Trying to explain things to you has been casting pearls before swine.

But there are others watching this discussion - 1866 views at this point. Some may consider it entertainment but others are learning from it.

If Nikon and Sony don't digitally zoom the blinkies that show in the thumbnail, that's a deliberate choice. Zooming in live view or in the thumbnail is for checking the focus, not the exposure. They are creating the zoomed view from the full JPEG, not the thumbnail that has the blinkies embedded in it. There is no benefit to zooming in on the blinkies.

If you look closely at the highlight warnings for your SL you will see that the zoomed in version is only approximately similar to the shape of the full image version. It's not very sharp either. That suggests that Leica is not very careful with their display.

In fact, the blinkies provide no benefit at all to someone who intends to develop from raw on their computer unless they know the relationship between the start of the blinkies and the levels recorded in the raw file. I have measured that relationship with the help of RawDigger, you have not.

Many of us already know the answer. But for anyone who needs proof, here is some evidence.

Now you can't look directly at a raw image. The raw information captured under the Bayer (or X-Trans) array needs to be converted (demosaiced) into an RGB image. Even the image displayed by RawDigger has been converted to make it visible. The only way to determine what the raw file contains is to look at the raw histogram.

The histograms you see on the back of your camera or in your raw editor are derived from the converted image, not the raw file.

In this image the camera was set to Daylight WB. The camera was at 1/50s @ f/4 ISO 1600:



RawDigger shows the converted image on the left using the WB "As Shot" - the camera's WB. The histograms on the right show how the red, green and blue raw channels recorded.

In the second image the camera was set to Incandescent WB. The camera was still at 1/50s @ f/4 ISO 1600:



Since RawDigger is still showing the image As Shot, the camera's WB made the image come out better. But notice the histograms. They are virtually identical to the first example.

But the JPEG histograms on the camera's LCD are different. They would also be different in a raw editor since those are also JPEG histograms, not raw histograms.
Nice clear summary with great examples.


What's more, the number of overexposed pixels are almost exactly the same and the highlight warnings were flashing in the same places with the same intensity.

And to top things off, the recommended exposure using Matrix metering was the same for both images.

So the camera's meter and blinkies are tied directly to the raw file, not the white balanced JPEG (this may not be the case with Active D-Lighting turned on). And the raw file content is indeed independent of the WB setting.

Later I will post another example taken in broad daylight.

It most certainly does not. It proves exactly the opposite. I downloaded your last two images and placed the critical area side by side -- see illustration below. With the WB change there is a clear reduction in the area covered by the blinkies. It's the expected change in response to that WB change. If WB doesn't affect the blinkies then we should see the same area covered by the blinkies in both photos -- certainly not the case. You've proven yourself wrong --good job! Of course four months ago you were originally correct in this post: https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-692202-3.html#12145988 if that's any consolation.

You remain proven wrong that the blinkies are based on raw data.
You remain proven wrong that the blinkies are not influenced by the WB setting.