• Welcome to Photrio!
    Registration is fast and free. Join today to unlock search, see fewer ads, and access all forum features.
    Click here to sign up

Best screen resolution for RAW files

Fortunately, the purchasing that I made for the MD had nothing to do with the specifications.
I was attracted to the cameras lack of LCD screen and left it up to Leica to make it good enough for photography…
 
wiltw said:
I could find no Leica-provided information on the topic. Lots of speculative discussion by Joe Average and his cousins.
Click to expand...

I did find this information just now https://www.overgaard.dk/leica_S2_dSLR.html
...mentions 'sensor bit = 16'
If it truly carries 16 bit data width, the importance of employing ETTR would be lessened, but nevertheless it would mamimize data content for detail in the shadows.

If find it interesting that some camera offer the alternative of 12-bit data, primarily to speed data transfer...I guess the idea is that publications cannot support more detail in the shadows of the offset-printed page, so faster data transfer is king for them.
 
Last edited:

It’s interesting you mentioned that.
Using the ETTR method isn’t as pronounced as I thought it would be…
 
Nikon 2 said:
It’s interesting you mentioned that.
Using the ETTR method isn’t as pronounced as I thought it would be…
Click to expand...

I think the reason is that once converted to JPG, the ability to reproduce more subtelties of shade in the shadow areas of the scene are inherently limited by the JPG and also by our monitors and display hardware in our PC. The LED monitor is typically limited at 10 stops.
 

The MD just shoots RAW…
 
Nikon 2 said:
The MD just shoots RAW…
Click to expand...

But your RAW files HAVE TO BE CONVERTED in order to view any photo...even with so-called built in ability to view RAW files without first converting, such as what Windows can do in viewing previews within a folder, there has to be a conversion. The RAW sensel only has an intensity value of a single color, and that sensel and its neighbors HAVE TO be interpreted to show pixels possiessing an RGB value for display on anyone's monitor.
 
Say you quantize the value of the pixel in many bits but if your sensor is noise then the least significant bits values are not good.
 
Nikon 2 said:
It’s interesting you mentioned that.
Using the ETTR method isn’t as pronounced as I thought it would be…
Click to expand...

And if you have an LCD monitor, it only can reproduce a DR of 9 stops, compared to recent LED monitors, further masking anything your camera might be able to record within its RAW file.
 
Pieter12 said:
But RAW files are of no use except for viewing on your own monitor. They must be converted to a different format to print or insert into a page layout program (such as for making a book).
Click to expand...

Yes, you’re right…!
 
Chan Tran said:
Say you quantize the value of the pixel in many bits but if your sensor is noise then the least significant bits values are not good.
Click to expand...

Hopefully Leica knows what they’re doing having their sensors made in Belgium…
 
wiltw said:
And if you have an LCD monitor, it only can reproduce a DR of 9 stops, compared to recent LED monitors, further masking anything your camera might be able to record within its RAW file.
Click to expand...

Interesting…
 
Pieter12 said:
Not absolutely sure about this, but I believe the sensors are designed in Belgium (Antwerp--home of de Koninck Beer!) but manufactured in France (Grenoble).
Click to expand...
Home of French fries.
Correct…
 

Attachments

  • IMG_7018.jpeg
    66.1 KB · Views: 48
The Nikon Z7ii shoots RAW and JPEG. I save both but only use RAW and archive the JPEG.
 
wiltw said:
how does the SAME PRODUCT description from the same company have two different specifications both for number of bits allocated and in the Dynamic Range?!
Click to expand...



My guess is that one source is optimistic w.r.t. DR - note the 'up to'. Measurement differences/criteria can play a role here as well. And one source refers to real bit resolution while the other mentions nominal data width.

It's of course unfortunate that such inconsistencies exist, but hey, they're sales brochures. I don't expect much technical accuracy from those. It's not like we're discussing a datasheet.
 
koraks said:
It's of course unfortunate that such inconsistencies exist, but hey, they're sales brochures. I don't expect much technical accuracy from those. It's not like we're discussing a datasheet.
Click to expand...

Both sheets carry the label "Technical Data" I spent a lifetime involved in Product Marketing of high tech products, in several industries and product areas and such stuff gets reviewed, lest errors creep in. If such inconsistency got thru a German company offering a super premium product, that would surprise me ...not in the DNA of Germans in technical areas to be not precise, and be somewhat conservative in their claims. My German car tests by Car & Driver to be almost 1 second faster 0-60 mph than published spec.
 
Last edited:

Are we discussing two different companies?
One being Leica and the other Lieca…
 
Sadly, DNA sometimes mutates. I am reminded of Volkswagen who published emission specifications for their diesel cars sold in the USA which turned out to be neither precise nor conservative. But then, it sounds like Volkswagen did not exactly let those errors "creep in" to their specifications... :-(
 

Sadly it was not simply 'Marketing errors' but outright fraudulent misrepresentation of products as meeting regulatory goals.
  • VW equipped many of its diesel-powered vehicles with software that turned off emissions controls during normal driving conditions, but turned them on during emissions tests. This allowed the vehicles to pass emissions tests, but emit 40x more NOx emissions while driving.
This led to some indictments of top executives and some guilty pleas by high level managers.
As a followup to the scandal, there was independent testing of many different brands of diesel-powered vehicles, and as of March 2017, 38 out of 40 diesel cars of all brands tested and failed a NOx-test based on government standards. The fraud was not isolated to VW, and not only the one country's car companies!
 
Last edited:

I had a 1985 VW Scricroco and everytime I had an inspection I had to pay the shop twice. Once to tune it so that it would pass the inspection and then once afterward to make it runs right.
 
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register