Debayered cameras?

[Ysarex]

I could certainly shoot in JPEG monochrome with a filter adjustment, but that wouldn't give me the quality of RAW.

To answer your original question. Use a digital camera, shoot and process raw files, convert them to B&W and get quality that is superior to shooting film.

Joe

Only if you're going to compare a DSLR to 35mm SLR film cameras. Let's not forget medium, large and ultra-large format.

I routinely scan 6x7 negs to 45-50mp, and 4x5 at 75mp. I could scan 4x5 at 1.2gp, but my computer can't handle images that size.

It's true that you can shoot large film for less money than a large sensor, but large sensors do exist. Another point to consider: resolution is an important image quality consideration but not the most important image quality consideration. When assessing the quality of an image (especially B&W) tone response is quality characteristic #1. The size of film doesn't much matter in that regard.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

It's true that you can shoot large film for less money than a large sensor, but large sensors do exist. Another point to consider: resolution is an important image quality consideration but not the most important image quality consideration. When assessing the quality of an image (especially B&W) tone response is quality characteristic #1. The size of film doesn't much matter in that regard.

Joe

Are you aware of all the various methods known to alter the 'tone response' of film? It's far from just adjusting exposure and developing.

 

[unpopular]

i do not think we need to make this into a film v. digital discussion. There is a valid discussion about bypassing the bayer mask.

Still, can anyone offer any insight if physically removing the bayer mask is even possible? This seems really implausible.

 

[480sparky]

i do not think we need to make this into a film v. digital discussion. There is a valid discussion about bypassing the bayer mask.

Still, can anyone offer any insight if physically removing the bayer mask is even possible? This seems really implausible.

Not only possible, just Google it. You'll find plenty of astophotographers doing it DIY, as well as there's companies that offer just that service. Two being MaxMax and HyperCams and Mods

 

[Ysarex]

It's true that you can shoot large film for less money than a large sensor, but large sensors do exist. Another point to consider: resolution is an important image quality consideration but not the most important image quality consideration. When assessing the quality of an image (especially B&W) tone response is quality characteristic #1. The size of film doesn't much matter in that regard.

Joe

Are you aware of all the various methods known to alter the 'tone response' of film? It's far from just adjusting exposure and developing.

Fully.

Joe

 

[unpopular]

I've overlooked the obvious here, the exposure after the filter changes depending on the color of the subject and so it is not possible to remove the CFA pattern completely and non-destructively.

 

[480sparky]

I've overlooked the obvious here, the exposure after the filter changes depending on the color of the subject and so it is not possible to remove the CFA pattern completely and non-destructively.

When you remove the CFA, there's more light overall striking the sensor. The exposure system of the camera will be set up to adjust for the presence of the CFA, so my guess will be removing it will cause overexposure. But that can simply be accounted for by changing Exposure Compensation. Once you figure out how far to adjust it, just leave it there.

As for not being able to remove it completely, maybe you're seeing all the DIY projects where they want to stay a safe distance from the edge of the sensor since it's really just an IC chip with soldered leads extending out. Breaking a connection by disturbing those tiny leads would render the sensor useless.

 

[unpopular]

@480sparky

I am referring to efforts to counter the CFA pattern in raw processing as discussed above. The issue is that if you have a green part of the frame the green pixels will be brighter than an adjacent area that is more magenta.

Because there is no way to predict what areas will be green or magenta, there is no way to completely remove it.

 

[480sparky]

@480sparky

I am referring to efforts to counter the CFA pattern in raw processing as discussed above. The issue is that if you have a green part of the frame the green pixels will be brighter than an adjacent area that is more magenta.

Because there is no way to predict what areas will be green or magenta, there is no way to completely remove it.

If you're referring to the pattern caused by not demosaicing, then demosaic and all will be fine.

 

[unpopular]

That kind of defeats what we were trying to accomplish.

 

[Ysarex]

I've overlooked the obvious here, the exposure after the filter changes depending on the color of the subject and so it is not possible to remove the CFA pattern completely and non-destructively.

Yep.

Joe

 

[480sparky]

That kind of defeats what we were trying to accomplish.

If the CFA has been removed, the issue of the checkerboard look should be resolved. Every pixel on the sensor should be able to be converted to a single pixel in the image. So you should be able to bypass demosaicing and render the final image as a 1:1 representation of the camera pixels.

At least that's what my aging noodle concludes given my understanding of the process.

 

[unpopular]

No, it that makes sense.

What we're talking about are attempts to reverse the CFA pattern on an image taken through a CFA.

 

[480sparky]

No, it that makes sense.

What we're talking about are attempts to reverse the CFA pattern on an image taken through a CFA.

I think one would have to know the demosaic method works and reverse-engineer it from there.

 

[unpopular]

The issue is that because we don't know the color of the subject we cannot determine the exposure over each component so there is no way to get a uniform greyscale image. A red subject will have pixels that are white in the red-filtered region, a blue object will have pixels that are white in the blue-filtered region, even if both are reflecting the same amount of energy. That's why you end up with a checkerboard no how you try to process it.

There's just no way to know without looking at the adjacent pixels how the recorded information is representing luminescence or chroma.