Thread 4448378

I can literally use a regular camera and press the black and white button in post.

>>4448378 (OP)
imagine being this cucked by (((bayer filter)))

can't you just remove the color filter from any camera?

You mean adding a black and white profile? Yes.

>>4448378 (OP)
No. Effectively color sensors are designed to have to capture hue and value where as mono sensors only have to contend with value capture. So you should get better resolution/details/clipping performance out of a mono sensor. Whether you need one or not is a different story.

>>4448378 (OP)
no, it's 5-20% better for pixel peeping depending on what pixels you are peeping

A dedicated B&W filter is only capturing luminance. It doesn't have a filter in the way trying to divide up the light into RGB and process it into an image. This means the sensor is receiving all of the light, and can use all of its processing power to convert that light into an image. Basically you end up with far crisper low light images, far less noise at high ISO, and really soft gradients (Because you're using the entire bit depth for tones of grey). You get better shadow detail and better highlight detail too.

Basically shooting Black and white on a colour camera will only provide you with limited shades of grey to work with - with tighter limits.

where do the colors go?
life is in color, how does the sensor not suck up the colors?
they must go somewhere
do you have to clean the camera like the printers?

>>4448378 (OP)
Pixel peeping my monochrome is a lot more pleasing than peeping my GFX or foveon ever was
In practice it's probably another stop over Bayer in terms of luma noise
Can also use them for foveon like color shots

astrofags use it for LRGB imaging (using filters)

ex. https://aipastroimaging.com/galeria-lrgb/

>>4448405
>use it for trichrome
fashion is cyclical

Yes it is a scam for most part. Because converting a colour photo into a monochrome one takes literally 1 second in post-processing.

>>4448496
Imagine being this stupid
Probably american

>>4448496
Post conversions will never handle it the same way for reasons outlined in >>4448386. I still love doing them, but I also won't delude myself.

>>4448509
>>4448506
>No that's wrong, you can pixel peep much harder with a real monochrome camera and do deep space astrophotography
In other words it's a scam for the most part

>>4448648
Don't forget enjoy an extra step of IQ

>>4448648
You can also do Trichrome with them :^)

>>4448648
Those extra chromosomes are really showing

You capture only lightness values and cannot balance different colors to grayscale in post. You need to go back using color filters for that.

>>4450040
yes saar i will be destroying bayer filter to add 10% light gain to camera sensor believe it

>>4450040
that's really neato

>>4448404

life isn't actually in color

color happens in post (ie your brain)

there are only waves of {a mysterious medium} vibrating in space at different frequencies (also known as wavelengths since they all travel the same speed ie the speed of light).

The color filters on the photo sites let only waves at certain wavelengths through, producing signals.

There are three signals.

They are combined to produce color images.

If you take three b&w pictures of this dude, each through a different R, G, or B filter, you get the b&w images on the right. If you then project all three images through their corresponding R, G, or B filters onto one spot, you get a color image.

the top bw image is the blue color filter one since the areas of blue are brightest, meaning more light was got through there. When you project that image through a blue filter, a lot of blue is going to go onto areas of the robe. The bottom image when projected through a red filter is not going to be very bright where the robe is. That's because it's the red filter. It's also where the reddish parts of the dude and background are brightest.

>>4450065
>NOOO YOU CAN'T MAKE A CAMERA WITH A SPECIFIC PURPOSE NOBODY IS FORCED TO BUY
what even is this cope

>>4450065
seems to have a ~2 stop advantage so a large and not a 10% difference saar

>>4448652
You can do trichrome with a color sensor as well.

>>4448378 (OP)
If I ever decide to get a phase one sensor I would get the monochrome or trichromatic sensor.

>>4448378 (OP)
No. I'd love to have one. Limits push creativity.

monochrome sensor is like having pixel shift automatically all the time. of course, no color.
>>4450800
i am curious if this example could be shown with the color rendering using a pixel shift image instead, how close it will be to the monochrome image. since pixel shift negates the bayer filter

>>4448378 (OP)
Monochrome sensors literally have the highest resolution, so no, it's not a scam.

>>4450437
>life isn't actually in color
It's all waves vibrating as reflections, creating shapes and shades. It couldn't produce those waves unless the matter was colored in a certain way.

>>4448378 (OP)
Yes it is since you pay thousands more for a product that is less complex than the one commonly sold.
Photography has become a niche which makes monochrome photography even more of a niche so you have to compensate for the lack of sales.

Technically it isn't a scam. The color filter on top of your sensor diffuses the light, so a sensor without it creates a slightly sharper image with better contrast and less noise.

Ricoh could cash in BIG time if they made a monochrome version of the GRIV for less than $1500.
Doing something like this absolutely on brand and their customer base would go insane since streetsnapshitters worship B&W.

>>4456611
honestly surprising that they haven't done something like it to appeal to their streetshitter base (the hdf replacing the ND filter seems like a step in that direction). they already have the sensor setup for the k3, what's to stop just a drop in replacement.

>>4456611
>streetsnapshitters
This group is actually retarded.
They would think B&W is bad because they can't play around with color channels. They also don't care about sharpness or resolution because they just apply 833 different levels of post-process filtering on the images to over-bake them to make them "look filmy" or some retard shit 99% of the time.

>>4448378 (OP)
Yes it is a scam.

I doubt anyone who claims otherwise can pass through a blind test.

>>4448378 (OP)
bayer filter steals like 2 stops
even the most aggressive (dark) red/orange/whatever filters you'd use to make BW look better only steal 1.5 stop

>>4456956
>I doubt anyone who claims otherwise can pass through a blind test.
nigger try shooting street at night time

>>4457033
>try shooting street
why would i do something so gay?

>>4457046
because you have no time machine to go back when street photography was the cat's meow :3
who's gay now??

>>4456956
Blind retards like you have set the bar so fucking low that you can't even comprehend the benefits of a non-fucked sensor.

The guy who shot Joe Biden for his official portrait shot at ISO 800 with a green tinted SNOY camera.
https://www.loc.gov/item/2021630112/
Imagine landing the job to shoot a president's official portrait photo and you can't even manage to do it at base ISO. If you're that incompetent, yeah you won't benefit from a B&W sensor. At this point you probably won't even care about screens with a pentile matrix, WOLED, or upscaling. You likely believe "noise reduction" is valid and you probably won't care about quad bayer either.
Trump's portraits are also shit, so are Obama's.

We literally have higher quality photos of older presidents and foreign leaders like Adolf Hitler from decades ago because they were shot on film by people who understood photography better. The modern retard is convinced that shooting at copium levels of high ISO means they don't have to buy brighter lights and this pervasive retardation has crept so far up the ladder that just a few years ago some retard took Biden's photo at 800 ISO indoors.

The tl;dr is, if all you shoot is half-assed slop your opinion doesn't matter.
You can think superior imaging is a scam but that just outs you as a slop producer.

>>4455648
>It couldn't produce those waves unless the matter was colored in a certain way.
there's alternatives

>>4457276
>https://www.loc.gov/item/2021630112/
what's wrong with his eyes lol
>Trump's portraits are also shit, so are Obama's.
it's probably the "I have a nephew who is into photography, just hire him" syndrome (balkan standard)
I've seen many policies pushed on balkan countries that were then applied to the USA (Obama & Biden era)... the balkan countries obsessed with sucking american cock are now on the verge of collapse, I hope Trump can manage to actually save the USA

>>4457277
based interference enthusiast

>>4450437
>>4457277
Holy fucking autism
I wish you faggots were this autistic about actual photography.

>>4457276
>noise reduction is not heccin valid
>someone used an iso TOO HIGH photography is over
The copes people post here. Lmao. Are filmslugs the real reality scanners? Startin to feel like giving doghair engineer photography/10 was too accurate

That photo isnt even green. You’re hallucinating.

Fyi 4x5 film < 80mp bayer and iso 800 digital = iso 50 film

>>4457308
i think what happens is they nerd out too hard and end up using incorrectly configured screens and since they’re nerds they cant accept it when stuff looks fine on an iphone because their special screen is ackshually better

>>4457308
>That photo isnt even green.
No, it is.
There's hints of green all over in places it shouldn't be present if you know what to look for.
Look at the shadows in his veneers.
Look at the edges of his hair.
Look at his neck where the shirt meets his skin.
>You’re hallucinating.
Hallucinating facts.

>>4457311
So you think professional PLANNED historical photos taken with modern multiple thousand dollar full frame cameras in staged scenes with lights set up should only have to look good on a phone? Really?
You must be one of those nigger faggots who has a fetish for continually lowering the bar and making everything worse than it should be.

Biden's was shot at f/2.5 at 800 ISO, Obama's was f/7.1 at 200 ISO.
Biden's lighting setup was 6 stops darker than it should have been. This is gross incompetence.

In my opinion all presidential portraits should be done with a 100MP+ medium format digital body with a monochromatic sensor. The world has enough color photography shit floating around, the historical portraits should be free from color artifacts and white balance fuckery. B&W is truth, and of course the public should be able to access not only a JPEG but the RAW camera files as well. Just like we can with NASA space telescope images.

>>4457330
What kind of portraits do you take?

>>4457330
Or maybe 8x10 film and then drum scanned??

>>4457402
That would be nice, but since Obama went digital we haven't really had anything film since then. At least not officially.
Obviously large format film for such things would be ideal but getting it done properly digitally is a more realistic goal IMO.

The current digital shit looks okay for thumbnail use and basic screen viewing but honestly it's so pathetic compared to professional high end film stuff from the past it's a real shame the state we're in. We should subtract ONE (1) missile's worth of money that we paypig over to Israel and use that money to buy the whitehouse some high end cameras and lenses to use for official photography but nah, can't do that. Would make far too much sense.

>>4457410
Yeah a decent phase one back could also be pretty cool. I mean they're an israeli company also...

All the expensive optics go into missiles, spy satellites, and other war type machinery. Some of the optics used in reconnaissance planes is absolutely incredible.

>>4457276
So, you can't debunk his claim about the blind test.

>>4457276
Except modern sensor at ISO 800 is already way better than film would ever be at ISO 50.

>>4457624
Proofs? Better in every single way?

>ew iso 800
>now film, thats the stuff
film is iso 800

>>4457676
They both look better in certain ways.

>>4457679
dang velvia stole my jeep

>>4448384
>>4448385
cope lol