[normhead]

Norm, you surely can't be claiming that apparent resolution can't be proven and thus does not exist.

The answer is in my post, I said the opposite and explained why it's true. But it is a long rambling post so misunderstandings are acceptable.

[Rondec]

It's so refreshing to read your comments about the Master's of yore in photography not complaining about their gear holding them back creatively. For years I've said that I could make a living now and for years to come with the camera I was currently testing for Pentax, like for example the K-5II or original K-3, not to mention the 645D. Having the 645Z, K-3 MKIII and K-1 MKII feels like an embarrassment of riches! Now if and when we get a K-1 MKIII (don't ask as I truly have no hint or clue) will I take it and test it? Hell yes, and I look forward to new Pentax lenses and bodies in the years to come... Go forth and create with the gear you have, and yes dream of even more IQ and cool features. But the Image is King, and always will be.

You don't have any insight about when Pentax is coming out with new cameras?

(I have appreciated your ability to create special images with Pentax gear -- I'm sure you would do well with a different brand too, but it is nice to see what someone with skill can do with my camera brand of choice).

[normhead]

as I understand it, one colour pixel is sensed now with 4 sensor pixels , two green and one red and one blue according the Bayer filter definition. that yields a color image.
Remove the Bayer filter from the sensor chip, and you get 4 sensors pixels getting basically b/w info , there is no colour difference anymore.
so 4 times resolution...., or not?

all assumed on using same chip and removing Bayer filter.

(correct me if wrong...)

The error there is, in your understanding of the Bayer filter, and how it contributes. Think of it as trading to get a complete image information. So two have green, 1 blue one red, with one of the greens used strictly for luminance, (I might be wrong on that). Each pixel in a set of four borrows values from the other three (or another nearby pixel) , So, each pixel ends up with its own colour value, plus the 3 values taken from the surrounding pixels. One pixel says "I'll give you my red value for your blue." and so on. But it is still just one pixel, not four. Removing the filter doesn't change the number of pixels. Because four pixels in colour is the same as four pixels in black and white, there is no increase in resolution compared to black and white. Just no exchange of colour information between pixels. That is why we keep talking about apparent resolution, as opposed to lw/ph (test measured) resolution. With black and white we balance only for exposure and contrast. With colour we balance 3 colours, and luminance for contrast.

By removing the colour we are able to focus only on contrast and by focussing only on contrast increase the apparent sharpness. But as gator guy pointed out, don't assume you can't see a difference. Apparent doesn't mean invisible, it means you can see a difference. Whether or not it tests better on a test chart is irrelevant.

The end result of that for me is I tend to go a lot more high contrast with black and white, because I don't have to worry about colour distortion, and it makes the image look sharper. Of course that's ignoring the aesthetic part of black and white images. The images I posted have something that would be diminished if they were colour, because they exploit the high contrast values black and white offers. I don't think I would like those images as much in colour.

But others may be different in their approach. The image Rondec posted above goes for the most complete tonal range. An approach I don't favour, but it's personal. My photography teaching compatriot and I had a 15 year disagreement over our different approaches. I thought his images looked flat, he thought mine were too high contrast. And the photographers I like all exploit B&W contrast. It's a judgment call. Just because I prefer high contrast in black and white in no way suggests everyone should.

I prefer eye popping, others prefer subtle. There's no wrong answer, only personal preference. The one practical caveat being, always start with the full tonal range of the B&W, and then decide decide how much you will eliminate to create the high contrast look with your slider bars (or test strip).

[kjames5]

You don't have any insight about when Pentax is coming out with new cameras?

(I have appreciated your ability to create special images with Pentax gear -- I'm sure you would do well with a different brand too, but it is nice to see what someone with skill can do with my camera brand of choice).

I so wish I did have advance knowledge, but I don't. They keep their cards damn close to their vest, and until they tell me something next is being shipped for testing, I'm in the dark just like you...

And thanks, much appreciated!

[biz-engineer]

There's no wrong answer, only personal preference.

Bayer interpolation vs monochrome sensor is not a matter of personal preference. It's a matter of what color is your subject, how saturated is subject color, and how much color texture there is.
Case 1: take a picture of a black & white carpet , images will show no difference in texture of the fabric, whether capture with sensor with or without CFA
Case 2: take a picture of a South Africa country flag, with fabrics red, green, blue, the image capture with monochrome sensor will show more texture details
You can emulate the difference better monocrhome capture and color capture by comparing a pixel shift capture + black & white conversion in post for various images.
For some B&W converted images , pixel shift makes not difference, beside a little less noise. For other colorful images, pixel shift reveals more details in B&W.
Not all images will get more details with a monochrome camera.

[gatorguy]

Bayer interpolation vs monochrome sensor is not a matter of personal preference.

Au contraire. For me, it is 100% a personal preference. There's no "right way" to envision and create a photographic image. No idea why you would think otherwise.

[thibs]

Bayer interpolation vs monochrome sensor is not a matter of personal preference. It's a matter of what color is your subject, how saturated is subject color, and how much color texture there is.
Case 1: take a picture of a black & white carpet , images will show no difference in texture of the fabric, whether capture with sensor with or without CFA
Case 2: take a picture of a South Africa country flag, with fabrics red, green, blue, the image capture with monochrome sensor will show more texture details
You can emulate the difference better monocrhome capture and color capture by comparing a pixel shift capture + black & white conversion in post for various images.
For some B&W converted images , pixel shift makes not difference, beside a little less noise. For other colorful images, pixel shift reveals more details in B&W.
Not all images will get more details with a monochrome camera.

Because when photography was only b&w, people first checked what was the carpet colour? You can't be serious.

[normhead]

Case 2: take a picture of a South Africa country flag, with fabrics red, green, blue, the image capture with monochrome sensor will show more texture details

If you are a painter , and paint the flag, there will be two hread count texture detail, yet still be good picture.

Taken with a 6 MP camera (then doubled with Gigapixel....


You can claim lack of detail all you want, I like the picture.

Exactly when do I want to see the thread count? Is that in some way important to the composition?

You can emulate the difference better monocrhome capture and color capture by comparing a pixel shift capture + black & white conversion in post for various images.

I have done so many times, and I wouldn't recommend either of those strictly for detail. It's just not a reliable practice with either. You use B&W or Pixel shift because it might work. Not because it works every time.

It's funny to ask someone who's done comparisons to do more comparisons to justify their position. I've done it, reported on it, displayed example pictures, how would doing it again be more convincing?

But as I say, if you have a few images to show what you're talking about I'll reconsider. Personally, I use B&W for artistic purposes only. The detail in modern cameras is so off the charts, a bit extra added by going monochrome might not even be notice able. But if you have an artistic appreciation of black and white over colour, a monochrome camera could be of interest. Always trying to make it about technical issues misses the point.

Richard Avedon charged over $2000 an image... 1980s money. (One of my ex GF's father owned a marketing company and hired him for an image (which he said wasn't worth it, but which has hung on his wall ever since) .


In Avedon's classic style the background is white, and the entire tonal range of the image is concentrated on the subject. Some of his faces have as many as 30 burn and dodge adjustments. The whole focus is on not having to pay attention to processing the back ground so the total tonal range is on the subject. Black and white works really well in these images. And the detail is amazing. (8x10 film.) To me one of the issues is, in colour, these images might be too intense, to much like looking at the actual person. Putting them in black and white makes it easier to examine them closely. It seems less personal. These are among the reasons, I like B&W. The artistic value. Not the technical. I have never once in my whole life said to my self "I needed more detail in the colour image, I'm going to shoot it in B&W for more detail." It's just not a thing. I have many times said, "there is no artistic value to the colour in this image, I'm going to monochrome it."

When B&W is done right, I don't even want to see a colour image of the same thing.

I was going to comment on gatorguy's images posted earlier....
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/12-post-your-photos/451596-black-white-r...ack-white.html

Often in images like these, it may or may not be true there's more detail, but the main issue is, in many of the shots, the colour might be a distraction. Something else to consider. When there are many small colourful details in an image, they can draw the eye away from the subject. Colour sometimes detracts from the purpose of an image. After all, if all you needed was more detail, buy a GFX100. As a former teacher, I suspect understanding why you use black and white is one of the most ignored elements of digital photography. But to me, clearly it isn't about detail, it's about the artistic value. If there's some added detail, it can't hurt.

The photographer should always be asking, "what can I do to make the photo, and specifically the subject of the photo, stand out." B&W can help do that in some circumstances. However personally, if I wanted the extra resolution, I'd buy a 100 MP camera and strip the colour like I do now. But I can find not one B&W in my current catalogue, of 2500 online images. And the ones I remember from the past, didn't depend on resolution.

B&W dedicated cameras have a place in the world, but you have to have a specific sensibility to be a person that buys one. It takes training your eye to see in black and white. But it will improve your photography. Because working in seeing strictly luminance values, not just colour, improves your colour photography as well.

That's why every program I've worked with starts with Black and White. Even if you never shoot another B&W after your first year, what you learn from it stays with you for ever.

Maybe people will go back to colour, but every aspiring photographer should spend some time learning how to get good back and white images. The problem with doing what I do, stripping colour from colour images is, it works because I know what I need to get good black and white. For amateurs, I'd suggest shooting monochrome for a few weeks or months, just to take away the distraction of colour, and focus on the luminance of the photos. When discussing B&W, it might seem like I dismiss it, but I'm using knowledge of black and white in every image. I'd be remiss if I pooh poohed B&W as having no value for colour shooters.

After all, Avedon, was voted the photographer of the century by some publications, and he shot B&W and colour through his whole career, with his personal, unpaid work, for the most part being black and white, even though his commercial work was colour. There's a lesson in that.

Just my opinion of course. But in this case, an opinion I was paid to hold.

[biz-engineer]

Because when photography was only b&w, people first checked what was the carpet colour? You can't be serious.

Film is different. We're talking about RGB digital vs B&W digital, using pixel shift , color vs monochrome for understanding.

---------- Post added 01-02-23 at 15:16 ----------

If you are a painter , and paint the flag, there will be two hread count texture detail, yet still be good picture.

If the image is a large smooth surface without reflections details, only a few pixels are necessary to describe the image (i.e nyquist-shannon sampling theorem), not all subjects are tailored to suit low resolution bayer interpolated cameras.
I took the example of RGB flag as a case for understanding what happens. BTW, most people never actually understood the purpose of pixel shift. Lots of people thought that pixel shift gave true pixel color, whereas the volume of color representation is unchanged with or without pixel shift because how large is the maximum color space is delimited by the spectral boundaries of the C.F.A. . Pixel shift was said to improve "color resolution" which is also misleading.

---------- Post added 01-02-23 at 15:21 ----------

Talking full circle. Where will the camera be released?

[Wheatfield]

This thread seems to have run it's inevitable course.
Consequently, it's closed.