Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?  (Read 4976 times)

Telecaster

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2412
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #20 on: April 26, 2017, 01:17:50 AM »

When I use b&w film I rarely shoot "naked" (that is, sans filter).  :)  With a monochrom(e) camera it would likely be the same. Yet I often use an orange filter, which gives a visual result not far off what I'd get from a Monochrom without any filter. Hmmm…

Anyway photosite counts are at the point where you can sacrifice some spatial resolution during RAW conversion and get higher tonal res in return, and on an image-by-image basis. One RGBG photosite square equaling one output pixel or a similar scheme. It'd be nice if software creators took closer note of this (I say, for approx. the 100 millionth time since ~2003). [Edit begin]The point of this being: you could use the RGBG matrix for each output pixel as a set of filters for monochrome output. Way more flexible than a set of fixed-value filters screwed onto a lens mounted on a mono camera. In RAW conversion you could also skip the demosaic-to-RGB-color stage and go directly from Bayer data to (filtered) monochrome.[Edit end]

-Dave-
« Last Edit: April 27, 2017, 02:16:41 PM by Telecaster »
Logged

Mousecop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #21 on: May 09, 2017, 11:50:46 AM »

Sorry for the delay, folks. For my own purposes, I've concluded I prefer the greater control in post. Anyway....


1. A discussion about software vs hardware BW conversion does not make sense. All hardware solutions are in fact software based this way or another and all software is run on hardware. I used to design both.
Hardware = monochrome sensor = sensor without a colored array (Bayer, X-Trans etc)

Software = starting with a color image, and using tools in post to convert to B&W (LR, Silver Efex etc)

That should've been obvious from the post, where I was comparing sensor conversions and the Leica Monochrom to LR  ;)


Quote
2. RGB conversion has its advantages - flexibility in manipulation and many other ones. On the other hand Leica Monochrome gives such a beautiful rendering of details, especially in dark areas plus wonderful tonality incomparably better than my EOS 6D after any type of BW conversion I have tried.
Yes, I'm asking if the overall image quality of a monochrome sensor is superior enough to offset the loss of control in post.

I suppose I should have requested some side-by-side examples. ;)
Logged

Mousecop

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 73
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #22 on: May 09, 2017, 11:52:01 AM »

I pity the poor OP Mousecop.  Ask a simple (but slightly ambiguous) question and the thread wanders far away.  Guillermo first tries to deny that its about hardware modification vs Monochrom and then writes a thesis about why it's a bad idea.  In such situations the OP is never heard from again.  I suspect that all he wanted was some first-hand experience, but I think he's out of luck in this forum.
Not really, I just made up my mind, and got distracted from the discussion by actually taking photos ;D
Logged

StoryinPictures

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #23 on: June 18, 2017, 05:34:47 PM »

I'm surprised no one has brought up the Sigma cameras, which are fully capable of being used as a Leica Monochrome, using the data from the top "blue" layer. It is also possible to control how they are rendering color by taking advantage of the information in the lower layers.

The new Sigma SD Quattro and Quattro H are affordable alternatives to the Leica M. The non-H version can be had in a kit with a 30mm f1.4 lens for $1000 US.

The firmware updates mean all the current Quattros can also be set up to output DNG files, so they can be processed using Capture One, Camera RAW or LR.

That should give us enough fodder for a couple pages... :)
Logged

jevidon

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #24 on: June 18, 2017, 07:44:54 PM »

This may have already been said; there being way too much conversation in this thread, but I believe that the Leica MM has neither a Bayer or antialiasing filter and therefore the sensor receives the image information without being filtered and therefore produces a higher quality image than is possible in a conventional digital camera whether equipped with a Bayer, Foveon or Fuji XTrans filter.
Logged

StoryinPictures

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 19
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #25 on: June 24, 2017, 02:57:48 AM »

This may have already been said; there being way too much conversation in this thread, but I believe that the Leica MM has neither a Bayer or antialiasing filter and therefore the sensor receives the image information without being filtered and therefore produces a higher quality image than is possible in a conventional digital camera whether equipped with a Bayer, Foveon or Fuji XTrans filter.

Mostly correct, but not in the case of Foveon. No AA filter and direct read from every pixel point if you take data from just the top layer.

This makes it on par with the Leica MM in both regards.
Logged

Guillermo Luijk

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1651
    • http://www.guillermoluijk.com
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #26 on: June 24, 2017, 05:03:45 AM »

I believe that the Leica MM has neither a Bayer or antialiasing filter and therefore the sensor receives the image information without being filtered and therefore produces a higher quality image than is possible in a conventional digital camera whether equipped with a Bayer, Foveon or Fuji XTrans filter.

I wouldn't dare to say supressing the AA filter produces higher quality images. An aliased image has never been a good quality image, and aliasing can hardly be eliminated in postpro since it means the valid data has been corrupted by high frequency interference.

Regards

Enviado desde mi ALE-L21 mediante Tapatalk

Logged

jisner

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 11
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #27 on: July 16, 2017, 10:39:38 PM »

I wouldn't want one even if I could get a new one for under a hundred dollars, because I would lose all the control I have in LightRoom or PhotoShop to decide what colors in the scene to make lighter and which darker.

Agree!  It's much easier to adjust tonality in color before doing a B&W conversion as the last step.  You can use color ranges and color channels to make targeted tonal adjustments.
Logged

TommyWeir

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 92
Re: Monochrome Camera (conversion) vs Software Conversions?
« Reply #28 on: July 17, 2017, 08:26:26 AM »

The one thing which may differentiate the in-camera conversions are particular processes owned by the camera manufacturers, I understand that once you choose it in your RAW+JPEG settings, Fuji will bake in their own take on the Acros grain for example in their latest series of kit.  Given Fuji's history, their understanding of grain or how highlights and shadows fall off with various emulations of their stock has very pleasing results if emulating film stock is your aim...

The conversion tools within software applications may well be less sophisticated despite the power of the machines running them.   I see noticeable differences between the in camera JPEGs and any efforts attempting their recreation in C1 or Lightroom.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up