boojum
Mentor
Leica uses paint marks to enforce 6 bit encoding to identify a lens, Leica, to a camera, Leica. Aftermarket LTM > M adapters can be bought with the ability to be painted for the same effect. Select the closest Leica lens to what you have and code it as such. That way the camera has a record of what it has been told you are shooting. We know this.
Pixii eschews 6 bit encoding. Patent protected by Leica? Or just not that valuable? I am assuming it only affects JPEG files. Any help here?
While on the adapting flange and bayonet mount I see Pixii identifies lenses by focal length through a software selection. Leica uses identifiers on the bayonet mount. Patent protected by Leica?
Pixii eschews 6 bit encoding. Patent protected by Leica? Or just not that valuable? I am assuming it only affects JPEG files. Any help here?
While on the adapting flange and bayonet mount I see Pixii identifies lenses by focal length through a software selection. Leica uses identifiers on the bayonet mount. Patent protected by Leica?
M.B
Member
Doubt the mechanical frame selector is patented, too old. Choosing frame lines through software means less mechanical parts that can break. Probably cheaper as well.
I’m guessing the 6-bit coding is also too old to still be patented.
Speculation: In the future, if it turns out to be a widely requested feature. Maybe they can implement choosing the exact lens your using in the app. And then get the proper corrections for the jpeg.
I’m guessing the 6-bit coding is also too old to still be patented.
Speculation: In the future, if it turns out to be a widely requested feature. Maybe they can implement choosing the exact lens your using in the app. And then get the proper corrections for the jpeg.
571514m3
Established
Does a (good) photo(graph) care what lens it was taken with? Or does it matter for any step in (analog or digital) reproduction?
M.B
Member
The photo? No
The correction software? Yes
The correction software? Yes
Bill Blackwell
Leica M Shooter
boojum
Mentor
Yes, the use of lens encoding bakes in corrections for the lens in JPEG's. In RAW a color profile for the camera - yes? - does the same thing in the desktop editor. So we are correcting the image in each case but at a different point in the process. And in the JPEG it is automatic, part of the compression I would guess.
I understand these differences can be as disturbing as whether baptizing works with a dab or a dunk, one side conceding nothing to the other. But if the ultimate goal is a really good photo who really cares? I am lazy and like the easiest, most direct methods. I will give RAW/DNG an honest shot when I get the color profile plugged into RawTherapee, I am in LInux, and I get the Pixii.
And as thrilled as I am about getting a Pixii and as happy as I am with some of my lenses, it still is not the chisel that makes the sculptor. But I do think Pixii will make it all a lot more fun.
M.B
Member
boojum
Mentor
Pardon my late response. I would guess that some care and some do not. Speculation roams about what lenses famous photographers used. I post lens used and camera used as a courtesy to others who may be curious when I post a photo.
And it does matter. Some lenses are sharp and bright and others are not. Some flatter skin tones. Some are great for landscapes and some for architecture. Someone who is looking for a specific effect might want to review others results in selecting a lens for an application. And as I do OOC the post processing has little to no interest for me. We are all different. That's great. A world full of just one of us would be awfully boring.
571514m3
Established
https://gmpphoto.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-pixel-race-does-it-really-make-sense.html
I like lenses the way they are and don't want in camera manipulation. I often shoot wide open, and never go past f8. Early on i was curious about 6 bit but lost interest very soon.
I like lenses the way they are and don't want in camera manipulation. I often shoot wide open, and never go past f8. Early on i was curious about 6 bit but lost interest very soon.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
The 6-bit coding affects both raw and JPEG captures by nominating a Leica supplied lens profile. The profile's effects/corrections are 'baked into' Leica raw files as well as applied to the in-camera JPEG rendered files.
Leica's notion of lens profiles and corrections differs from other manufacturers. Because Leica has been producing lenses for many years, their notion isn't to do absolute rendering corrections to solve residual rectilinear aberrations and various other issues; what they do with the lens profiles is a serious attempt to preserve the original design intent and rendering of Leica lenses for their original application. So Leica R lens profiles attempt to make Leica R lenses look like they always did on film in a Leica R camera, etc.
Whether you want this, or not ... well, it's what the profiles are there for. I've seen nothing that indicates they degrade any lens performance at all, and I've seen plenty (in use on Leica M digital cameras) that indicate they enhance and preserve lens performance.
The effects of lens profiles are MUCH more marked on FF format sensors, since many of the aberrations of older lenses designed for film used on a digital sensor only affect the periphery of the imaging area. Most of that area is missing in an APS-C sensor with the result that the differences between profiled and non-profiled captures are hard to tell apart. Modern lenses (designed since the middle '00s) were designed and corrected for both film AND digital sensors so the lens profiles for them have a different purpose.
The M's mechanical frame line selection mechanism is genius and excellent, and probably adds 50-60% to the cost of the M rangefinder/viewfinder mechanisms due to the precision that it has to operate with to be consistent and successful. My opinion is that Pixii SAS, like most other manufacturers that have adopted the Leica M-mount to gain access to the excellent existing lens base (like Cosina-Voigtländer, for instance) uses manual mechanical or manual software switched frame line selection to save a bunch on cost of manufacture and lower the inspection/quality assurance costs.
(note: I cannot recall for sure whether the modern Zeiss Ikon (manufactured by Cosina) or the Konica RF cameras that used M-mount lenses supported the mechanical auto frame line selection mechanisms..)
Patents give a limited term of exclusivity to an invention, and the M's auto frame line mechanism was first released with the M3 in 1954. I don't know for sure what the patent time limits are, but they're surely not more than 50 years at the maximum. The time of 17 years sticks in my head for some reason, but I am not certain.
G
— addenda: on the subject of patent time duration
From STOPfakes.gov:
"A U.S. utility patent, explained above, is generally granted for 20 years from the date the patent application is filed; however, periodic fees are required to maintain the enforceability of the patent. U.S. design patents resulting from applications filed on or after May 13, 2015 have a 15 year term from the date of grant; however, patents issued from design applications filed before May 13, 2015 have a 14 year term from the date of grant.."
So a patent filed on the mechanical auto frame line selection mechanism in 1954 would have run out by about 1969 at the latest.
boojum
Mentor
That may have been your experience but it has not been mine. In applying a Leica profile to a non-Leica lens I got a darkening of the image that was weird although once in a while interesting. For this reason I abandoned it. The following two were taken in quick succession with a 50mm, either a venerable J8 or a Canon 1.8. I would have applied the lens profile for the oldest Leica non-aspherical, the 50mm Summicron V III. You must be having better luck than I. Here are some old results, the first is before removing the lens profile and the second after and just shooting straight. These are both SOOC.
Freakscene
Obscure member
Did it do this consistent with and without coding? One of my M8s periodically did this without changing lenses or codes. I would hazard to guess that this is a metering problem not anything to do with the coding. Keep an eye on it and if it does this without the coding get it checked by Leica.
Marty
boojum
Mentor
You may be right. I will talk to Jadon as he is the best deal around for Leicas. However, it is consistent, without coding, no problem, with coding, problem. The metering is fine and consistent in each condition.
dct
perpetual amateur
All legacy manufacturer with automatic frame line switching, did use the same detection approach as Leica did. I own and use a Konica RF and it switches correctly the frame lines, depending on the attached M-lens, because the notches on the lens (or M39 adapter) were defined by Leica exactly for this.:
:
The M's mechanical frame line selection mechanism is genius and excellent, and probably adds 50-60% to the cost of the M rangefinder/viewfinder mechanisms due to the precision that it has to operate with to be consistent and successful. My opinion is that Pixii SAS, like most other manufacturers that have adopted the Leica M-mount to gain access to the excellent existing lens base (like Cosina-Voigtländer, for instance) uses manual mechanical or manual software switched frame line selection to save a bunch on cost of manufacture and lower the inspection/quality assurance costs.
(note: I cannot recall for sure whether the modern Zeiss Ikon (manufactured by Cosina) or the Konica RF cameras that used M-mount lenses supported the mechanical auto frame line selection mechanisms..)
Patents give a limited term of exclusivity to an invention, and the M's auto frame line mechanism was first released with the M3 in 1954. I don't know for sure what the patent time limits are, but they're surely not more than 50 years at the maximum. The time of 17 years sticks in my head for some reason, but I am not certain.
:
: