Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2015/05/06
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]12 bits vs. 14 bits is not that hard to explain. Let me try. First, it's NOT about storage. Most likely, it's still 16 bits used per pixel. It's either wasting 2 bits or 4 bits. Second, it's NOT about speed, not in the ways lay people think any way. It's about the quality of the extra "tonal resolution" and .... power consumption and heat. To get those extra bits, ADC (Analog to Digital Converter) - the components that converts light levels to digital numbers - have to be run more frequently. The more times you run it, the more power it needs, and it generates more heat. More heat means lower performance at high ISO. It's a feedback process. So it's back to "how good are the sensor designers" and "how mature are the circuit technology" Personally, my impression is that M 246 will produce higher quality images than the existing MM M240 etc. because of the higher pixel resolution and in most cases, the lower bit depth would not matter. However, within 3 years, if the product is successful, we will see a version with 14 bits bit depth with greater performance. On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 12:31 PM, Robert Adler <rgacpa at gmail.com> wrote: > Agreed. Lots of variables floating around here. The new Mono246 has 50% > more pixels than the original Monochrom. Unless Leica's engineers are > stupid (which they are definitely not!), your bound to get a better image. > More information. > > And I believe they are using a new processor? A "Maestro II" versus the > "Maestro I" in the original Monochrom? Another variable we don't know much > about its impact. > > As Ted would say, "WHO GIVES A FLYING FART!" KISS!! IF IT GIVES YOU A > BETTER IMAGE, ALL THIS KERPHLUFFEL DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A HILL OF BEANS!!!" > (or something like that). > > However the original Monochrom images I've seen are gorgeous. Tina, Lluis > and Jay (to name just 3) have blown us (me) away time and again on the > amazing tonalities and images at high ISO's (10,000 I believe?). > > After all this the question for me is if the cost of the new 246 is worth > it over a used Monochrom (~$3K difference) for: > 1. The improvement in the rangefinder (IMO), > 2. The better shutter mechanism (my M9 always had a kick to it that really > caused A LOT of lost sharpness), > 3. Improved ISO performance above 10,000. > 4. The better fit into my hand of the M240 vs the M9 > > The main worry is what Peter said: We really don't know what the impact > will be going from 14bits to 12bits. I think that remains to be seen... > > So I guess I'll wait and see until some consensus comes out from real > world, non-Leica paid, photographers. Whether or not I will be able to > afford groceries (and I am truly grateful for your concerns in this area, > Steve!) remains to be seen. Probably not whether I go with the old or new > Monochrom :-) > Bob > > P.S., for those interested, Erwin Puts just got his M246. He initially > noticed that the uncompressed file size of the new Monochrom is smaller > than the M240, though the compressed files are the same. "The reason for > this is unknown"... > > On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:55 AM, Frank Filippone <red735i at verizon.net> > wrote: > > > Precisely my point... look at the images..... > > > > I have an M9. I looked at the images created in the comparison shots. > The > > M9 images, when converted to B+W were of significantly less quality in > > resolution than the M246. > > OTOH, we are comparing apples ( 16MP) and oranges (24MP). Pixels, do NOT > > grow on trees. More pixels does = better fine display quality, all other > > things being equal... same lens. > > > > OTOH, if someone wants to sell their MM and go buy a M246, I am a willing > > buyer......... of the inferior. > > > > I have no intention of spending $7500 on a camera. > > > > He says irreverently.. just like he said when he bought his M8, and M9 , > > and > > A7..... > > > > Frank Filippone > > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: LUG [mailto:lug-bounces+red735i=verizon.net at leica-users.org] On > > Behalf > > Of Mark Rabiner > > Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2015 10:41 AM > > To: Leica Users Group > > Subject: Re: [Leica] New M(246) Outputs 12 bit Files > > > > I agree Frank, tahtwhat whatever bits or other specs if the camera is > > making > > better images than the previous with supposedly better specs then its not > > the specs (bits) we should be looking at but the images the camera makes > > and > > our own bank accounts to figure out how to get it! > > > > > > On 5/6/15 1:17 PM, "Frank Filippone" <red735i at verizon.net> wrote: > > > > > Mark and others.... > > > > > > The issue of 12 vs 14 bits is not straight forward..... Yes, the > > > difference in a straight line way is 4 times the data, but really that > > > means there is 4 times the GRADATION in the data. More gradation = > > > more smooth transitions between different tones. > > > > > > Assuming the saturation point ( top value) and lowest point ( pure > > > black, as in more black is just not possible) remain fixed. Then there > > > could be a bit of non linear-ness to the ADC... There may be more > > > values in the bright areas, and less in the dark areas.... still > > > achieving the same dynamic range,. But 12 bits and 14 bits could have > > > different non-linear transfer functions.... Which, in the context of > > > photography, may not be at all easy to see with the eyes. > > > > > > Let me stop here... I spent the better part of my working career in > > > understanding the intricacies of ADC products. If I go any further in > > the > > > explanation, I will lose almost everyone. Suffice it to say that > what > > we > > > do not know exceeds what we do know. > > > > > > Yes, there is a story out there... Yes it is important that we know > > > what that story is, in theory. In practice, the M246 seems to produce > > > better images than the MM.... 12 bits 14 bits or some other number of > > bits. > > > > > > I agree with Mark.. HDD storage is so cheap that 12 vs 14 bits is a > > > ridiculous reason to chintz on the ADC resolution. There is some > > > other reason. > > > > > > Or, someone made a bad assumption in the first place and this whole > > > thread is a waste of time. > > > > > > Frank Filippone > > > Red735i at verizon.net > > > > > > Peter according to some guy on the internet its not a matter of a few > > > steps up from 12 to 14 bit. Its 4 times as many shades of intensity > > > in a given range. > > > That sounds like a big deal for me. > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Leica Users Group. > > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Mark William Rabiner > > Photographer > > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/lugalrabs/ > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Leica Users Group. > > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > > > > > > -- > Bob Adler > www.robertadlerphotography.com > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com> // http://facebook.com/richardmanphoto // https://instagram.com/richardmanphoto