M9 with B&W sensor?

135format said:
I thought that pixels as we get them in our image files were a combination of 3 receptors. i.e. Green, Red and Blue receptors. My asumption was that turning them all into luminance receptors would effectively give you three times as many pixels. Obviously I'm wrong on that one.
Click to expand...

You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.
 
IMHO, B&W is not the strength of digital... also to shoot digital B&W one should not need to be so picky about the camera as the tonalities, gradations and film simulations will depend on the software together with the mastery employed during PP rather than the camera used. Further lens-sensor deficiencies like CA or color-shift toward corners would not be issue with B&W, so the less spec'd lenses could perform satisfactorily.

I wonder if the B&W version of the M9 would sell half of what the M9 did so far no matter even if it would be priced at $5.000.
 
Archiver said:
You're thinking of the Foveon sensor, which has three layers, each devoted to red, blue or green.

My understanding is that normal CMOS and CCD's determine RGB values at each sensor site by way of the Bayer filter. Each pixel measures the red, blue and green levels at that point; there is no separate receptor for each colour.
Click to expand...

Very nice presentation on the subject by Rob Hummel:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98FZ8C6HneE
 
Keith said:
Anyone who would shell out $5000 + for a digital camera body with a 36 x 24mm sensor that only produces black and white needs their head examined IMO!
Click to expand...

May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.
 
The point is moot, imo. I would not be surprised if an B&W camera, if it appears at all, would be a limited edition 15000 $ + camera....
 
jsrockit said:
May I ask why? I'm a color photographer, but I could not say what you just said as an absolute.
Click to expand...



I never stated it as an absolute ... purely as my own opinon hence the IMO at the end of the sentence!

Followed up with a cautious YMMV :D
 
Keith said:
I knew you were around and I wasn't about to take any unecessary risks! :p
Click to expand...

Oh man, now I feel bad! :D Just so you know, I'm with you on the B&W only camera... for my needs. However, for some, I can see this camera being very intriguing.
 
Actually jaapv makes a good point about it being released as a limited edition for a silly price!

It would get snapped up .... as the HCB special maybe? :p
 
Interesting. I would never have interest in a limited edition with an inflated price tag. But that's just I. We just have such different wants ... of which, of course, none is better than another.
 
A question.......... if every pixel can be used to create shades of grey,or intensity,surely a black and white sensor must give a much sharper and more accurate image than a black and white image from a colour sensor which would give an average reading to a clump of 3 or 4 pixels.Both images would have the same pixel count but the image from the black and white sensor woulld be MUCH finer,not just 30% or so(this I imagine is connected to the extra green pixels)but a great deal more detail and definition,at least double.:confused:
 
In this article (Copyright Pete Myers):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml


He Says: "Without an anti aliasing filter and no Bayer color matrix, the resolution of a 6 mega pixel monochrome camera is astonishing. In monochrome, 6 mega pixels effectively does what it takes 12-24 mega pixels with a color matrix. "

I think he sure would buy one of these B/W cameras.
 
I could imagine a B/W-only sensor with a higher bit sampling rate, say 24 bits or more, perhaps upwards of 28 to 32 bits, giving finer tonal gradations, especially in the highlight areas. Such a sensor would have to be designed as such from inception, not merely adapting a color sensor by removing the Bayer array.

I can also imagine such a sensor with much larger pixel sites, for improved low-light sensitivity.

I can also imagine the price would be extremely affordable, but I'm almost certain I'd be wrong on that count, too.

~Joe
 
jaapv said:
That is the Foveon story. it s a nice enough sensor, but marketing remains marketing.
Click to expand...

Interesting because wikipedia is saying the exact opposite and that the bayer filter has to be de-mosaic'ed from 4 locations to arrive at a single pixel value whereas the foveon is layered so there is only one vertical location for each pixel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

edit:

having read some more it seems that bayer filter is nothing to do with it. It is what the software does with it that counts. So there would be zero increase in pixels by removing a bayer filter. And I don't see how there would be an increase with a foveon either.
 
You are right. But one single pixel in the Foveon creates three values in RGB. Thus the marketing claimed a tripling of the resolution. However, geometrically that is nonsense, as the three pixel values are in the same location.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom