| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/18/2011 12:44:06 PM · #1 |
I've been thinking about this for some time now, and I find myself really desiring a true B&W sensor.
My reasons are best summed up in a short list:
Greater effective ISO - no filtering of light = more light available (~3x more + infrared)
More MP, finer details - same old debate, but at least in B&W the file sizes would be very reasonable.
Infrared photography anyone? :)
No white-balance issues, and all of those cool old film style filters would be useful again!
....
So, what reasons can you think of? Both in favor of and against this idea? Do you think anyone might actually go for this market at some point?
(I think I'd really want this in a X100 style body, in full-frame size...)
Message edited by author 2011-09-18 18:23:23. |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 12:48:45 PM · #2 |
| I've often wondered this myself, Cory. Of course, it's much easier to convert from color than it is to carry around a second, dedicated camera. But you'd think camera companies would jump at the chance to sell more product... |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 12:54:27 PM · #3 |
I can't remember the exact name, but I'm pretty sure Apple's first digital camera was B&W (grayscale), with a 400 x 300 pixel sensor ...
Problem is that it would be a true niche market -- everyone else just switches to grayscale mode or converts later.
With a grayscale sensor, you only get one built-in setting for how the various colors are interpreted as gray -- much like using the default mode change in Photoshop; starting with a color capture allows more flexibility in the conversion (e.g. using the Channel Mixer). |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 12:57:13 PM · #4 |
The Foveon sensor is the closest thing to what you're asking for, since all its photosites are equivalent (versus being filtered for red, green or blue light and placed in an array as in your Bayer sensor).
Sigma is the only manufacturer making cameras with the Foveon sensor.
ETA: There's even raw software for this purpose. Read the first bullet point:
Monoveon
Message edited by author 2011-09-18 15:34:22. |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 04:35:06 PM · #5 |
There would certainly an advantage in sensitivity in getting rid of the filters. There would be *very* little advantage in rendering of detail. Most cameras with Bayer sensors come very close to the Nyquist-limited resolution despite the color filtering.
As Paul pointed out, you would lose the ability to convert based on the rendering of color, and this truly would be a great loss. In the end, it's better to collect color information and use it for a better B+W conversion than to shoot B+W to begin with.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2011 06:04:38 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
There would certainly an advantage in sensitivity in getting rid of the filters. There would be *very* little advantage in rendering of detail. Most cameras with Bayer sensors come very close to the Nyquist-limited resolution despite the color filtering.
As Paul pointed out, you would lose the ability to convert based on the rendering of color, and this truly would be a great loss. In the end, it's better to collect color information and use it for a better B+W conversion than to shoot B+W to begin with. |
Notice the order of my points... The ISO gain is by far my greatest desire. :)
But, I think you do raise a very interesting observation. |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 06:12:07 PM · #7 |
| I'd love a dedicated camera for Infrared (I don't think it's possible to get a conversion done in South Africa) but agree that ordinary black and white conversions are better done in post-processing. |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 06:15:05 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Notice the order of my points... The ISO gain is by far my greatest desire. :)
But, I think you do raise a very interesting observation. |
Indeed, the ISO gain is tantalizing. We're throwing away 2/3 of our precious photons before they ever get to the sensor! So we could get a little over a stop of improvement. Pretty nifty.
As  bvy points out, Foveon gets around this (in part) by exploiting the different variation of penetration depth with wavelength in silicon. The results, to date have not, IMO, been good enough to threaten the dominance of the Bayer sensor. Eventually, though, we will probably abandon color filters, perhaps for sensors that measure both the position and energy (color) of incoming photons.
|
|
|
|
09/18/2011 06:23:51 PM · #9 |
A b/w sensor will, by definition, have made filtering choices itself, by it's very design, and you will not be able to alter that. You will lose capability, not gaining much.
Set your camera jpegs to be b/w, and then compare what you can do with the full color raw files vs. b/w jpegs in post with both. |
|
|
|
09/19/2011 12:01:20 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by chromeydome:
A b/w sensor will, by definition, have made filtering choices itself, by it's very design, and you will not be able to alter that. You will lose capability, not gaining much.
Set your camera jpegs to be b/w, and then compare what you can do with the full color raw files vs. b/w jpegs in post with both. |
I'm in complete agreement on this. I'm not aching to go back to the days when I shot a landscape with a red filter to darken the sky, only to find out too late that I'd darkened the foliage so much as to ruin the luminance of the scene, and would have been better off running a green filter instead. Now I can make those adjustments in post, whenever I want to. I see no reason at all for a dedicated B/W sensor. I don't see the speed gain as being so substantial.
R.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 11/05/2025 04:02:28 AM EST.
