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

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by bob, May 10, 2011.

  1. bob

    RichA Guest

    On May 12, 5:38 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    > Mxsmanic <> 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/reviews/cameras/kodak-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.
     
    RichA, May 12, 2011
    #21
    1. Advertising

  2. bob

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On May 12, 5:38 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> Mxsmanic <> 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/reviews/cameras/kodak-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.
     
    Bruce, May 12, 2011
    #22
    1. Advertising

  3. bob

    Bruce Guest

    RichA <> wrote:
    >On May 10, 7:33 pm, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:11:04 -0500, Rich <> 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.
     
    Bruce, May 12, 2011
    #23
  4. bob

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Rich <> wrote:
    >nospam <> 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
    | The new GOP ideal
     
    Ray Fischer, May 13, 2011
    #24
  5. bob

    Bruce Guest

    Mxsmanic <> 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.
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #25
  6. bob

    Bruce Guest

    David Dyer-Bennet <> wrote:
    >On Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:59:37 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
    >> RichA <> wrote:
    >> >On May 12, 5:38 am, Bruce <> wrote:
    >> >> Mxsmanic <> 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/reviews/cameras/kodak-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 ...
     
    Bruce, May 13, 2011
    #26
  7. nospam <> 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011
    #27
  8. xsmanic <> 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
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011
    #28
  9. bob

    nospam Guest

    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_7-20063683-263.html?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.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #29
  10. bob

    PeterN Guest

    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
     
    PeterN, May 18, 2011
    #30
  11. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <201105172310578930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>, Savageduck
    <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > ...and your clock is still screwed up. It is very strange that we are
    > in the same time zone, and I am responding to your post about 90
    > minutes before you posted it????


    my clock is right and set to the correct time zone too. the problem is
    elsewhere. this is partly a test post to see if my hunch is correct.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #31
  12. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <2011051810250550878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> ...and your clock is still screwed up. It is very strange that we are
    > >> in the same time zone, and I am responding to your post about 90
    > >> minutes before you posted it????

    > >
    > > my clock is right and set to the correct time zone too. the problem is
    > > elsewhere. this is partly a test post to see if my hunch is correct.

    >
    > Now you have shifted time zones by 3 hours and you seem to be clock synced.
    > Where exactly are you located? I am in California using PDT (UCT-0700).


    i quit and relaunched my news client, which apparently caches the time
    zone. expect another discrepancy next time i fly cross country. :) at
    least i know where the problem is.
     
    nospam, May 18, 2011
    #32
  13. bob

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/18/2011 2:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-18 11:22:04 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >> In article <2011051810250550878-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    >> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >>
    >>>>> ...and your clock is still screwed up. It is very strange that we are
    >>>>> in the same time zone, and I am responding to your post about 90
    >>>>> minutes before you posted it????
    >>>>
    >>>> my clock is right and set to the correct time zone too. the problem is
    >>>> elsewhere. this is partly a test post to see if my hunch is correct.
    >>>
    >>> Now you have shifted time zones by 3 hours and you seem to be clock
    >>> synced.
    >>> Where exactly are you located? I am in California using PDT (UCT-0700).

    >>
    >> i quit and relaunched my news client, which apparently caches the time
    >> zone. expect another discrepancy next time i fly cross country. :) at
    >> least i know where the problem is.

    >
    > Aah!
    >
    > Well at least the you are aware of this anomaly. It was getting to be a
    > little strange.
    >

    I am disappointed in you. Here I thought you had the power.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 18, 2011
    #33
  14. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <2011052316353775249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >> just when i'd thought i'd seen it all. different than what?

    > >
    > > Different from those of a PC. This is often an issue when designing or
    > > explaining program interfaces to users. A PC mouse has a second button. A
    > > Mac keyboard has special keys that a PC does not, and vice versa.

    >
    > The one button Mac Mouse is a thing of the past, and has been for
    > years. For years before that little design change it has always been
    > possible to get a two, or more button mouse for use on a Mac. I favor
    > the, no longer made, MS 4 button (+scroll wheel) TrackBall, or Logitech
    > Trackman.


    macs have supported multi-button mice since the late 1980s. it was up
    to the user to decide.
     
    nospam, May 24, 2011
    #34
  15. bob

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/23/2011 7:44 PM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-23 16:42:25 -0700, Savageduck
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> said:
    >
    >> On 2011-05-23 14:55:57 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >>
    >>> In article <>, Mxsmanic
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>> which is why i said for consumers, but apple does have more formal
    >>>>> training programs. most people don't need it. it's not like companies
    >>>>> send 40,000 employees to microsoft for training either.
    >>>>
    >>>> They don't have to. Most employees have already been exposed to
    >>>> Windows.
    >>>
    >>> macs aren't much different.

    >>
    >> Yup!
    >> If you know Word, or Excel on Widows, you will know it on a Mac.

    >
    > Did I type "widows"? Now there is a Freudian slip. ;-)
    >

    So my version of Spyder is a back widow?

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 24, 2011
    #35
  16. bob

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On May 24, 12:43 am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
    wrote:
    > On 2011-05-23 15:13:14 -0700, nospam <> said:
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > > In article <>, Mxsmanic
    > > <> wrote:

    >
    > >>> just when i'd thought i'd seen it all. different than what?

    >
    > >> Different from those of a PC.

    >
    > > not really

    >
    > >> This is often an issue when designing or
    > >> explaining program interfaces to users.

    >
    > > not really

    >
    > >> A PC mouse has a second button.

    >
    > > so does a mac mouse, sometimes more.

    >
    > > apple used to ship a four button mouse. now they ship a touch based
    > > mouse that supports gestures as well as multiple buttons. and as i
    > > said, any standard usb mouse works on a mac.

    >
    > >> A Mac keyboard has special keys that a PC does not, and vice versa.

    >
    > > they can easily be mapped and os x does it automatically. there's also
    > > an option to override it for personal preference. it's a non-issue.

    >
    > Always has been. The "fear of the single button Mac" was always MS FUD.
    >
    > --


    Yep, and even if (after buying a Mac) you couldn't afford to buy
    another mouse
    all you had to do was hold down the CTRL key while clicking and that
    gave you access to
    the 'PC' second button options.
     
    Whisky-dave, May 24, 2011
    #36
  17. bob

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <2011052320135964440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >
    > On 2011-05-23 19:22:27 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >
    > > nospam writes:
    > >
    > >> ... as i said, using a mac is not much
    > >> different than windows.

    > >
    > > So why use a Mac?

    >
    > Because it is a good choice for reaching an elegant solution to
    > multiple OS issues.
    >
    > You might as well have asked, "why choose a Dodge Neon, over a
    > Mercedes, or another desirable vehicle?"



    What makes a mac "a good choice for reaching an elegant solution to
    multiple OS issues"?
     
    J. Clarke, May 24, 2011
    #37
  18. bob

    PeterN Guest

    On 5/24/2011 11:17 AM, Savageduck wrote:
    > On 2011-05-24 07:44:39 -0700, "J. Clarke" <> said:
    >
    >> In article <2011052320135964440-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    >> savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com says...
    >>>
    >>> On 2011-05-23 19:22:27 -0700, Mxsmanic <> said:
    >>>
    >>>> nospam writes:
    >>>>
    >>>>> ... as i said, using a mac is not much
    >>>>> different than windows.
    >>>>
    >>>> So why use a Mac?
    >>>
    >>> Because it is a good choice for reaching an elegant solution to
    >>> multiple OS issues.
    >>>
    >>> You might as well have asked, "why choose a Dodge Neon, over a
    >>> Mercedes, or another desirable vehicle?"

    >>
    >>
    >> What makes a mac "a good choice for reaching an elegant solution to
    >> multiple OS issues"?

    >
    > With my Intel MacBook Pro & iMac I can get the ease and stability of OSX
    > together with the versatility of Windows (run clean on a stand alone
    > partition, or with Parallels, or VM Fusion), or Linux.
    > If need be I can run all three OS's together freely exchanging files
    > between them.
    > This is all done seamlessly, and elegantly. This is not a feature
    > dedicated Windows machines offer.
    >


    I have a Windows machine running a Linux partition. I Never tried OSX
    but I have been able to run a Solaris partition a few years ago.

    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, May 25, 2011
    #38
  19. bob

    John Turco Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    <edited for brevity>

    > The one button Mac Mouse is a thing of the past, and has been for
    > years. For years before that little design change it has always been
    > possible to get a two, or more button mouse for use on a Mac. I favor
    > the, no longer made, MS 4 button (+scroll wheel) TrackBall, or Logitech
    > Trackman.


    <edited>

    This PCer prefers Microsoft's "rodents" -- and irrespective of brand,
    I no longer buy >anything<, with fewer than 5 buttons (including the
    scroll wheel, itself).

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
     
    John Turco, May 27, 2011
    #39
  20. bob

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Eric Stevens
    <> wrote:

    > >> Hopefully, one day someone will write true 64 bit image processing
    > >> software and I will stop running out of memory when I have too many
    > >> large images open.

    > >
    > >many companies already have.

    >
    > I would be interested to know who. All I have looked at turn out to be
    > 32 bit.


    photoshop, lightroom, aperture, pixelmator. i'm sure there are more.
     
    nospam, May 27, 2011
    #40
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    251
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  2. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    227
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    May 21, 2011
  3. David Dyer-Bennet

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

    David Dyer-Bennet, May 10, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    636
    Wolfgang Weisselberg
    Jun 8, 2011
  4. nospam
    Replies:
    180
    Views:
    2,744
    John Turco
    Jul 15, 2011
  5. Wolfgang Weisselberg

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

    Wolfgang Weisselberg, May 16, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    674
    John Turco
    May 27, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page