Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Leicas and other Leica Mount Cameras > Leica M9 / ME

View Poll Results: Would you buy a B&W only M9 ?
Yes, absolutely. 70 14.23%
Yes, but only if it performs like B&W film. 59 11.99%
Yes, but only if it costs 15-20% less than the standard M9. 60 12.20%
No. 303 61.59%
Voters: 492. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 01-25-2010   #81
Roger Hicks
Registered User
 
Roger Hicks is offline
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Aquitaine
Posts: 21,639
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggambi View Post
Brian,

So, now we are down to the nuts and bolts of this idea. It would be nice to have an idea how much the sensor would cost. Would you be interested in making an inquiry with Kodak for production? It would be nice to know where a price break would come into play with production numbers 50/100/250/500 units. Would you expect Leica to receive a better price given their relationship with Kodak? How is the sensor delivered? i am wondering what is involved in replacing the existing one? It would be important to have an idea of the cost and labour before approaching Leica, don't you agree? Also, if I were to try to raise capital I would need some specifics.

Roger Hicks,

Who would we approach at Leica to do a limited run project? I don't know if this is going to get past the drawing board, but I believe Brian has given a strong argument as to what can be gained. We are talking a very small market, and a difficult time to attain capital for such a project. But, stranger things have happened. I think the only way this is going to fly, is if enough people are willing to commit to orders monetarily
.

Kindest regards to both of you,
Dunno, but I know who to talk to to find out. Because of the delicacy of the inquiry I'd rather leave it until we have some hard numbers from the Great Yellow Father, as I'd rather not take up Leica's time before we have a high degree of commitment.

Cheers,

R.
__________________
Go to www.rogerandfrances.eu for a whole new website
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #82
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
?? "DOF" is an imprecise concept at best, and without knowing other variables you cannot begin to claim that some particular rangefinder "is always within the native DOF of the sensor".
It is not imprecise. The native DOF of a sensor has the pixel size of that sensor as COC and thus is an exact defined value. For film it is somewhat more woolly, I'll grant you that, but it is certainly higher than a sensor, unless we get into very slow film. Say below ISO 25.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #83
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
This ISO 400 Monochrome Aerial Film looks to have about the same spatial resolution as a 6.8uM sensor. I'm looking at the MTF curve at the end of the data sheet.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents.../EN_ti0912.pdf


Panatomic-X lives.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents...91e/ti1172.pdf

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-25-2010 at 09:35.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #84
gho
Registered User
 
gho is offline
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Berlin
Age: 43
Posts: 794
If I understood correctly a monochrome version would mean a quantum leap in resolution and a gain in low light performance compared to a color sensor with the same number of photosensitive elements.

As the hardware platform is already existing with a well proven body design and with Kodak being already in the monochrome sensor business, I guess it should not be too costy for Kodak and Leitz to assemble a small test batch.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #85
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
I would not describe it as a "quantum leap" as the interpolation used for Bayer Patten filters "usually" makes good use of the information in adjacent pixels. It's the worst case that gets you. If you look at the sensor, 1/4th of the elements are blue, 1/2 are green. and 1/4th are red. So if you are photographing red or blue line pairs, you get 1/4th the resolution. You pick up 1-Fstop by getting rid of the Bayer Filter. It's like taking a color correction filter off of your film camera. Not a quantum leap, but doubles the ISO rating. NOW: the Quantum leap for Infrared users is getting rid of the "damned" IR absorbing glass. Picks up 8 or more stops of sensitivity.

For Scientific work, where you want to know how much energy is hitting a pixel, and the spectral region of it, the interpolation scheme not useful. It's also nice to have full sensitivity in Infrared for Scientific/Technical work and filter when you need to. So, my interest is for a hand-held 18MPixel camera with visible and near infrared. The interest was high enough 17 years ago to call Kodak and have an infrared version of the DCS200 made. Storing 16-bit sampled data is also very useful.

So- it does not hurt to ask. Kodak makes other CCD's that are monochrome and Visible+Infrared. A number of companies that cater to the Scientific market use them. They make an M9 look cheap.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-25-2010 at 12:49.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #86
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
A Kodak Sensor Available in Color and Monochrome:

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...uctSummary.pdf

And the KAF-1603

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...uctSummary.pdf

Still around. My DCS200ir uses the KAF-1600.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #87
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by zumbido View Post
Respectfully, it is imprecise. You can talk about "standard" COC for certain formats and sensors. But your statement:



was a comparison of specific margins, so exact measurement is required to make any valid assertion. The calculated COC of the sensor does not equate to a set-in-stone DOF, because DOF (as you know) depends on other factors as well, including lens geometry, print size, and viewing distance.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm saying that it's unlikely you truly have the data to make it a flat, across-the-board statement of fact. That's all.
You're wrong. You are talking about the DOF of a print. I am talkiing about the native DOF of a sensor which is determined by the pixel size Two totally different things. Lens geometry has nothing to do with either btw. I suggest you read the following page, which gives you the mathematical foundation for DOF calculations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_o...ge_distances_2
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-25-2010 at 13:22.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #88
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
Leica "as a brand", and however they've split into business units, maintains a presence in the scientific and technical market with Microscopes. Leica Microsystems still offers monochrome cameras for microscopes.

http://www.leica-microsystems.com/pr...a-dfc345-fx-1/

Of course I'd love to see an M9 with a full-spectral range sensor mounted on a Leica microscope with a filter wheel. I'll bet it's cheaper than some of the Microscope cameras being offered. They tend not to be cheap.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #89
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
I would not describe it as a "quantum leap" as the interpolation used for Bayer Patten filters "usually" makes good use of the information in adjacent pixels. It's the worst case that gets you. If you look at the sensor, 1/4th of the elements are blue, 1/2 are green. and 1/4th are red. So if you are photographing red or blue line pairs, you get 1/4th the resolution. You pick up 1-Fstop by getting rid of the Bayer Filter. It's like taking a color correction filter off of your film camera. Not a quantum leap, but doubles the ISO rating. NOW: the Quantum leap for Infrared users is getting rid of the "damned" IR absorbing glass. Picks up 8 or more stops of sensitivity.

For Scientific work, where you want to know how much energy is hitting a pixel, and the spectral region of it, the interpolation scheme not useful. It's also nice to have full sensitivity in Infrared for Scientific/Technical work and filter when you need to. So, my interest is for a hand-held 18MPixel camera with visible and near infrared. The interest was high enough 17 years ago to call Kodak and have an infrared version of the DCS200 made. Storing 16-bit sampled data is also very useful.

So- it does not hurt to ask. Kodak makes other CCD's that are monochrome and Visible+Infrared. A number of companies that cater to the Scientific market use them. They make an M9 look cheap.
On the M9, Kodak has shifted the relationship between red and green to reduce sensor noise.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #90
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
What is the new configuration? This is a break from Dr. Bayer's pattern used since the DCS200.


RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB

The Blue spectral response used to be very noisy, but Kodak changed the sensor for extended blue response with the newer CCD's. I think they added Tin, but cannot remember the exact change.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-25-2010 at 14:40.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #91
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
Well, other companies do make Monochrome cameras without Infrared Cutoff filters.

http://www.theta-system.com/Datasheet/SISp1010e.pdf

http://www.theta-system.com/sis.html

A $9,000 M9 with 18MPixels, Monochrome, and no IR cut filter would be dirt cheap compared to the competition. No meed to worry about sole source, just go competitive bid based on salient features.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #92
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
What is the new configuration? This is a break from Dr. Bayer's pattern used since the DCS200.


RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB
RGRGRGRGRG
GBGBGBGBGB

The Blue spectral response used to be very noisy, but Kodak changed the sensor for extended blue response with the newer CCD's. I think they added Tin, but cannot remember the exact change.
I simply don't know, Brian, I only know that they did just that, as it impacted on post-processing.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-25-2010   #93
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
I commend your attempt to confuse the issue. You are still talking about something different than what I am talking about.Just once more: a sensor is a silicon thing inside a camera. A print is a paper thing on the wall.

1. A sensor pixel has a physical size.
2.That means there is a span that the sensor cannot resolve better.
3. That span is the native DOF of the sensor.
4. If you can put the focus within that native DOF it is the best focus that camera can give, futher accuracy of the focussing mechanism will not give a sharper image.

Technically - as we are not speaking about the skill of the photographer - the M8 and M9 fulfill condition #4 consistently, so it is not relevant to claim other M cameras are "better"

The only thing one might be able to claim is that a larger VF magnification is easier to use, but of course that means one has to compromise in the area of field of view of the viewfinder.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-26-2010 at 00:25.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #94
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
Well- I do not want to get into this Depth of Field thing. Pixel size and LP/mm resolution, I understand. Circles of Confusion, also understood. Convolving an image with circles of confusion that are identical to the Pixel size VS Convolving an image with much higher resolution than the pixel size- one of our PhD's understood, and came up with a nifty way to improve the final resolution. That was in the 1980s.

But here in the 21st Century, I find the M8 is good enough to test my 70+ year old lens conversions.


Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-26-2010 at 01:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #95
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
For machine vision and other technical applications, having an image with higher resolution than the size of the sensor elements allows more "processing gain". Essentially, the object is under-resolved in terms of the sensor element, but its energy is likely to be captured in one pixel. The intensity of that pixel is higher than its neighbors. It is possible to write software that can pull-out an object that covers less than 10% of the pixel. In FORTRAN, of course.

And I seem to recall that the Sensor Geometry used for the improved resolution offset Columns in the array by 1/2 pixel. Those were fun days.

So anybody building a Robot with M9's for eyes... But Nikki went with Electromagnets for 5th grade Science Fair Project instead.

I suddenly remember why I put off using Digital Cameras at home for so long.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-26-2010 at 03:52.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #96
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
I commend your attempt to confuse the issue. You are still talking about something different than what I am talking about.Just once more: a sensor is a silicon thing inside a camera. A print is a paper thing on the wall.

1. A sensor pixel has a physical size.
2.That means there is a span that the sensor cannot resolve better.
3. That span is the native DOF of the sensor.
4. If you can put the focus within that native DOF it is the best focus that camera can give, futher accuracy of the focussing mechanism will not give a sharper image.

Technically - as we are not speaking about the skill of the photographer - the M8 and M9 fulfill condition #4 consistently, so it is not relevant to claim other M cameras are "better"

The only thing one might be able to claim is that a larger VF magnification is easier to use, but of course that means one has to compromise in the area of field of view of the viewfinder.
Well stated. I would simply add one thing to this regarding other M cameras. Since, ultimately the camera will be focused by a human being, this distinction is not without merit. Film versions have an advantage in that film has a larger DOF, due the layers of emulsion create a larger size than the pixel. So, while the two systems from a mechanical stand point function within the same parameter of being able to attain a focused image. The film version is more forgiving from a user stand point.

I would estimate that the Noctilux wide open, is a little more difficult in low light to attain a focused image. When coupled with an M9. Since, it is a person who is focusing it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #97
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
Okay- using astro-photography as an example: it is best to resolve the Stars in the FOV to the tightest point source possible. If you resolve the star to a 6.8micron blur circle, it's energy can be spread across (up to) four Pixels. If you resolve the star to a true point source, or close to it, it's energy falls into one 6.8Micron sensing element of the CCD. This makes it easier to image the Star.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-26-2010 at 07:39.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #98
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Sweeney View Post
Okay- using astro-photography as an example: it is best to resolve the Stars in the FOV to the tightest point source possible. If you reslove the star to a 6.8micron blur circle, it's energy can be spread across (up to) four Pixels. If you resolve the star to a true point source, or close to it, it's energy falls into one 6.8Micron sensing element of the CCD. This makes it easier to image the Star.
Absolutely. You have concentrated the energy, allowing the one sensing element of the CCD to achieve a better ratio of energy to dark current. You also have minimized issues of inertia inherent to the system. The DOF does not change, but the results certainly change.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #99
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Yes, that is because you will see the Lichtberg at 6.8 micron, but if you resolve to a smaller size you will take in the "waves" of the Airy disk, which would otherwise fall on the surrounding pixels.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #100
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
As for the relationship of the print and the image supplied by the camera system. Jaap is correct in his position. Let's ignore the different print mediums, as this will just add confusion.
1. Image from the camera is in focus > it will be possible to print a picture that is in focus.
2. Image from the camera is not in focus > it will not be possible to print a picture that is in focus. Unless, there are some serious algorithms being applied, to render a new image. Which it could be argued this is not the same image. Hence, bad image equals bad print.

What can't be said is:
3. An image that is in focus from the camera > guarantees the print will be in focus.

Therefore, there is a disconnect between the two issues, and you can not use the print as the argument regarding the mechanical capabilities of the camera. You have to look at the image on the mediium that is capturing it in the camera. With a digital camera this is the sensor, and with a film camera this is the film.

note: The quality and type of sensor, the quality of the circuitry and it's design, and the software, do have an impact on the image that is stored on the systems storage media. But this of course has nothing to do with DOF.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #101
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
Well, if Leica does come out with this camera, I will procure one. I have a nice project that it would be perfect for. But I could not justify the entire NRE for producing one. But I am going to buy a Monochrome Digital camera for VNIR work. I'd love it to be an M9 as the APO lenses are available and you can see through the viewfinder with an 88a filter on it.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #102
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
I think this would be a significant statement by Leica, and it would set them apart from the competition in a very unique manner. I can not imagine a more satisfying system on a personal perspective, then a color M9 and a B&W M9. A thing worth striving for, wouldn't you say? Just like before, one camera body optimized with B&W film and the other with color film.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-26-2010   #103
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,702
I'd most likely buy one. The loss of the Bayer filter and the subsequent file quality gains would be pretty spectacular in my opinion.

What makes me laugh about this thread is that I discussed this with a very high (as in high up, not stoned) Leica official (he brought it up) well before the M8 was a reality. It seems this still percolates along in someones head

Kent
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Iris. Life, Captured.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #104
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdemas View Post
I'd most likely buy one. The loss of the Bayer filter and the subsequent file quality gains would be pretty spectacular in my opinion.

What makes me laugh about this thread is that I discussed this with a very high (as in high up, not stoned) Leica official (he brought it up) well before the M8 was a reality. It seems this still percolates along in someones head

Kent
This is the most promising thing I have heard. Thank you for sharing it with us.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #105
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
There is a market in the technical field for a hand-held camera that takes interchangeable lenses that is Monochrome Visible+Near Infrared, 18MPixel, 16-bits per pixel. I asked another group would they buy such a camera for $10,000. We'd buy three of them for work, and some APO lenses. My last two camera procurements were over $20K each. The technical market tends to have reasonable budgets for lab equipment.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-27-2010 at 11:22.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #106
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdemas View Post
I'd most likely buy one. The loss of the Bayer filter and the subsequent file quality gains would be pretty spectacular in my opinion.
In this thread it is taken as a given that the file quality would be significantly better for a Bayer-filterless sensor. I cannot see the reasons for this.

1. The Bayer filter and subsequent interpolation do indeed pool pixels, but that is only in the colour channels. The luminosity channel has the full resolution, regardless of the presence of a Bayer filter, as all pixels are recorded individually. So the result would be identical to removing colour information in post-processing, except for point 2.
2. The only gain we get is an increase in sensitivity, as no light is blocked by the filter with the attendant reduction of noise.
3. The results of a B&W image from the luminosity channel are less than optimal. The response of a sensor is clearly different from the response of panchromatic film.
4. That means there would have to be filters in front of the sensor to regain "panchromatic" sensor response, negating the gain of the removal of the Bayer filter.
5. When converting to B&W from a colour sensor, the information from the colour channels is essential to create a good B&W image. That flexibility would be lost.

So I have a strong suspicion that the results of a Bayer-filterless sensor for B&W would be worse instead of better.


Can anybody point to a credible publication that proves the opposite of my supposition?
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-27-2010 at 13:40.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #107
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
You do not need a Mosaic Filter to perform a gain flattening function for the spectral response of the sensor vs film, if you wanted to mimic it. I do not see why you would want to, when the response of the newer Silicon Sensor with improved blue response is fairly good across the spectral range. You would not need to do interpolation, and keep full spatial resolution.

http://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/...3ELongSpec.pdf

Spectral Response is on Page 13.

Example Film.

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents.../EN_ti0912.pdf

http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents...91e/ti1172.pdf

If anything, film is too sensitive in the Blue region, much more than the human eye, and goes too deep into the UV range. So which one does a better job of seeing Monochrome than the eye does...

In any event, The full spectral range of the Silicon sensor without any Spectral Gain Flattening would be better for the Technical Market, and I doubt a film user could tell the difference.

Besides, the Leica Monochrome Microscope Cameras do not use spectral gain flattening filters, and therefore Leica believes that they are not required.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-27-2010 at 14:04.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #108
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Ok, so you gain about one stop in sensitivity, which is nice for noise. You gain nothing in resolution, as you are in the equivalent of the luminosity channel of a standard sensor and the interpolation argument is neither here nor there. You lose the creative possibilities of colour information you would normally have in B&W conversion. So why bother?
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #109
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
No color-aliasing because of the interpolation. And you pick up 12 rows and columns by getting rid of the interpolation algorithm. If you want to do a measurement of the intensity hitting the pixels, you don't want some interpolated value. I've been through this a long time ago with Kodak. They made the camera for me, we bought it.

Again- my interest for this camera on a professional basis is for scientific and technical applications. I'll take three. I'd also like it for near-IR work. For that, dumping the IR absorbing glass works wonders. On an M9, it's probably about 10 stops or so?

I think the difference here is the processing applied to an image. Is it more artistic, or more technical. It is a different world, requiring different salient features.

And- I have had Spectral Gain Flattening filters custom made for optical systems, mostly for optical amplifiers.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-27-2010 at 14:53.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #110
kdemas
ʎlʇuǝɹǝɟɟıp sƃuıɥʇ ǝǝS
 
kdemas's Avatar
 
kdemas is offline
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,702
I am in awe of the technical know-how of many of you and I do not even pretend to have the level of engineering insight that has been displayed in this thread. That said, I have heard repeatedly, from those in the camera biz and from photographers that used mono cameras in the past, that there would be huge gains in file quality with a B&W only application in something like an M8 (M9 now).

Take the example of the Kodak DCS 760m, a momochrome camera based on a Nikon chassis. Here's a ciip from a review in Luminous Landscape (just an example of what I have heard anecdotally):

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.

Full article on this quirky camera can be seen here.

Anyway... that short quip reflects what the individual from Leica had told me so I find this whole discussion very interesting. Who knows, I'm just a marketing guy and a sometimes photographer I can say that if such a gain were possible I'd be interested as most of my M work is B&W.

Kent

PS- I used to work in the semiconductor industry... you'd think I'd know more about the sensors!!
__________________
------------------------------------------------------------
Open Iris. Life, Captured.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #111
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
I guess in the photographic world, spectral gain flattening filters are functionally like color correction filters...How come everybody just doesn't call them spectral gain flattening filters...

Spectral Response of the Human Eye.

http://everything2.com/title/relativ...+the+human+eye

If you look at the spectral response of the Kodak Sensor Array and truncate the Infrared portion with an IR cut filter, it is closer to the response of the Human Eye than the spectral response for the panchromatic films shown.

So- all you B&W film lovers, if you have to go digital- this will lesson the pain.

IR users- if you thought the M8 was good, dump the IR absorbing glass on the M9 and be amazed.

(kdemas, thanks.)

Fun Shots with the ancient Digital IR camera.









DCS200ir w 55/2.8 Micro-Nikkor, R60 filter. Hand-Held.

I hope my M8 is still working in 2030. Even if I'm not...

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-27-2010 at 16:30.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #112
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Here's two cents worth.
1 cent: Elimination of the Bayer filter will increase luminance resolution, with the CCD sensor. This results partly from the not having direct luminance samples from each pixel and partly from the anti-aliasing filters that are needed in cameras to control color artifact generation. This array cut's luminance resolution by about 70%, this is a significant degradation. As an example, a 24mp sensor with a Bayer filter will resolve closer to an 18mp sensor without a Bayer filter. You will see more refined detail. (You eliminate this with layered photodiode sensing, but you gain other problems)
So, you do gain both sensitivity, as Brian has pointed out, and resolution.
2 cents: You actually attain an image with significantly less manipulation, much like film. It is a cleaner system vs the color sensor driven system. Again, this means a difference in the visible results.

Kindest Regards,
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #113
JoeV
Thin Air, Bright Sun
 
JoeV's Avatar
 
JoeV is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM, USA
Posts: 1,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Ok, so you gain about one stop in sensitivity, which is nice for noise. You gain nothing in resolution, as you are in the equivalent of the luminosity channel of a standard sensor and the interpolation argument is neither here nor there. You lose the creative possibilities of colour information you would normally have in B&W conversion. So why bother?
As for losing creative possibilities, what about good, old fashioned filters in front of the lens, like film photographers who shoot in B/W still do?
__________________
"If your eye is clear, your whole body will be full of light"

Inventor of the Light Pipe Array
My Blog
My latest book
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-27-2010   #114
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggambi View Post
Here's two cents worth.
1 cent: Elimination of the Bayer filter will increase luminance resolution, with the CCD sensor. This results partly from the not having direct luminance samples from each pixel and partly from the anti-aliasing filters that are needed in cameras to control color artifact generation. This array cut's luminance resolution by about 70%, this is a significant degradation. As an example, a 24mp sensor with a Bayer filter will resolve closer to an 18mp sensor without a Bayer filter. You will see more refined detail. (You eliminate this with layered photodiode sensing, but you gain other problems)
So, you do gain both sensitivity, as Brian has pointed out, and resolution.
2 cents: You actually attain an image with significantly less manipulation, much like film. It is a cleaner system vs the color sensor driven system. Again, this means a difference in the visible results.

Kindest Regards,
Ehhh..The M8/9 does not have an AAfilter...advantage gone....

All comparisons I found on the Web were with relatively low res sensors (5-6Mp) with thick AA filters. It is highly unlikely there will be any resolution advantage to M8/9 sensors
Removing the Bayer filter would maybe give a marginal gain in acuity, similar to removing a colour filter from a lens, but that would be offset by the need for a clear protective filter in front of the sensor, if only to allow the user to clean it, and by the need to use yellow, red etc filters in front of the lens.

The only plus I can see would be about double the light striking the sensor, i.e. a one stop gain in sensitivity and S/N ratio.

The minus would be the loss of colour capability and creative use of colour to get a perfect gradation.
The price would be 50-100% more that a standard camera.
To be honest my estimate of world-wide sales would be less than 100.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-28-2010 at 00:37.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #115
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaapv View Post
Ehhh..The M8/9 does not have an AAfilter...advantage gone....
I am well aware that the M8 & M9 does not have an AA filter, I have included this for reference to those cameras that do, hence the example given with the 24mp japanese wonder machines, etc.

The first stated factor does pertain directly to the M8 & M9. I did not give an example as to the percentage difference between B&W versions of these systems as I have no means to test them. There will be a difference and it will be measurable. Unless you are going to assert there is no Bayer filter.

As does the second stated point regarding the systems algorithms. All will effect the final image integrity, and the B&W system benefits from avoiding these pitfalls.

I can go deeper into detail but it would be extensive, and difficult as I am really not looking to write a paper on it. So, I would rather that you seek out journal articles or a text book in the engineering of these systems. If you are interested, maybe I can run a search on a scientific search engine. Or, email you something. This is not my area in physics, but I have some basic knowledge in it.

So, there are two direct key factors that would change within the M8 & M9, and there are three key factors that differentiate it from other digital systems.

I hope this makes the point clearer.

Kindest Regards,
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #116
biggambi
Vivere!
 
biggambi is offline
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Posts: 135
Brian,

You post one more picture of what my M8 cannot do, and you may have a burglary. We have got to see this thing gets built. Your killing me.

M.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #117
jaapv
RFF Sponsoring Member.
 
jaapv's Avatar
 
jaapv is offline
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Hellevoetsluis,Netherlands
Posts: 7,958
Imo, if one wants a Near-IR high resolution camera, as Brian states, I thnk that taking an M9 and replacing the IR filter by a plain filter, as some companies offer, would come rather close. I'll happily grant you a higher acuity for a non-Bayer camera, but I would like to see comparisons, as my doubts for an advantage in real-life photography remain. After all, 95% of all B&W photographs do not use more that a 5 Mp resolution in print , and for web use maybe 2,so any gains would only be useful for scientific use and those very few photographers that actually need them. The same goes for the M9. The undoubted quality advantages it has over the M8 do not show up for a considerable number of users. One could certainly say the same for the current 20Mp + high-end cameras of other makers.
For myself, I can only say that any image quality gain over the M9 would be invisible to me, both on the web and in print.
__________________
Jaap








jaapvphotography

Last edited by jaapv : 01-28-2010 at 01:35.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #118
tom.w.bn
Registered User
 
tom.w.bn is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Germany
Posts: 2,425
Quote:
Originally Posted by biggambi View Post
Brian,

You post one more picture of what my M8 cannot do, and you may have a burglary. We have got to see this thing gets built. Your killing me.

M.
Are you referring to #118? Yes indeed. My (and your) M8 can not take such unsharp images.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #119
Brian Sweeney
Registered User
 
Brian Sweeney's Avatar
 
Brian Sweeney is offline
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 14,934
You try using your M8 hand-held for 1.25:1 Macro images and see how well you do.

One of the reasons I would buy a VNIR M9 is for the improved resolution. However, using the DCS200ir for work, I could do some quick-and-dirty experiments that proved a project would work. Funds would be more than adequate for procuring two VNIR M9's if they were produced, budgeting $10,000 per camera. So maybe these images look unsharp to the untrained eye, but the camera has proved to be a good investment.

This camera was made in 1993. I wonder how many M8's will still be in use in 2030. Maybe mine will.

Last edited by Brian Sweeney : 01-28-2010 at 01:51.
  Reply With Quote

Old 01-28-2010   #120
antiquark
Derek Ross
 
antiquark's Avatar
 
antiquark is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Winnipeg
Posts: 1,470
You guys are talking like sharpness actually matters!
__________________
flickr
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:29.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.