In terms of "pure quality", a Monochrome sensor picks up 1 F-Stop of sensitivity, as it gets rid of the color filter in front of the sensor. It picks up 4x the resolution for red and blue objects, and twice the resolution for green objects. Subjective difference? It's just better, but if people are comfortable with desaturating the image from the color sensor, hard to say. If I were going to buy an M9 for professional B&W work, I'd spend the extra money on it for work. For home use, probably not.
The M9 will never achieve the quality for Infrared Work of the M8. And if you get into the IR range, the M8 is essentially a Monochrome camera. All three color dyes used for the Mosaic Filter fail to absorb IR. So in the IR region, the M8 is a good Monochrome camera. Take that DAMNED IR absorbing glass off the Sensor, it would be a GREAT IR monochrome camera.
The M9 will never achieve the quality for Infrared Work of the M8. And if you get into the IR range, the M8 is essentially a Monochrome camera. All three color dyes used for the Mosaic Filter fail to absorb IR. So in the IR region, the M8 is a good Monochrome camera. Take that DAMNED IR absorbing glass off the Sensor, it would be a GREAT IR monochrome camera.
Last edited:
downstairs
downstairs
Thanks Brian, I now understand a bit better. BetterLight was on the same track last year.
biggambi
Vivere!
O.K. Brian,
Let's get into the actual spec we would want to approach Kodak to create the optimum B&W system via the M8x. What are the chances that Leica would give us the source code in a co-operative engineering program? So, that the system may be optimized as you have pointed out in another thread. I am thinking that the M8x is the target camera. They are going to be attainable at a greatly reduced price, and people see them as an inferior product to the M9. Leica has moved on and they are not going to be looking back.
The "DNG" file format should not have to change. It would be nice to have true 16-bit values stored rather than the 8-bit "square-root-of-whatever" algorithm that cuts storage in half. You also recover about 12 columns and rows of the edges of the frame as the color-interpolation scheme is not required.
Leica could modify the source code easily. I've been in the position of getting source code delivered with systems in order to implement custom features.
Optimal CCD would leave off the entire layer for the Bayer Filter, rather than just having a layer without Dye. But then the sensor geometry changes.
SO: if Kodak were to make a run of CCD's without Dye on the layer, and you use DNG, not much else changes. Leica would have to calibrate the Meter for 1 Stop, or you would use -1ev all the time.
Leica could modify the source code easily. I've been in the position of getting source code delivered with systems in order to implement custom features.
Optimal CCD would leave off the entire layer for the Bayer Filter, rather than just having a layer without Dye. But then the sensor geometry changes.
SO: if Kodak were to make a run of CCD's without Dye on the layer, and you use DNG, not much else changes. Leica would have to calibrate the Meter for 1 Stop, or you would use -1ev all the time.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
I'm sure you are aware that desaturating is just about the very worst way of converting an image to B&W. If that is your yardstick, I can understand the need for a dedicated B&W camera - it cuts out pilot error....
If you simply desaturate you throw away everything but the luminance channel and you lose 67% of the image. However, if you convert properly, you actually use the colour infomation and can tweak the curves per colour, giving you better tonal separation than any monochrome sensor could ever hope to produce. A B&W sensor would be a step backwards and I would never buy a camera with one because it would impair the results I get from a full colour system.
Last edited:
The proper way to convert from color to monochrome is to add the values of the elements from the 2x2 Bayer site and divide by 4. You also get 1/4th the resolution. That is the correct way to do it.
Now- as an engineer, if you want better monochrome performance, you get rid of the Mosaic Filter. If you want something that looks like monochrome, there are a lot of ways to do it. The results look nice, even if they cannot be used for radiometric and other technical applications. But they "look okay" to the eye, and it alright for some people.
> it cuts out pilot error....
Yes, it cuts out user errors that are made by just "eyeballing" it, rather than capturing the image as it should appear.
Has anyone else on this forum done conversions to watts/steradian using their digital cameras?
Now- as an engineer, if you want better monochrome performance, you get rid of the Mosaic Filter. If you want something that looks like monochrome, there are a lot of ways to do it. The results look nice, even if they cannot be used for radiometric and other technical applications. But they "look okay" to the eye, and it alright for some people.
> it cuts out pilot error....
Yes, it cuts out user errors that are made by just "eyeballing" it, rather than capturing the image as it should appear.
Has anyone else on this forum done conversions to watts/steradian using their digital cameras?
Last edited:
ruslan
Established
Definitely, especially if camera will be with 36x36 sensor.
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
How are you going to handle the vignetting? The square that fits into a circle defined by a 24x36 rectangle measures 28x28 mm
Last edited:
Roger Hicks
Veteran
The proper way to convert from color to monochrome is to add the values of the elements from the 2x2 Bayer site and divide by 4. You also get 1/4th the resolution. That is the correct way to do it.
Now- as an engineer, if you want better monochrome performance, you get rid of the Mosaic Filter. If you want something that looks like monochrome, there are a lot of ways to do it. The results look nice, even if they cannot be used for radiometric and other technical applications. But they "look okay" to the eye, and it alright for some people.
> it cuts out pilot error....
Yes, it cuts out user errors that are made by just "eyeballing" it, rather than capturing the image as it should appear.
Has anyone else on this forum done conversions to watts/steradian using their digital cameras?
Dear Brian,
I'm not sure about 'should'. There's too much of the psychology and indeed physiology of vision involved. 'Eyeballing' is almost certainly a better solution than physics, when it comes down to what we see/ think we see/ want to see.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
larmarv916
Well-known
Roger...the fatal flaw, as I see it in the M9. Goes to the very root of rangfinder concept. That is rangefinders are instruments..in all areas of industry. To measure a distance with the utmost accuracy. The M9 Fails....period. it has an inferior rangefinder system. It goes directly against the idea that a step forward means...better results. The results must start with a focusing device that give greater accuracy that the previous model....not less. You can not get better accuracy with M9. The rangefinder base is less accurate.
Now here we have a full frame camera that does not have the ability to out perform an original M3 !! That is not progress.
As for the sensor...why do we need the million dollar solution for the same problem that Nikon & Canon have deliver for less. Is the Nikon sensor inferior? No.
A special BW sensor...is again proving that they blew it when they delivered the original concept for a better product over the M8.2
So you really have to come back to an even greater problem..the people who decide what is best for us! M9 is flawed from the "clean sheet" of paper is was born. Sad but true...remember. All Inferior M3, 4 , 5, 6, and 7..with even a .72 , 85 or 92 can deliver a better image by virtue of superior focus accuracy. So while would have wished they had actually gotten it right on the M9....a miss is as good as a mile.
Now here we have a full frame camera that does not have the ability to out perform an original M3 !! That is not progress.
As for the sensor...why do we need the million dollar solution for the same problem that Nikon & Canon have deliver for less. Is the Nikon sensor inferior? No.
A special BW sensor...is again proving that they blew it when they delivered the original concept for a better product over the M8.2
So you really have to come back to an even greater problem..the people who decide what is best for us! M9 is flawed from the "clean sheet" of paper is was born. Sad but true...remember. All Inferior M3, 4 , 5, 6, and 7..with even a .72 , 85 or 92 can deliver a better image by virtue of superior focus accuracy. So while would have wished they had actually gotten it right on the M9....a miss is as good as a mile.
user237428934
User deletion pending
Why "us". You can't speak for me. But I don't have a problem with it, that you don't like the M9.
How is it possible that people are able to get sharp photos with M8/M9 even wide open when it's so inferior?
Pickett Wilson
Veteran
The M9 is the best full frame digital rangefinder in the world. There is no real way to declare it "good" or "bad." There is nothing to compare it to. It's not the camera of choice for 99.9 percent of the people who use cameras. But there is no debating what it is.
Well Shoot, I had this nice response just waiting but no one has queued me.
So I'll just post it anyway.
I'm bringing in Digital Sensor Fabrication Expert Jack Nicholson to explain the issues with fabricating a Monochrome Sensor.
Take it, Jack.
Well, I used to like my Digital cameras to be Monochrome and without that damned IR cut filter. I want it all back, and will filter when I want. Don't want some weenee cutting in on my light. It's just like a Tomato and Lettuce sandwich, no bacon. But today, nobody leaves off the Bacon. At first I got mad, but then took a peek-sy into the Kitchen. A whole line of cooks making that BLT- yumm, yumm. First guy takes a plate, next cook puts the first piece of bread, next cook puts on Bacon, next guy lettuce, next cook puts on the annealing Mayo, next cook pops a few slices of tomato so the annealing Mayo will not seep into the bread, next guy puts on the top piece of bread and pushes down. Finally the taste tester takes a bite, and if it ain't a BLT out it goes. I SAW what happened to the Lettuce and tomato sandwich- stopped after the slice of bread was put on the plate and had no way to get to the lettuce cook.
Oh well, BLT for ME! Whenever I want monochrome images, I just learn to ignore the taste of bacon.
Last edited:
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
What bollocks. The M8 and M9 focus more than accurately enough to be within the native DOF of the sensor even with the most "difficult" lenses -which btw, is far more narrow than the native DOF of film- All the leeway these historical RF magnifications give is good for one thing only - compensating for user error.
Last edited:
Turtle
Veteran
It is indeed. Its like saying a 0.58 M is inferior to a 0.85, when you have no 28mm lines on the 0.85 and the 35s are hard to see. 0.68 is really no change from 0.72 with if anything a hair more room around 28mm lines.
The M3 does not even have 35mm lines so is 'better' if you want to focus a 90 but considerably worse for 35 and 28mm!
The M3 does not even have 35mm lines so is 'better' if you want to focus a 90 but considerably worse for 35 and 28mm!
Andy Kibber
Well-known
By that logic it's also the worst full frame digital rangefinder camera in the world.
biggambi
Vivere!
Brian,
So, now we are down to the nuts and bolts of this idea. It would be nice to have an idea how much the sensor would cost. Would you be interested in making an inquiry with Kodak for production? It would be nice to know where a price break would come into play with production numbers 50/100/250/500 units. Would you expect Leica to receive a better price given their relationship with Kodak? How is the sensor delivered? i am wondering what is involved in replacing the existing one? It would be important to have an idea of the cost and labour before approaching Leica, don't you agree? Also, if I were to try to raise capital I would need some specifics.
Roger Hicks,
Who would we approach at Leica to do a limited run project? I don't know if this is going to get past the drawing board, but I believe Brian has given a strong argument as to what can be gained. We are talking a very small market, and a difficult time to attain capital for such a project. But, stranger things have happened. I think the only way this is going to fly, is if enough people are willing to commit to orders monetarily.
Kindest regards to both of you,
I can send an inquiry to Kodak's sensor group. Sad part, it's not like it was in the early 90s. The sensor group in my Division "just makes their own". Sad part- the availability of a hand-held 18MPixel VNIR camera that can take a full range of interchangeable lenses, many of them APO designs, and allow use of filter banks without inhibiting the viewfinder would be interesting to the Technical community. It's a camera I could justify buying for work.
CCD's are not cheap, and I would expect the CCD to be in the $4,000 range or more even after NRE. The cost is to produce the Mosaic layer without color dye, and to modify the test and validation procedures. Just like a Lettuce and Tomato sandwich.
CCD's are not cheap, and I would expect the CCD to be in the $4,000 range or more even after NRE. The cost is to produce the Mosaic layer without color dye, and to modify the test and validation procedures. Just like a Lettuce and Tomato sandwich.
Last edited: