source the M8 like Google has with Android  
- rather than try to push purely proprietary solutions.  You can still  
make money off of that.  Leica does make money on M8s even if they are  
never used with Leica lenses.

How about a simple RFID chip that is adhered to some accessible  
noncritical part of the back or inside of the lens?  Leica could sell  
them for a massive profit at $50; it would obviate shipping, insurance  
and delays; and Leica could actually make money off people's using the  
chips for third-party lenses.  And any competent camera repair shop  
could install them.  It would be even easier than AI coding in the old  
days.

I have always been puzzled by the 6-bit coding's use of optical  
detection and frameline lever position.  Why not just make it 8 bits  
and call it a day?

Dante


On Jan 21, 2009, at 6:21 PM, Bob W wrote:

> This is not a matter of being smart or of being lazy. It is a natural
> consequence of modal interfaces, which are almost always undesirable  
> because
> they lead to operator error. Bad designers then blame or insult the  
> users.
> Leica are correct to reject the request on these grounds.
>
> Bob
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org
>> [mailto:lug-bounces+leica=web-options.com@leica-users.org] On
>> Behalf Of grduprey@mchsi.com
>> Sent: 21 January 2009 23:16
>> To: Leica Users Group
>> Subject: Re: [Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens
>> identification in firmware
>>
>>
>>
>> This petition has been presented previously to Leica several
>> times, 3 or 4 times now, by other users and user groups.
>> Leica has turned this option down on the grounds that users
>> may forget to change the settings when they change lenses and
>> get potentially detrimental results.   Many feel this is a
>> foolish reason as Leica users are smart enough and ready to
>> make these adjustments.  On the other hand, I think they have
>> a good point as many users have complained about having to go
>> into the menu to make exposure adjustments, such as EV
>> corrections and ISO changes.  So I can see many operators
>> forget to make the proper adjustments as they are too lazy to
>> make other adjustments.  Personally, I do not see another
>> petition on this subject doing any more good than the
>> previous petitions on the subject.
>>
>>
>> Gene -------------- Original message from Christopher
>> Birchenhall <crbirchenhall@googlemail.com>: --------------
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Leica Users Group.
> See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information





Replies: Reply from crbirchenhall at googlemail.com (Christopher Birchenhall) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
Reply from sonc.hegr at gmail.com (Sonny Carter) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)
In reply to: Message from dstella1 at ameritech.net (Dante Stella) ([Leica] Petition for initiating M8 lens identification in firmware)