Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

Reply
Thread Tools

Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?

 
 
RichA
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2011
On May 12, 5:38*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Bruce writes:
> >> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
> >> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). *I think it would
> >> be a strong seller to a niche market.

>
> >I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
> >black and white is not the same thing.

>
> Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
> and had a 6 MP CCD. *Two pro shooters told me that the 760m never
> seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
> managed to buy one. *For some of the reasons why, read this review of
> the DCS 760m on the Luminous Landscape web site:
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml
>
> There was apparently going to be a b/w version of either the 14 MP
> Kodak DCS Pro 14n or later SLR/n, but it never appeared.


Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On May 12, 5:38*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Bruce writes:
>> >> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>> >> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). *I think it would
>> >> be a strong seller to a niche market.

>>
>> >I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
>> >black and white is not the same thing.

>>
>> Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
>> and had a 6 MP CCD. *Two pro shooters told me that the 760m never
>> seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
>> managed to buy one. *For some of the reasons why, read this review of
>> the DCS 760m on the Luminous Landscape web site:
>>
>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml
>>
>> There was apparently going to be a b/w version of either the 14 MP
>> Kodak DCS Pro 14n or later SLR/n, but it never appeared.

>
>Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
>produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.



True, but you would also need a different image processor. It isn't
just a question of swapping colour sensors for black and white. So
buyers who aren't interested in a black and white sensor end up
subsidising its cost because *their* cameras end up more complex and
expensive than they need to be.

We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
would cost to make.

Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-12-2011
RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On May 10, 7:33*pm, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:11:04 -0500, Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >Kodak CCD's are inherently superior to consumer CMOS (that's ALL Nikons,
>> >Canons, etc) except in two key areas: *Visible noise and power
>> >consumption. That is what killed them.

>>
>> I'm sorry to have to tell you that my Kodak DCS Pro 14n has a CMOS
>> sensor, and that Kodak CCD sales to manufacturers such as Pentax,
>> Hasselblad and Leica are thriving! *
>>

>
>The sensors in those camera are to the ones in the Hasselblad as the
>D3 image is to a D40, one's a pro image, the other sports cartoon
>colours designed to please soccer moms. Everything in the Hasselblad
>back is higher grade, including the sensor, when it comes to critical
>accuracy of things like colour. That is why Kodak (and Dalsa) sensors
>dominate the science fields while Canon and Sony are no where to be
>seen except in the least-demanding applications, like surveillance and
>other related work.



I don't disagree with any of that.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Ray Fischer
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2011
Rich <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in news:100520110847324830%


>>> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>>> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
>>> be a strong seller to a niche market.

>>
>> kodak had a couple and they weren't.
>>
>> it makes a lot more sense to use a standard sensor and convert to b/w
>> when you want it, without giving up the ability to shoot colour when
>> you don't. it's also substantially less expensive, since low volume
>> sensors are not cheap.

>
>Not really. Notice cutting edge scientific photography (astronomy, etc)
>still rely on monochrome CCDs.


And they're very expensive.

> They do tri-colour filtration to create
>colour images when they need it. That way, no resolution or sharpness is
>lost due to Bayer filteration.


Resolution is not relevant - most of them have very low resolution.
The most important attribute of those cameras is low noise and high
sensitivity since they are commonly used for long exposures of minutes
to hours.

--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) | The new GOP ideal

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2011
Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>Bruce writes:
>> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
>> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
>> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
>> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
>> would cost to make.

>
>The only drawback would be the loss of income for camera companies.



A camera company is like any other company. It exists to make a
profit, and as much profit as possible.

So while there are lots of good ideas around, we will only ever see
camera companies using the ideas that they think will make them money.

Sometimes they take a gamble that doesn't pay off. Ask Ricoh how much
money they made from their P&S camera that comes with a choice of
lens/sensor combinations.


 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-13-2011
David Dyer-Bennet <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>On Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:59:37 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
>> RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On May 12, 5:38*am, Bruce <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> Mxsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >Bruce writes:
>> >> >> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>> >> >> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). *I think it would
>> >> >> be a strong seller to a niche market.
>> >>
>> >> >I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
>> >> >black and white is not the same thing.
>> >>
>> >> Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
>> >> and had a 6 MP CCD. *Two pro shooters told me that the 760m never
>> >> seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
>> >> managed to buy one. *For some of the reasons why, read this review of
>> >> the DCS 760m on the Luminous Landscape web site:
>> >>
>> >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...dak-760m.shtml
>> >>
>> >> There was apparently going to be a b/w version of either the 14 MP
>> >> Kodak DCS Pro 14n or later SLR/n, but it never appeared.
>> >
>> >Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
>> >produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.

>>
>>
>> True, but you would also need a different image processor. It isn't
>> just a question of swapping colour sensors for black and white. So
>> buyers who aren't interested in a black and white sensor end up
>> subsidising its cost because *their* cameras end up more complex and
>> expensive than they need to be.

>
>At the professional level (or crazed amateur, such as myself) that this
>appeals to, make it a RAW-only device. All the image processing can
>take place externally. Ideally, it should produce DNG files, with
>(not sure this is in the DNG standard) some flag indicating there were
>no color filters over the photosites. (Most of those decisions have
>been made by one or another of the digital back makers for medium and
>large format photography, over the years.)



RAW-only is a good idea, but it would greatly restrict the market for
such a camera. On the other hand, it would keep development costs
low. I think the must-have feature would be the ability to review (in
the camera) shots that you had taken. Live view would be nice, but
the Leica M8 and M9 have managed perfectly well without it. However,
I can't see many people wanting a camera where they couldn't review
the shots they had taken immediately after taking them. So some form
of processor would be required.


>Lots of people buy cameras precisely because they support options they
>never end up buying, so I wouldn't worry about that hurting the market
>too much.



Well, of course that's true!


>> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
>> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
>> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
>> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
>> would cost to make.
>>
>> Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
>> interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
>> absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.

>
>Yep. Well, the lens-plus-sensor idea makes a little bit of theoretical
>sense for image quality, but no financial sense at all. And DOESN'T
>address the frequent demand for upgrading sensors or using specialized
>sensors.



I agree, it doesn't. An interchangeable sensor might have some
utility, but I can't see it being made to work commercially. But who
knows? Nikon has recently patented such a system ...
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2011
nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> and in fact, they are. almost every digital camera has an antialias
> filter, the main exception being sigma.


And P&S cameras with such tiny pixels that the Airy disk
spreads the light over 4 or more pixels even wide open.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-16-2011
xsmanic <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> RichA writes:


>> Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
>> produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.


> But that would reduce profit margins, because then photographers could just
> buy a new sensor assembly, instead of being obligated to buy an entirely new
> body with each improvement in sensors.


Cheap bodies, expensive razor blades^W^Wsensors.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2011
In article <2011051721015543658-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> >> Please follow the thread. I made the first comment about sick virus
> >> writers who target MS. The response was that OSx and Linux are immune.
> >> Clearly a diversionary statement clearly designed to change the topic.

> >
> > straw man. nobody said they're immune, but that it's significantly
> > harder to do and so far, the only malware is user installed.

>
> Here is some recent Apple malware news;
> < http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13727_7...?tag=mncol;txt >


the mac defender virus is not an exploit of anything in os x. it
exploits people by tricking them into installing something. there's
nothing you can do about that. some people are stupid.

the only way for it to be installed is if the user clicks through the
install process *and* gives their admin password and only then the
malware is installed.

if they don't do all of that, nothing is installed. quit the installer
and no harm done.

it cannot propagate on its own. it *requires* the user to do it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2011
On 5/17/2011 10:21 PM, Savageduck wrote:

>
> ...<snip> I am replying to your post
> before you sent it.


Once a cop, always a cop.

Now if you could only forecast commodity prices we could make a fortune.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? nospam Digital Photography 180 07-15-2011 10:08 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 24 06-08-2011 09:58 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 31 05-26-2011 11:20 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:59 PM
Re: Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file? David Dyer-Bennet Digital Photography 3 05-20-2011 11:54 PM



Advertisments