the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Bleeding Edge / Modeling the Leica M240 noise floor

Modeling the Leica M240 noise floor

September 13, 2013 JimK Leave a Comment

I’ve noted before in this series of posts that the M240 has an unusually low noise floor at ISOs 200, 400, and 800, with ISOs 1600 and 3200 producing more reasonable values. Today I tried to do some modeling to figure out what was going on.

Here’s the program (in Matlab), with the values entered that I used for the first plot:

noise sim matlab

Noise can be introduced before and after the analog-to-digital converter. The two noise sources are assumed to be Gaussian and uncorrelated. There’s provision to include some light falling on the sensor, but I’ve not used it here.

Here’s the actual noise floor versus ISO setting plotted on the same grid as the results from the above model.

M240 noise floor modeling with no offset

You can see that the very simple model of no post-gain noise and entirely unbiased Gaussian pre-gain noise matches the high ISO actual means and standard deviations. However, if you match the model results to the ISO 1600 and 3200 results from the camera, the ISO 200, 400, and 800 results are way off. Adding post-gain noise makes this worse.

Adding a four-LSB negative offset after the gain like this:

noise sim matlab 2

matches the observed standard deviation pretty well, but the means are off for ISOs 400 and 800:

M240 noise floor modeling with offset

I can’t find any combination of the model variables that gives a much better match to the actual mean values. Having the ADC noise at zero in the model is not realistic, but fiddling with that value, unlike with all the other cameras I’ve modeled, doesn’t seem to help with matching the actual performance.

It’s a mystery to me, at least for now. Leica wouldn’t crank in different offsets with different ISO settings, would they?

 

The Bleeding Edge, The Last Word

← Leica M240 green shadows, images from two cameras Details of the modeling of the Leica M240 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Jake on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • JimK on Who am I?
  • Piotr Chylarecki on Who am I?
  • Stefan on Swebo TC-1 OOBE

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.