Possible to extract high resolution b/w from a raw file?
bob
higher resolution than the color version, since one color pixel is made up
of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
Savageduck
With all thing being equal(no change in dimensions) a RAW file
converted to B&W will retain the same resolution as the original.
Depending on the method/technique used to make the B&W conversion,
there is the possibility that some psycho-optical illusion of induced
sharpness might be perceived by the removal of interacting colors. The
resolution remains the same, as does the pixel count.
So to answer your question, no you will not be able to extract a B&W
image from a RAW file that is higher resolution than the color version.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/BigSur04_085BW-compw.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mxsmanic
No. The limit of luminance resolution doesn't change. All you're doing with
black and white is removing the color information, but no new information is
added. You can get the same black-and-white resolution by simply removing the
color from the image.
If you could physically remove the filters from the photosites on the sensor,
then you could get better luminance resolution, at the expense of eliminating
all color resolution entirely.
Bruce
I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
be a strong seller to a niche market.
In the meantime, I am very satisfied with ADOX CM 20 film, which
probably has about the best resolving power of any currently available
photographic medium:
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> since one color pixel is made up
> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
It is not. It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
different colours.
-Wolfgang
Bowser
No, and I wouldn't want to. Once you remove the color info at the
expense of resolution I'd lose the ability to fully manipulate the image
in PS where I can control every channel. Dark skies, nice flesh tones,
and the like are no problem, even when shot without using filters.
Paul Furman
You'd need a sensor with no Bayer color filter, and even then you'd need
to remove the antialiasing filter, then risk moire patterns.
ray
I'm not aware of any current software that does that. I'm not an expert
either, but I do know a bit about digital signal processing. Seems to me
that a different de-mosaicing algorithm would have the potential to do
that.
David Dyer-Bennet
> If you could physically remove the filters from the photosites on the sensor,
> then you could get better luminance resolution, at the expense of eliminating
> all color resolution entirely.
And something like 2 stops of higher ISO, too; those filters block
a lot of the light, like 2/3 roughly.
I might want a weaker AA filter; not so much because the B&W resolution is
higher, but just because the normal AA is strong enough for the hard
cases, and I'm willing to do post-processing for the hard cases. I can
benefit the rest of the time.
But I believe the Bayer filters are integral with the microlenses in most
designs, and simply can't be removed. Somebody would have to make
this as a from-scratch B&W sensor, and there probably isn't the market
to justify it. I'm not sure I'd drop $2000 on a B&W D700 new body.
David Dyer-Bennet
Yes, exactly.
I was reading ahead to see if that point got made before making it msyself,
but let me pile on and say this is correct.
You can view the situation as the luminance resolution of a Bayer sensor
is higher than the color resolution. This turns out to work satisfactorily
for us because the same thing is true of the human eye/brain/visual system.
David Dyer-Bennet
Arguably, that superior algorithm should already be in use -- extract the
best luminance resolution you can, use that as your basic image, and then
apply the lower color resolution on top of that, coloring each pixel but
not changing its brightness. That seems like the sensible way to produce
a color image from a Bayer sensor, assuming one has that good luminance
algorithm in your pocket.
Floyd L. Davidson
The AA filter would be just as useful (or not, depending
on your opinion).
The problem is that monochrome image sensors are not
equally sensitive to all colors, and instead map
different colors to different intensity levels.
That means there has to be some form of a "color"
filter. If it were not a Bayer filter used to encode a
broad range of color information it would mean the
camera would have the option of only using one type of
"film". You could buy, for example, a camera that
matched Kodak Tri-X or one that matched Ilford HP5;
which is not nearly as nice as having a Bayer filter and
being able to use the same camera to emulate virtually
any monochrome film.
To put it mildly, even for B&W the functionality of the
Bayer pattern encoding is extremely useful.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@apaflo.com
Floyd L. Davidson
>bob <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> since one color pixel is made up
>> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>
>It is not.
It is. And even your description below says that it is.
>It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
>intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
>different colours.
Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
could be used per pixel is 4, and in fact what actually
is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
(and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
location as directly related to a given pixel location
of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
Floyd L. Davidson
>I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
>be a strong seller to a niche market.
Every camera that uses a Bayer filter to encode color
information has the option of emulating any BW film.
How nice!
Take out the Bayer filter and it becomes necessary to
replace it with some kind of a color mapping filter to
produce exacly one specific tone mapping (say for
example to map tones in the same way that Kodak TriX
does, or the same as Ilford HP5 does). Just one. How
restictive!
Floyd L. Davidson
Use dcraw with the -d option. It's not particularly useful though.
nospam
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
> be a strong seller to a niche market.
kodak had a couple and they weren't.
it makes a lot more sense to use a standard sensor and convert to b/w
when you want it, without giving up the ability to shoot colour when
you don't. it's also substantially less expensive, since low volume
sensors are not cheap.
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> since one color pixel is made up
> >> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
> >
> >It is not.
>
> It is.
it isn't, which you confirm.
> And even your description below says that it is.
he gave no number, so it doesn't.
> >It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
> >intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
> >different colours.
>
> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
> could be used per pixel is 4,
actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
if you're thinking of a 2x2 block for a 4 pixel minimum, no. bayer does
not work that way.
> and in fact what actually
> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
true, which means that it doesn't use 4.
typically it's 9 (good) or 25 (better) and occasionally even more but
it begins to not be worth it at that point.
> It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
> location as directly related to a given pixel location
> of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
actually, quite accurate.
David Dyer-Bennet
> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
> >bob <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> since one color pixel is made up
> >> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
> >
> >It is not.
>
> It is. And even your description below says that it is.
Isn't!
Specifically, my D700 has about 12 million active photosites, and produces
pictures with about 12 million pixels of image. Saying a color pixel
is "made up of" 4 B&W pixels with filters implies that the number of
color pixels will be 1/4 the number of actual active photosites, and
that's not true of any Bayer filter camera.
It's accurate to say that each pixel includes information from at least
4 photosites (I believe it's generally much more than 4, though), but
the exact details are proprietary.
> >It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
> >intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
> >different colours.
>
> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
> could be used per pixel is 4, and in fact what actually
> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
There we go, that's the "generally more than 4" that I mentioned.
> It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
> location as directly related to a given pixel location
> of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
Okay, maybe we're arguing about nits rather than substantive
differences.
I strongly suspect that the majority of the luminance information in
at least half the pixels in my images comes from one photosite. So
I think it's not badly inaccurate to suggest that photosites map
very roughly to luminance of pixels (though color info has a much
wider source).
But it sounds like we have the same understanding of roughly what's
going on down there, and just pick different ways to describe it.
David Dyer-Bennet
> The problem is that monochrome image sensors are not
> equally sensitive to all colors, and instead map
> different colors to different intensity levels.
>
> That means there has to be some form of a "color"
> filter. If it were not a Bayer filter used to encode a
> broad range of color information it would mean the
> camera would have the option of only using one type of
> "film". You could buy, for example, a camera that
> matched Kodak Tri-X or one that matched Ilford HP5;
> which is not nearly as nice as having a Bayer filter and
> being able to use the same camera to emulate virtually
> any monochrome film.
In 30+ years of shooting film kind of seriously, I never once
found myself caring about the color rendering of a given B&W
film (modern panchromatic films). Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4, HP5,
whatever.
I know some people did care. But lots and lots didn't.
For me, the draw is really the increased ISO sensitivity, plus
not having to worry about color balance. I shoot in low light
a lot.
> To put it mildly, even for B&W the functionality of the
> Bayer pattern encoding is extremely useful.
For people doing serious B&W landscape I can see the color rendering
mattering a lot more, and of course the ability to retroactively
apply the standard (plus anything you can dream up) B&W filters to
alter tone rendering is very useful. I make use of it myself when
converting color to B&W, but I'd be willing to give it up for the
other benefits I see.
Not sure I'd be willing to buy a second body costing more than my main
one to do the dedicated B&W, though; it may well be a hopeless idea
economically.
Floyd L. Davidson
>In article <87pqnqd...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
><fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>> >> since one color pixel is made up
>> >> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>> >
>> >It is not.
>>
>> It is.
>
>it isn't, which you confirm.
>
>> And even your description below says that it is.
>
>he gave no number, so it doesn't.
>
>> >It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
>> >intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
>> >different colours.
>>
>> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
>> could be used per pixel is 4,
>
>actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
>down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
>looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
It's 4, not 5. One single RGGB matrix is the minimum that will provide
a full color encoding.
>if you're thinking of a 2x2 block for a 4 pixel minimum, no. bayer does
>not work that way.
You don't seem to understand how it works.
>> and in fact what actually
>> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
>> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
>> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
>
>true, which means that it doesn't use 4.
Nobody said it does. What I said is that 4 is the minimum it *can* use.
>typically it's 9 (good) or 25 (better) and occasionally even more but
>it begins to not be worth it at that point.
So that's exactly what I said, and you repeat it as if it had not been
said...
>> It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
>> location as directly related to a given pixel location
>> of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
>
>actually, quite accurate.
Ignorant, actually.
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:40:11 AM UTC-5, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> Wolfgang Weisselberg <ozcv...@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>> >bob <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> since one color pixel is made up
>> >> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>> >
>> >It is not.
>>
>> It is. And even your description below says that it is.
>
>Isn't!
>
>Specifically, my D700 has about 12 million active photosites, and produces
>pictures with about 12 million pixels of image.
Which means exactly one thing: The total numbers are
nearly a match. But even then, if you look more
carefully you'll find that there are several thousands
more sensor locations used than there are pixels in the
final image. It is *not* a one to one ratio, the two
are not directly related. It is a very indirect
relationship, and each image pixel is clearly the result
of data from multiple sensor locations.
>Saying a color pixel
>is "made up of" 4 B&W pixels with filters implies that the number of
>color pixels will be 1/4 the number of actual active photosites, and
>that's not true of any Bayer filter camera.
No such implication exists. Each *pixel* is generated
from data taken from at least 4 each sensor locations.
Each sensor location is used to generate multiple pixels.
4 sensors per pixel is the minimum. There simply is
*not* a one to one relationship between data from a
given sensor location and a similarly located pixel.
>It's accurate to say that each pixel includes information from at least
>4 photosites (I believe it's generally much more than 4, though), but
>the exact details are proprietary.
So now you do know that what you said above is not accurate!
Why say otherwise and then logically explain that it isn't?
>> >It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
>> >intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
>> >different colours.
>>
>> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
>> could be used per pixel is 4, and in fact what actually
>> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
>> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
>> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
>
>There we go, that's the "generally more than 4" that I mentioned.
So there we go, I had said that to start with and there
is no reason you should pretend that I didn't. Just
because you didn't read what I'd said until after
repeating the same thing doesn't mean it was me repeating
what you said!
In any case, it clearly controverts what you said above
to start with! Your article seems to be some kind of a
"stream of consciousness" as you become aware of the
significance of these things. Why not read, study,
learn, and *then* write your final opinion instead of
mumbling/rambling as you learn?
>> It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
>> location as directly related to a given pixel location
>> of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
>
>Okay, maybe we're arguing about nits rather than substantive
>differences.
It is very substantive!
It is the basis for a lot of very interesting signal
processing, such as sharpening. It is the reason we
have the ability to emulate virtually any BW film. It
is the reason a computer generated graphic arts image
can have edge transitions in from 1 pixel to the next
but a camera generated image cannot.
>I strongly suspect that the majority of the luminance information in
>at least half the pixels in my images comes from one photosite. So
In any given pixel "at least half" the luminance
information comes from the green sensor locations. That
is certain to be at least two sensor locations (and is
almost certain to be many more than that).
>I think it's not badly inaccurate to suggest that photosites map
>very roughly to luminance of pixels (though color info has a much
>wider source).
Half of the luminance for a given pixel comes from at
least two green filtered sensor locations, and half
comes from at least 1 red and 1 blue. That would be a
2x2 matrix, but almost certainly what is actually used
is a 3x3 and might be a 4x4 or 5x5 matrix.
There is *never* a case where either the luminance or
the color information comes from a single sensor
location, and there is never even a case where more than
1/4 of the information comes from just one location.
>But it sounds like we have the same understanding of roughly what's
>going on down there, and just pick different ways to describe it.
Think it out a little better. Read to the end of an
article and understand the entire statement before
starting to mumble what you think at the beginning and
progressing as you learn (which is clearly how you
formulated this article).
Floyd L. Davidson
>On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:33:02 AM UTC-5, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>
>> The problem is that monochrome image sensors are not
>> equally sensitive to all colors, and instead map
>> different colors to different intensity levels.
>>
>> That means there has to be some form of a "color"
>> filter. If it were not a Bayer filter used to encode a
>> broad range of color information it would mean the
>> camera would have the option of only using one type of
>> "film". You could buy, for example, a camera that
>> matched Kodak Tri-X or one that matched Ilford HP5;
>> which is not nearly as nice as having a Bayer filter and
>> being able to use the same camera to emulate virtually
>> any monochrome film.
>
>In 30+ years of shooting film kind of seriously, I never once
>found myself caring about the color rendering of a given B&W
>film (modern panchromatic films). Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4, HP5,
>whatever.
>
>I know some people did care. But lots and lots didn't.
You low competence level as a photographer is not
significant to the requirements of others.
In fact though, you *did care*, and just let others do
the work involved. After all, you always picked one of
those films, right? And you never did shoot ortho?
That's because you did care. (And I'd bet there were times
when you chose Plus-X over Tri-X too, for exactly that reason.)
>For me, the draw is really the increased ISO sensitivity, plus
>not having to worry about color balance. I shoot in low light
>a lot.
But you do need to "worry" about color balance. That's
tone mapping. Do you want a pan-chromatic film that is
more red sensitive than blue? Or the other way around?
Or do you shoot with blue ortho?
The idea that it would be significantly higher ISO is
partially correct, but almost certainly not to the
decree you are expecting. Some form of filtering would
still be essential, and the actual increase in
sensitivity would probably be less than 1 fstop.
Which is to say that if you don't own a Nikon D3S today,
you can gain more by purchasing one tomorrow than any
hoped for value from a non-Bayer filtered model.
>> To put it mildly, even for B&W the functionality of the
>> Bayer pattern encoding is extremely useful.
>
>For people doing serious B&W landscape I can see the color rendering
>mattering a lot more, and of course the ability to retroactively
>apply the standard (plus anything you can dream up) B&W filters to
>alter tone rendering is very useful. I make use of it myself when
>converting color to B&W, but I'd be willing to give it up for the
>other benefits I see.
I think you would be exceedingly disappointed, unless
your photography is centered around something like
copying documents.
I also note that despite earlier denial, you are now
admitting to making use of different tone mapping when
generating BW images. Once again (as with a previous
article) you seem to be learning as you write and
contradict what you initially write in an article with
information you learn as you actually read and respond
to what others have said.
>Not sure I'd be willing to buy a second body costing more than my main
>one to do the dedicated B&W, though; it may well be a hopeless idea
>economically.
Buy a D3S, get the functionality now and at a reasonable
price too.
Alfred Molon
@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
> I might want a weaker AA filter; not so much because the B&W resolution is
> higher, but just because the normal AA is strong enough for the hard
> cases, and I'm willing to do post-processing for the hard cases.
Postprocessing can't remove aliasing. All you can achieve is making the
image look less bad.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article <99047cc0-d69d-4af4-82bc-18a0fa6bd2e5
> @glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>, David Dyer-Bennet says...
> > I might want a weaker AA filter; not so much because the B&W resolution is
> > higher, but just because the normal AA is strong enough for the hard
> > cases, and I'm willing to do post-processing for the hard cases.
>
> Postprocessing can't remove aliasing. All you can achieve is making the
> image look less bad.
It can't magically recognize and remove aliasing, no. But the practical
aliasing cases the one runs into can be made to look fine in post-processing.
And they're rare.
Alfred Molon
> Is it possible to to extract a b/w photo from a camera raw file that is
> higher resolution than the color version, since one color pixel is made up
> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
Yes, a B&W sensor outperforms resolutionwise a colour sensor. Here is
why:
The colour resolution in a Bayer sensor is way lower than the luminance
resolution. To avoid colour aliasing - or let's say to reduce it to an
acceptable level - the AA filter needs to be dimensioned somewhere
between the colour resolution and the higher luminance resolution. The
cutoff point is somewhere in between.
In a B&W sensor instead the AA filter is dimensioned for the much higher
luminance resolution. Higher cutoff point => more resolution.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Saying a color pixel
> >is "made up of" 4 B&W pixels with filters implies that the number of
> >color pixels will be 1/4 the number of actual active photosites, and
> >that's not true of any Bayer filter camera.
>
> No such implication exists. Each *pixel* is generated
> from data taken from at least 4 each sensor locations.
> Each sensor location is used to generate multiple pixels.
I think the language you use clearly does imply that. Furthermore, lots
of other people seem to have understood it that way also. Saying
"a pixel draws on information from 4 (or 5, or 9, or 25) B&W pixels with
filters" is correct. Saying "a pixel is made up of" 4 B&W pixels with
filters suggests, to me and others, something like the Foveon sensor, or
a Bayer sensor where the number of pixels is (roughly) 1/4 the number
of active photosites.
Skipping the nasty and/or insulting bits, and the rest of the places
where we confirm that our understanding of what actually happens is
compatible.
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 9:33:02 AM UTC-5, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
> >
> >> The problem is that monochrome image sensors are not
> >> equally sensitive to all colors, and instead map
> >> different colors to different intensity levels.
> >>
> >> That means there has to be some form of a "color"
> >> filter. If it were not a Bayer filter used to encode a
> >> broad range of color information it would mean the
> >> camera would have the option of only using one type of
> >> "film". You could buy, for example, a camera that
> >> matched Kodak Tri-X or one that matched Ilford HP5;
> >> which is not nearly as nice as having a Bayer filter and
> >> being able to use the same camera to emulate virtually
> >> any monochrome film.
> >
> >In 30+ years of shooting film kind of seriously, I never once
> >found myself caring about the color rendering of a given B&W
> >film (modern panchromatic films). Tri-X, Plus-X, FP4, HP5,
> >whatever.
> >
> >I know some people did care. But lots and lots didn't.
>
> You low competence level as a photographer is not
> significant to the requirements of others.
Your ad hominem attack is irrelevant to the discussion.
> In fact though, you *did care*, and just let others do
> the work involved. After all, you always picked one of
> those films, right? And you never did shoot ortho?
Ortho was a hard-to-find specialty product; I didn't care so
I didn't seek it out. And I didn't choose one of the others by
B&W rendering, I chose by ASA, and sometimes by which one in a given
ASA range I could buy 100' of cheapest.
> That's because you did care. (And I'd bet there were times
> when you chose Plus-X over Tri-X too, for exactly that reason.)
Nope, sorry.
Mostly, I shot Plus-X outdoors or with flash, and TRI-X pushed to 1000 or
1200 most of the rest of the time. ASA-driven.
(Okay, EI driven.)
> >For me, the draw is really the increased ISO sensitivity, plus
> >not having to worry about color balance. I shoot in low light
> >a lot.
>
> But you do need to "worry" about color balance. That's
> tone mapping. Do you want a pan-chromatic film that is
> more red sensitive than blue? Or the other way around?
> Or do you shoot with blue ortho?
>
> The idea that it would be significantly higher ISO is
> partially correct, but almost certainly not to the
> decree you are expecting. Some form of filtering would
> still be essential, and the actual increase in
> sensitivity would probably be less than 1 fstop.
Perhaps; though you're the first expert (granting your
expertise) I've discussed this with to think that. If
so, that's a fairly small difference today, and probably not
worth that much.
> Which is to say that if you don't own a Nikon D3S today,
> you can gain more by purchasing one tomorrow than any
> hoped for value from a non-Bayer filtered model.
Indeed, things are getting good enough in the dark that additional
speed is less and less important. My budget doesn't run to a
D3s; the D700 was a stretch (and only worked because I could
sell a 58/1.2 NOCT for about what the body cost me). But it's got
a number of good years in it still I'm sure.
> >> To put it mildly, even for B&W the functionality of the
> >> Bayer pattern encoding is extremely useful.
> >
> >For people doing serious B&W landscape I can see the color rendering
> >mattering a lot more, and of course the ability to retroactively
> >apply the standard (plus anything you can dream up) B&W filters to
> >alter tone rendering is very useful. I make use of it myself when
> >converting color to B&W, but I'd be willing to give it up for the
> >other benefits I see.
>
> I think you would be exceedingly disappointed, unless
> your photography is centered around something like
> copying documents.
>
> I also note that despite earlier denial, you are now
> admitting to making use of different tone mapping when
> generating BW images. Once again (as with a previous
> article) you seem to be learning as you write and
> contradict what you initially write in an article with
> information you learn as you actually read and respond
> to what others have said.
Believe me, this is not new territory for me. I'm learning
very little here (except noting your opinions differ from
others I've collected on how much filtering would be needed
for a useful B&W sensor).
I have never chosen a B&W film based on its tone mapping; that has
never entered my mind as a consideration. I have never particularly
noticed differences in that area between films. I *have* used filters
to alter the tone mapping of B&W films I used occasionally (just
yellow and red, to darken skies some). I *do* use the channel
mixer when doing color conversion to B&W in Photoshop, generally
heavy on the red and light on the blue (indoor shots of people under
low levels of tungsten light).
> >Not sure I'd be willing to buy a second body costing more than my main
> >one to do the dedicated B&W, though; it may well be a hopeless idea
> >economically.
>
> Buy a D3S, get the functionality now and at a reasonable
> price too.
Beyond my reach at the moment (or at least beyond my sane toys
budget).
Martin Brown
> In article<87pqnqd...@apaflo.com>, Floyd L. Davidson
> <fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
>
>>>> since one color pixel is made up
>>>> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>>>
>>> It is not.
>>
>> It is.
>
> it isn't, which you confirm.
>
>> And even your description below says that it is.
>
> he gave no number, so it doesn't.
>
>>> It's made up of the pixel itself and then (with some
>>> intelligent processing) of the values of it's neighbours with
>>> different colours.
>>
>> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
>> could be used per pixel is 4,
>
> actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
> down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
> looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
Actually he is right that a matrix of 4 cells is the bare minimum that
can be used for Bayer demosaic although the results are not great.
The pattern of 5 you describe fails completely for all red and blue
sensor sites which in the standard Bayer mosaic have only green direct
neighbours. At least Floyds method would allocate full RGB pixels to
every location on the grid apart from at the very edges.
RG
GB
Is the unit cell of the Bayer sensor grid.
>
> if you're thinking of a 2x2 block for a 4 pixel minimum, no. bayer does
> not work that way.
In a real sense it does sometimes although heuristics are used based on
the green channel information to decide what weights to use. The default
is 3x3 unless special conditions like sharp luminance edges are found.
The detailed algorithms are patented but in rough form green channel is
used to work out a crude green (proxy luminance) value for all the
unsampled points and then a heuristic shader uses the red and blue
pixels to fill in the gaps. Most digicams actually interpolate to a 2x1
chroma subsampled image that will be JPEG encoded. There are only 2G 1B
1R pixels per unit cell and it makes no sense to interpolate up to a
full colour 4G 4B 4R then convert to 4Y 4Cr 4Cb and subsample when you
can retain more accuracy and do it quicker from 4Y 2Cr 2Cb into JPEG.
>
>> and in fact what actually
>> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
>> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
>> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
>
> true, which means that it doesn't use 4.
Typically it uses 9 and maybe a few from the next ring out to try and
work out if there is a sharp edge transition and chose the right tweak.
>
> typically it's 9 (good) or 25 (better) and occasionally even more but
> it begins to not be worth it at that point.
>
>> It is grossly inaccurate to consider each sensor
>> location as directly related to a given pixel location
>> of the image. It just doesn't work that way.
>
> actually, quite accurate.
No it isn't. Each pixel location in the final image is potentially
related to all its neighbouring sensor sites as well as its own measured
value. Measured values are not normally allowed to change in Bayer
demosaicing but may be altered by any unsharp masking done later.
The individual pixel tells you one colour channel at that point in the
image. The green channel is fairly informative and is used to generate
the first guess at luminance and then the red and blue are combined in.
The answer for the OP is that it depends. If you know the precise
blurring function of your monochrome image and it obeys some very strict
criteria then scientific deconvolution codes can be used to get a
roughly 3x increase in resolution in regions of high signal to noise at
the expense of various artefacts. The HST myopia problem was worked
around using these codes and they were used to diagnose the fault but it
isn't quick and the results are not always pretty. Unsharp masking is by
comparison quick, crude but moderately effective.
Regards,
Martin Brown
nospam
<fl...@apaflo.com> wrote:
> >> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
> >> could be used per pixel is 4,
> >
> >actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
> >down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
> >looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
>
> It's 4, not 5. One single RGGB matrix is the minimum that will provide
> a full color encoding.
only if you accept shitty results. 5 is the minimum if you want to
maintain the actual resolution of the sensor, not cut it by 75%.
> >if you're thinking of a 2x2 block for a 4 pixel minimum, no. bayer does
> >not work that way.
>
> You don't seem to understand how it works.
i definitely understand how it works.
nospam
<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
> >> could be used per pixel is 4,
> >
> > actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
> > down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
> > looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
>
> Actually he is right that a matrix of 4 cells is the bare minimum that
> can be used for Bayer demosaic although the results are not great.
right, the results are awful and also very low resolution. no bayer
camera uses 2x2 blocks. it's stupid and a straw man.
> The pattern of 5 you describe fails completely for all red and blue
> sensor sites which in the standard Bayer mosaic have only green direct
> neighbours. At least Floyds method would allocate full RGB pixels to
> every location on the grid apart from at the very edges.
i wouldn't say fail completely. green is the main component of
luminance (and in the original bayer patent, only green was
considered). the colour errors will be high but the eye isn't that
sensitive to that.
a realistic minimum is 9 pixels. yes you 'can' do it with less but
nobody does.
> RG
> GB
>
> Is the unit cell of the Bayer sensor grid.
nobody uses 2x2, except in the minds of some foveon fanbois thinking
that's how bayer works (it doesn't).
Floyd L. Davidson
Obviously not.
Bruce
wrote:
>bob wrote:
>> Is it possible to to extract a b/w photo from a camera raw file that is
>> up of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>
>to remove the antialiasing filter, then risk moire patterns.
The risk of moire is hugely overstated. I shoot with a 14 MP Kodak
DCS Pro 14n full frame DSLR and a 39 MP Hasselblad. Both have Kodak
sensors with no AA filters. Moire isn't a significant problem for me.
I can think of a lot of systematic flaws in images that occur much
more frequently than moire. Moire is something that troubles armchair
"experts" far more than it troubles working photographers.
If moire really was a problem, everyone would be using AA filters all
the time. The reality is that the sharpness of images rendered
without AA filters is very attractive, especially among fashion
photographers. Yet fashion is the genre most likely to have problems
with moire because of woven fabrics! Go figure ...
P.S. It is also worth pointing out that Nikon (and some other
manufacturers) have installed weaker AA filters with each new
generation of their digital SLRs. The result is that Nikon's sensors
now significantly outperform Canon's in terms of image sharpness
before post-processing is applied.
Nevertheless my 14 MP Kodak 14n (from 2004!) still outperforms my
Nikon D3 by a worthwhile margin at base ISO. It should probably be in
a museum, and has many flaws, but the image quality still takes my
breath away. Dynamic range is very good indeed and the natural colour
rendition is better than that of any other DSLR I have used. It's a
pity Kodak didn't develop it further. The 39 MP Kodak sensor in the
Hasselblad is also excellent - and that's another camera that's far
from being the latest model!
Bruce
In another post to this thread I have mentioned that "moire problems"
with no AA filter are greatly overstated by armchair experts but not
perceived by working photographers as such a significant problem.
Exactly the same is true of aliasing. People seem to spend more time
discussing it than dealing with it. The result is that most DSLRs are
fitted with anti-alias filters that they really don't ned.
Rich
nos...@nospam.invalid:
Not really. Notice cutting edge scientific photography (astronomy, etc)
still rely on monochrome CCDs. They do tri-colour filtration to create
colour images when they need it. That way, no resolution or sharpness is
lost due to Bayer filteration.
Rich
news:glejs6tbkneeftrdf...@4ax.com:
Kodak CCD's are inherently superior to consumer CMOS (that's ALL Nikons,
Canons, etc) except in two key areas: Visible noise and power
consumption. That is what killed them. Though of course no maker of
medical or high-end scientific photographic equipment would use a
consumer-grade CMOS sensor for precise work. But what good are high
precision sensors when the support electronics are so crappy and built
only to control costs as a first priority? I used to think medium format
backs cost what they did because of economies of scale not being there.
But in reality, they cost what they do because everything inside them is
of a higher standard than the mass-market stuff.
nospam
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The risk of moire is hugely overstated. I shoot with a 14 MP Kodak
> DCS Pro 14n full frame DSLR and a 39 MP Hasselblad. Both have Kodak
> sensors with no AA filters. Moire isn't a significant problem for me.
> I can think of a lot of systematic flaws in images that occur much
> more frequently than moire. Moire is something that troubles armchair
> "experts" far more than it troubles working photographers.
the 'italian flag syndrome' is very common with the kodak slrs.
> If moire really was a problem, everyone would be using AA filters all
> the time.
and in fact, they are. almost every digital camera has an antialias
filter, the main exception being sigma.
> The reality is that the sharpness of images rendered
> without AA filters is very attractive, especially among fashion
> photographers. Yet fashion is the genre most likely to have problems
> with moire because of woven fabrics! Go figure ...
attractive to some, ugly to others.
> P.S. It is also worth pointing out that Nikon (and some other
> manufacturers) have installed weaker AA filters with each new
> generation of their digital SLRs.
actually nikon's aa filters have been getting stronger. the d70 was
weak and exhibited colour fringing and recent cameras are noticeably
stronger to minimize that.
> The result is that Nikon's sensors
> now significantly outperform Canon's in terms of image sharpness
> before post-processing is applied.
for other reasons.
> Nevertheless my 14 MP Kodak 14n (from 2004!) still outperforms my
> Nikon D3 by a worthwhile margin at base ISO.
bullshit. it's not even in the same league. the 14n had a very noisy
sensor and topped out at iso 400. it also had a 12 bit a/d converter so
it *can't* outperform the d3.
> It should probably be in
> a museum, and has many flaws, but the image quality still takes my
> breath away. Dynamic range is very good indeed and the natural colour
> rendition is better than that of any other DSLR I have used.
it is not wider than a nikon d3 or a fuji s5, or most modern dslrs. it
was actually not very good.
nospam
<docne...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Exactly the same is true of aliasing. People seem to spend more time
> discussing it than dealing with it. The result is that most DSLRs are
> fitted with anti-alias filters that they really don't ned.
they definitely need them or they wouldn't be there. do you think the
manufacturers put them in just for the hell of it? they aren't all that
cheap.
Bruce
wrote:>> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >bob writes:
>> >
>> >> Is it possible to to extract a b/w photo from a camera raw file that is
>> >> higher resolution than the color version, since one color pixel is made up
>> >> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>> >
>> >black and white is removing the color information, but no new information is
>> >added. You can get the same black-and-white resolution by simply removing the
>> >color from the image.
>> >
>> >If you could physically remove the filters from the photosites on the sensor,
>> >then you could get better luminance resolution, at the expense of eliminating
>> >all color resolution entirely.
>>
>>
>> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
>> be a strong seller to a niche market.
>>
>> probably has about the best resolving power of any currently available
>> photographic medium:
>>
>> http://www.adox.de/english/ADOX_Films/ADOX_Films.html
>
>Phase One makes a monochrome back for medium format cameras, "the
>Achromatic+ digital back", 39MP, which does not have a color filter.
>
>"The Phase One Achromatic+ is available for the Mamiya 645 AFD
>(including the Phase One 645DF camera), Contax 645 and Hasselblad V
>interfaces.
>
>"Also available is the Phase One Achromatic+ for Hasselblad H1 and H2
>cameras.
>
>"The Achromatic+ can be ordered without an IR filter mounted
>permanently. There are multiple solutions available for working with
>interchangeable filters for such a solution."
>
><http://www.phaseone.com/en/Digital-Backs/Achromatic/Achromatic-plus-Info.aspx>
That back has been advertised for some time but in spite of knowing
quite a few digital medium format shooters I don't know anyone who has
bought one. None of the top three PhaseOne resellers in the UK has
one available.
The use of interchangeable digital backs is rapidly dying out in any
case, as is their use on medium format film SLRs. The trend is
strongly towards integrated medium format DSLRs with Hasselblad having
the majority of the market, at least here in Europe.
I would be keen to try a monochrome sensor but my Hassy is an H3 and
won't take an interchangeable back.
I get the impression that the Achromatic+ has perhaps been left
behind.
nospam
<no...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> > it makes a lot more sense to use a standard sensor and convert to b/w
> > when you want it, without giving up the ability to shoot colour when
> > you don't. it's also substantially less expensive, since low volume
> > sensors are not cheap.
>
> Not really.
yes really.
> Notice cutting edge scientific photography (astronomy, etc)
> still rely on monochrome CCDs. They do tri-colour filtration to create
> colour images when they need it. That way, no resolution or sharpness is
> lost due to Bayer filteration.
good luck if your subject moves. how many of those do you see in a
camera store? zero. can you say irrelevant?
Bruce
>Kodak CCD's are inherently superior to consumer CMOS (that's ALL Nikons,
>Canons, etc) except in two key areas: Visible noise and power
>consumption. That is what killed them.
I'm sorry to have to tell you that my Kodak DCS Pro 14n has a CMOS
sensor, and that Kodak CCD sales to manufacturers such as Pentax,
Hasselblad and Leica are thriving! ;-)
But thank you for making me smile. I've just finished shooting a
corporate event at London's South Bank. I'm tired and even more
irritable than usual, and I'm having to wait until proofs of every
shot taken are printed off, approved by the client and handed over.
It's been a long night and at 12.32 AM it is still far from over! :-(
Martin Brown
> In article<sngyp.71716$7N3....@newsfe10.iad>, Martin Brown
> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
>>>> could be used per pixel is 4,
>>>
>>> actually, it's 5: the pixel itself plus the 4 direct neighbors (up,
>>> down, left, right). i don't know of anything that does that, since it
>>> looks like shit. normally 9 is considered the minimum.
>>
>> Actually he is right that a matrix of 4 cells is the bare minimum that
>> can be used for Bayer demosaic although the results are not great.
>
> right, the results are awful and also very low resolution. no bayer
> camera uses 2x2 blocks. it's stupid and a straw man.
The resolution is the same as the original sensor. You can always select
a boxcar of 4x4 sensor sites comprising GRBG in some permutation.
>
>> The pattern of 5 you describe fails completely for all red and blue
>> sensor sites which in the standard Bayer mosaic have only green direct
>> neighbours. At least Floyds method would allocate full RGB pixels to
>> every location on the grid apart from at the very edges.
>
> i wouldn't say fail completely. green is the main component of
> luminance (and in the original bayer patent, only green was
> considered). the colour errors will be high but the eye isn't that
> sensitive to that.
Fail completely in that half your reconstructed pixels are completely
missing any blue or red channel information. You don't understand what
you are talking about.
The colour fringing of diagonal sharp luminance transitions on Bayer are
awful if you do not handle them correctly. And the correct solution is
approximately to choose the most appropriate self consistent 4x4 pixel
block based on the crude estimated luminance values.
>
> a realistic minimum is 9 pixels. yes you 'can' do it with less but
> nobody does.
>
>> RG
>> GB
>>
>> Is the unit cell of the Bayer sensor grid.
>
> nobody uses 2x2, except in the minds of some foveon fanbois thinking
> that's how bayer works (it doesn't).
The practical implementations all use (at least) the 9x9 block centred
on the home cell but they can and do select different subset strategies
to avoid bleeding spurious colour into sharp white to black transitions.
Regards,
Martin Brown
David Dyer-Bennet
Some have them, some don't. The general pattern seems to be that
all amateur gear has them, but high end professional gear is more
mixed. By sales, only a tiny percentage lack AA filters -- but they're
among the most expensive, bought by the most expert photographers with
the most extreme requirements.
Which makes perfect sense. Many photographers need the image to come
out of the camera in essentially final form; they have no time or
patience for post-processing. Some photographers do highly critical,
slow, carefully-controlled work, and they need the least possible
between them and the light; and are willing to understand and work with
issues like aliasing when they come up. (The Leica M9 and most of the
medium-format digital gear has no AA filter.)
I have to say that your implication that all commercial product designs
are optimal strikes me as absurd.
nospam
<d251d8a0-263a-4171...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
, David Dyer-Bennet <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Exactly the same is true of aliasing. People seem to spend more time
> > > discussing it than dealing with it. The result is that most DSLRs are
> > > fitted with anti-alias filters that they really don't ned.
> >
> > they definitely need them or they wouldn't be there. do you think the
> > manufacturers put them in just for the hell of it? they aren't all that
> > cheap.
>
> Some have them, some don't. The general pattern seems to be that
> all amateur gear has them, but high end professional gear is more
> mixed. By sales, only a tiny percentage lack AA filters -- but they're
> among the most expensive, bought by the most expert photographers with
> the most extreme requirements.
they all have an anti-alias filter (or equivalent) except for niche
cameras like sigma or medium format where it's actually needed but
would be cost prohibitive. low end cameras rely on diffraction and/or a
crappy lens in lieu of an anti-alias filter (e.g., cellphone camera) to
bandlimit the detail.
> Which makes perfect sense. Many photographers need the image to come
> out of the camera in essentially final form; they have no time or
> patience for post-processing.
all the more reason to have an anti-alias filter. without one,
photographers would need to deal with minimizing jaggies and other
artifacts in post-processing.
> Some photographers do highly critical,
> slow, carefully-controlled work, and they need the least possible
> between them and the light; and are willing to understand and work with
> issues like aliasing when they come up. (The Leica M9 and most of the
> medium-format digital gear has no AA filter.)
having the least possible between the subject and sensor is the
ridiculous the leica rationalization, and it's why they skipped the
infrared filter in the m8 too which turned out to bite them in the ass.
you *can't* fix aliasing afterwards without affecting the actual image.
once the image has been captured, there's no way to discern between
alias artifacts and real detail. remove one and you remove the other.
> I have to say that your implication that all commercial product designs
> are optimal strikes me as absurd.
everything has tradeoffs.
David Dyer-Bennet
> In article
> <d251d8a0-263a-4171...@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com>
> , David Dyer-Bennet <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
[snipped a bunch where we seem to be done]
> you *can't* fix aliasing afterwards without affecting the actual image.
> once the image has been captured, there's no way to discern between
> alias artifacts and real detail. remove one and you remove the other.
Yes, that's completely true. However, talk to professionals using
medium-format digital without AA filters in studio work, and ask them
how much trouble this true fact actually causes them. Yes, there is
nearly certainly actual detail lost in fixing aliasing artifacts.
However, the name of that game isn't "show as much real detail as possible";
the game is much more like "produce striking photos meeting clients needs".
Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>> since one color pixel is made up
>>> of 4 b/w pixels with color filters?
>>It is not.
> It is.
"bob"s description --- and your agreement --- can be read as "for
every 4 bayer sensors, there is one resulting colour pixel, i.e. a
10 MPix resulting image needs 40 million bayer sensor cells".
Which, as you know, is untrue.
> And even your description below says that it is.
Nope. Difference between "neighbours" and "made up of".
Difference between "4" and "neighbours".
> Actually, the minimum number of sensor locations that
> could be used per pixel is 4,
3. One red, one blue, one green.
> and in fact what actually
> is used will be a matrix of at least 9 sensor locations
> (and maybe more than that). They *all* contribute to
> the RGB values for a pixel produced by interpolation.
What I said.
-Wolfgang
Mxsmanic
> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
> be a strong seller to a niche market.
I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
black and white is not the same thing.
Mxsmanic
> good luck if your subject moves.
Stars rarely move during an exposure.
Mxsmanic
> In another post to this thread I have mentioned that "moire problems"
> with no AA filter are greatly overstated by armchair experts but not
> perceived by working photographers as such a significant problem.
>
> Exactly the same is true of aliasing. People seem to spend more time
> discussing it than dealing with it. The result is that most DSLRs are
> fitted with anti-alias filters that they really don't ned.
It's the difference between gearheads and those who are actually interested in
taking pictures.
Mxsmanic
> they definitely need them or they wouldn't be there. do you think the
> manufacturers put them in just for the hell of it?
Sure, if that sells more cameras. Manufacturers still put in digital zooms,
even though they are useless, because it sells more cameras.
Floyd L. Davidson
True, but the earth rotates.
nospam
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > good luck if your subject moves.
>
> Stars rarely move during an exposure.
unless you have a rotating platform that syncs with the earth, they do,
and what if you want to take pictures of other stuff?
nospam
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
digital zoom costs $0. the code was written long ago, and even if it
wasn't, it's very, very easy to do. write it once and crank out the
roms.
an anti-alias filter is a physical part that costs real money,
especially in medium format cameras.
Bruce
Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
and had a 6 MP CCD. Two pro shooters told me that the 760m never
seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
managed to buy one. For some of the reasons why, read this review of
the DCS 760m on the Luminous Landscape web site:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml
There was apparently going to be a b/w version of either the 14 MP
Kodak DCS Pro 14n or later SLR/n, but it never appeared.
Bruce
Precisely. ;-)
RichA
Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.
RichA
> On Tue, 10 May 2011 18:11:04 -0500, Rich <n...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >Kodak CCD's are inherently superior to consumer CMOS (that's ALL Nikons,
> >Canons, etc) except in two key areas: Visible noise and power
> >consumption. That is what killed them.
>
> I'm sorry to have to tell you that my Kodak DCS Pro 14n has a CMOS
> sensor, and that Kodak CCD sales to manufacturers such as Pentax,
> Hasselblad and Leica are thriving! ;-)
>
The sensors in those camera are to the ones in the Hasselblad as the
D3 image is to a D40, one's a pro image, the other sports cartoon
colours designed to please soccer moms. Everything in the Hasselblad
back is higher grade, including the sensor, when it comes to critical
accuracy of things like colour. That is why Kodak (and Dalsa) sensors
dominate the science fields while Canon and Sony are no where to be
seen except in the least-demanding applications, like surveillance and
other related work.
Bruce
True, but you would also need a different image processor. It isn't
just a question of swapping colour sensors for black and white. So
buyers who aren't interested in a black and white sensor end up
subsidising its cost because *their* cameras end up more complex and
expensive than they need to be.
We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
would cost to make.
Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.
Bruce
I don't disagree with any of that.
David Dyer-Bennet
> >> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Bruce writes:
> >> >> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
> >> >> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
> >> >> be a strong seller to a niche market.
> >>
> >> >I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
> >> >black and white is not the same thing.
> >>
> >> Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
> >> and had a 6 MP CCD. Two pro shooters told me that the 760m never
> >> seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
> >> managed to buy one. For some of the reasons why, read this review of
> >> the DCS 760m on the Luminous Landscape web site:
> >>
> >> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/kodak-760m.shtml
> >>
> >> There was apparently going to be a b/w version of either the 14 MP
> >> Kodak DCS Pro 14n or later SLR/n, but it never appeared.
> >
> >Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
> >produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.
>
>
> True, but you would also need a different image processor. It isn't
> just a question of swapping colour sensors for black and white. So
> buyers who aren't interested in a black and white sensor end up
> subsidising its cost because *their* cameras end up more complex and
> expensive than they need to be.
At the professional level (or crazed amateur, such as myself) that this
appeals to, make it a RAW-only device. All the image processing can
take place externally. Ideally, it should produce DNG files, with
(not sure this is in the DNG standard) some flag indicating there were
no color filters over the photosites. (Most of those decisions have
been made by one or another of the digital back makers for medium and
large format photography, over the years.)
Lots of people buy cameras precisely because they support options they
never end up buying, so I wouldn't worry about that hurting the market
too much.
> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
> would cost to make.
>
> Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
> interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
> absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.
Yep. Well, the lens-plus-sensor idea makes a little bit of theoretical
sense for image quality, but no financial sense at all. And DOESN'T
address the frequent demand for upgrading sensors or using specialized
sensors.
Mxsmanic
> True, but the earth rotates.
Yes, but the rotation is extremely regular and predictable over short periods
and can be compensated for by a motorized equatorial mount.
Mxsmanic
> Modularity in pro cameras could fix that kind of decision not to
> produce a B&W model. Sensor packs, standardized bodies.
But that would reduce profit margins, because then photographers could just
buy a new sensor assembly, instead of being obligated to buy an entirely new
body with each improvement in sensors.
Mxsmanic
> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
> would cost to make.
The only drawback would be the loss of income for camera companies.
Ray Fischer
>nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in news:100520110847324830%
>>> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
>>> rangefinder camera (yes, Leica Camera, that's you!). I think it would
>>> be a strong seller to a niche market.
>>
>> kodak had a couple and they weren't.
>>
>> it makes a lot more sense to use a standard sensor and convert to b/w
>> when you want it, without giving up the ability to shoot colour when
>> you don't. it's also substantially less expensive, since low volume
>> sensors are not cheap.
>
>Not really. Notice cutting edge scientific photography (astronomy, etc)
>still rely on monochrome CCDs.
And they're very expensive.
> They do tri-colour filtration to create
>colour images when they need it. That way, no resolution or sharpness is
>lost due to Bayer filteration.
Resolution is not relevant - most of them have very low resolution.
The most important attribute of those cameras is low noise and high
sensitivity since they are commonly used for long exposures of minutes
to hours.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendocracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Bruce
A camera company is like any other company. It exists to make a
profit, and as much profit as possible.
So while there are lots of good ideas around, we will only ever see
camera companies using the ideas that they think will make them money.
Sometimes they take a gamble that doesn't pay off. Ask Ricoh how much
money they made from their P&S camera that comes with a choice of
lens/sensor combinations.
Bruce
RAW-only is a good idea, but it would greatly restrict the market for
such a camera. On the other hand, it would keep development costs
low. I think the must-have feature would be the ability to review (in
the camera) shots that you had taken. Live view would be nice, but
the Leica M8 and M9 have managed perfectly well without it. However,
I can't see many people wanting a camera where they couldn't review
the shots they had taken immediately after taking them. So some form
of processor would be required.
>Lots of people buy cameras precisely because they support options they
>never end up buying, so I wouldn't worry about that hurting the market
>too much.
Well, of course that's true! ;-)
>> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
>> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
>> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
>> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
>> would cost to make.
>>
>> Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
>> interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
>> absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.
>
>Yep. Well, the lens-plus-sensor idea makes a little bit of theoretical
>sense for image quality, but no financial sense at all. And DOESN'T
>address the frequent demand for upgrading sensors or using specialized
>sensors.
I agree, it doesn't. An interchangeable sensor might have some
utility, but I can't see it being made to work commercially. But who
knows? Nikon has recently patented such a system ...
David Dyer-Bennet
> David Dyer-Bennet <illeg...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Thursday, May 12, 2011 1:59:37 PM UTC-5, Bruce wrote:
> >> >On May 12, 5:38�am, Bruce <docn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Mxsmanic <mxs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >Bruce writes:
> >> >> >> I often wonder why no manufacturer offers a b/w digital SLR or digital
> >> >> >> be a strong seller to a niche market.
> >> >>
> >> >> >I agree. Kodak had one, I think, but it's gone now. Just converting color to
> >> >> >black and white is not the same thing.
> >> >>
> >> >> Kodak made the DCS Pro 760m b/w DSLR which was based on the Nikon F5
> >> >> seemed to be available, and they don't know of anyone who actually
While I've heard people lament the ability to review, I haven't heard MANY
people do it. And it strikes me as a really dumb lament; if it's not the
right way for YOU to take pictures, exercise some discipline! For a lot
of people, it's very valuable.
So you're right about needing enough processing to provide a review
function; that slipped past me.
> >Lots of people buy cameras precisely because they support options they
> >never end up buying, so I wouldn't worry about that hurting the market
> >too much.
>
>
> Well, of course that's true! ;-)
>
>
> >> We have been hearing about this modular sensor idea for most of the
> >> last ten years, but it has still never been done at a commercial
> >> scale. Like the oft-touted Silicon Film, it seems like a good idea
> >> until someone evaluates all the drawbacks and works out how much it
> >> would cost to make.
> >>
> >> Possibly the nearest thing was that Ricoh P&S camera with
> >> interchangeable sensor/lens assemblies. Camera magazines were
> >> absolutely fascinated by it, but sales have been vanishingly small.
> >
> >Yep. Well, the lens-plus-sensor idea makes a little bit of theoretical
> >sense for image quality, but no financial sense at all. And DOESN'T
> >address the frequent demand for upgrading sensors or using specialized
> >sensors.
>
>
> I agree, it doesn't. An interchangeable sensor might have some
> utility, but I can't see it being made to work commercially. But who
> knows? Nikon has recently patented such a system ...
Of course, the digital backs that work on various medium format cameras
are sort of a proof of concept for this; it's not changing something
directly within the camera body, but it's separating the sensor from the
body. There seems to be some market for those, but not a big one (of
course, sensors that big are rather expensive, which limits the market).
Mxsmanic
> A camera company is like any other company. It exists to make a
> profit, and as much profit as possible.
Any other _public_ company, you mean. Large corporations with a diverse set of
anonymous and institutional shareholders exist only to make a profit.
Privately held companies may exist for other reasons, though.
Sony, for example, existed for more than just money while Akio Morita was
alive. So did Microsoft before Bill Gates pulled out of the company. And HP
while actual Hewletts and Packards still had influence.
> Sometimes they take a gamble that doesn't pay off. Ask Ricoh how much
> money they made from their P&S camera that comes with a choice of
> lens/sensor combinations.
Interchangeable and P&S don't normally go together.
Bruce
>Bruce writes:
>
>> A camera company is like any other company. It exists to make a
>> profit, and as much profit as possible.
>
>Any other _public_ company, you mean. Large corporations with a diverse set of
>anonymous and institutional shareholders exist only to make a profit.
>Privately held companies may exist for other reasons, though.
>
>Sony, for example, existed for more than just money while Akio Morita was
>alive.
I disagree. Sony believed that quality and innovation would make the
company a lot of money, so they invested in quality and innovation.
They would not have done that if it wasn't profitable.
Sony became complacent, and they no longer had any monopoly over
innovation and quality. Other companies improved their quality and
invested in innovation and Sony lagged behind. Sony then tried to
base their business on keeping their technology proprietary, and that
has been their downfall.
>So did Microsoft before Bill Gates pulled out of the company. And HP
>while actual Hewletts and Packards still had influence.
In HP's case I agree, but I have no respect for Bill Gates. He was
not much of an innovator, but relied on taking up other people's
ideas, making them proprietary and exploiting them to the full.
>> Sometimes they take a gamble that doesn't pay off. Ask Ricoh how much
>> money they made from their P&S camera that comes with a choice of
>> lens/sensor combinations.
>
>Interchangeable and P&S don't normally go together.
In some cases they do. Examples of compact cameras with
interchangeable lenses include the Leica CL and related Minolta CLE,
the Pentax Auto 110 and The Contax G Series.
The Ricoh GXR doesn't just have interchangeable lenses, but
interchangeable lens/sensor assemblies:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgxrp10/
It isn't a big seller.
Mxsmanic
> I disagree. Sony believed that quality and innovation would make the
> company a lot of money, so they invested in quality and innovation.
> They would not have done that if it wasn't profitable.
Morita had a genuine interest in technology and innovation that wasn't simply
a matter of making a fast buck.
> Sony became complacent, and they no longer had any monopoly over
> innovation and quality.
After Morita died.
> In HP's case I agree, but I have no respect for Bill Gates. He was
> not much of an innovator, but relied on taking up other people's
> ideas, making them proprietary and exploiting them to the full.
Gates is one of the world's leading philanthropists. And a close examination
of his work within Microsoft reveals that he did indeed have ideas and put
them into practice. Most people who criticize him resent the fact that he got
rich. People who are successful always inspire resentment among those who
haven't got what it takes to succeed.
In any case, he's gone now. Steve Balmer is in control, and Steve is just a
garden-variety businessman who truly cares only about money. Any hint of
innovation at Microsoft left with Bill Gates.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Bruce writes:
>
>> I disagree. Sony believed that quality and innovation would make the
>> company a lot of money, so they invested in quality and innovation.
>> They would not have done that if it wasn't profitable.
>
>Morita had a genuine interest in technology and innovation that wasn't simply
>a matter of making a fast buck.
>
>> Sony became complacent, and they no longer had any monopoly over
>> innovation and quality.
>
>After Morita died.
>
>> In HP's case I agree, but I have no respect for Bill Gates. He was
>> not much of an innovator, but relied on taking up other people's
>> ideas, making them proprietary and exploiting them to the full.
>
>Gates is one of the world's leading philanthropists. And a close examination
>of his work within Microsoft reveals that he did indeed have ideas and put
>them into practice. Most people who criticize him resent the fact that he got
>rich. People who are successful always inspire resentment among those who
>haven't got what it takes to succeed.
I don't resent him getting rich. I resent his savage business
practices.
>
>In any case, he's gone now. Steve Balmer is in control, and Steve is just a
>garden-variety businessman who truly cares only about money. Any hint of
>innovation at Microsoft left with Bill Gates.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Bruce
>Bruce writes:
>> I disagree. Sony believed that quality and innovation would make the
>> company a lot of money, so they invested in quality and innovation.
>> They would not have done that if it wasn't profitable.
>
>Morita had a genuine interest in technology and innovation that wasn't simply
>a matter of making a fast buck.
The board and shareholders of Sony backed him, not because they shared
his interest, but because his ideas made them money.
>> Sony became complacent, and they no longer had any monopoly over
>> innovation and quality.
>
>After Morita died.
>
>> In HP's case I agree, but I have no respect for Bill Gates. He was
>> not much of an innovator, but relied on taking up other people's
>> ideas, making them proprietary and exploiting them to the full.
>
>Gates is one of the world's leading philanthropists.
He can afford to be.
>And a close examination
>of his work within Microsoft reveals that he did indeed have ideas and put
>them into practice.
His work involved exploiting other people's ideas, monopolising them
and making a lot of money out of them. He was very good at that. His
successors are less good at that.
>Most people who criticize him resent the fact that he got
>rich. People who are successful always inspire resentment among those who
>haven't got what it takes to succeed.
You can measure success in many different ways. I applaud others'
success when it is a result of their own efforts.
>In any case, he's gone now. Steve Balmer is in control, and Steve is just a
>garden-variety businessman who truly cares only about money. Any hint of
>innovation at Microsoft left with Bill Gates.
If you define "innovation" as exploiting other people's ideas,
monopolising them and making a lot of money out of them.
That's my last word on the corporate strategies of Sony and Microsoft.
I feel sure you could carry on this discussion for several decades, so
now seems a good time to stop. ;-)
Mxsmanic
> I don't resent him getting rich. I resent his savage business
> practices.
There was nothing savage about his business practices. A lot of people like to
parrot urban legends about him, too.
Mxsmanic
> The board and shareholders of Sony backed him, not because they shared
> his interest, but because his ideas made them money.
The board and shareholders had different priorities. That doesn't change
Morita's attitude.
> He can afford to be.
There are lots of people who can afford to be but aren't.
> His work involved exploiting other people's ideas, monopolising them
> and making a lot of money out of them. He was very good at that. His
> successors are less good at that.
He didn't do this more than anyone else in business, despite the urban
legends.
> You can measure success in many different ways. I applaud others'
> success when it is a result of their own efforts.
His success was the result of his own efforts. Of course, this is true of
almost all successful people.
> If you define "innovation" as exploiting other people's ideas,
> monopolising them and making a lot of money out of them.
I've actually done the research, so I don't just repeat what the kiddies say.
> That's my last word on the corporate strategies of Sony and Microsoft.
Good. It's tiring to listen to high-school kids methodically repeating the
same nonsense for 30 years at a time.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
1. Getting m/c vendors to tie the sale of their m/cs to only the one
operating system was a bit of a shock the first time I encountered it.
2. Embedding lying error messages in MS software which activated when
the software was run on competing operating systems (e.g. DR-DOS).
3. Witholding essential developer's software from companies Microsoft
regarded as a competitor. e.g. A new version of Windows and Word had
been on the market for some six months before Word Perfect was
supplied with version of Visual Basic required by the new version of
Windows. That's when Word got asix month lead on Word Perfect.
There are many more similar examples.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Mxsmanic
> 1. Getting m/c vendors to tie the sale of their m/cs to only the one
> operating system was a bit of a shock the first time I encountered it.
You've never used a Mac?
> 2. Embedding lying error messages in MS software which activated when
> the software was run on competing operating systems (e.g. DR-DOS).
Have you ever looked at the source code for large operating or application
systems?
> 3. Witholding essential developer's software from companies Microsoft
> regarded as a competitor. e.g. A new version of Windows and Word had
> been on the market for some six months before Word Perfect was
> supplied with version of Visual Basic required by the new version of
> Windows. That's when Word got asix month lead on Word Perfect.
Have you ever worked for a large company at all?
tony cooper
There were many software developers who were much more generous and
sharing of their product's innards. I can't bring any to mind because
their companies are not in existence anymore. I'm sure those people
are happy with new occupations.
Microsoft didn't succeed because Gates was a shark. They succeed
because they created products that people wanted to buy. The
shark-like business practices just stopped the remoras from latching
on.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Bruce
I think you meant to say that it is extremely tiresome to have to
listen to an eccentric, reclusive Polish Microsoft fanboi who hides
himself away from people (and much of reality) in a Paris apartment,
methodically repeating the Bill Gates Mantra for decade after decade.
Perhaps Mommy refused to buy you a Macintosh and you have since had no
option but to use Microsoft/Intel products? Your wish list on Amazon
contains only one item: Microsoft Visual Studio 2010 Professional
Edition - Complete package. Get yourself a Mac, man!
Anyway, that's *my* last word on the predictable but still bizarre
musings of Antony Atkielski. Your fans can have *the* last word:
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2204580601&topic=2748
http://www.airtalk.org/dont-get-mad-get-even-vt78489.html
http://preview.tinyurl.com/65n8tkb
Ctrl-K.
nospam
<mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
there very definitely was, which is why microsoft got sued for abuse of
monopoly and lost.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> 1. Getting m/c vendors to tie the sale of their m/cs to only the one
>> operating system was a bit of a shock the first time I encountered it.
>
>You've never used a Mac?
This is not an equivalent situation. Mac make their own computers and
operating systems. MS make only the operating systems.
>
>> 2. Embedding lying error messages in MS software which activated when
>> the software was run on competing operating systems (e.g. DR-DOS).
>
>Have you ever looked at the source code for large operating or application
>systems?
Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
>
>> 3. Witholding essential developer's software from companies Microsoft
>> regarded as a competitor. e.g. A new version of Windows and Word had
>> been on the market for some six months before Word Perfect was
>> supplied with version of Visual Basic required by the new version of
>> Windows. That's when Word got asix month lead on Word Perfect.
>
>Have you ever worked for a large company at all?
Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
It ate the remoras.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Mxsmanic
> This is not an equivalent situation. Mac make their own computers and
> operating systems. MS make only the operating systems.
In other words, Apple forces you to use both their hardware and their
software, a far more restrictive arrangement than anything Microsoft has done.
Apple doesn't force manufacturers to install its software simply because it
doesn't allow anyone else to manufacture its computers at all. You cannot
criticize Microsoft for agreements it has made with hardware vendors without
considering the much more anti-competitive policies practiced even today by
Apple.
> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
All operating systems and application software contain gadgets designed to
favor marketing ends, including time limits, feature disabling switches, and
the like.
> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
If you've worked for a large company, you know that they all work the same,
and Microsoft hasn't done anything out of the ordinary.
You're also missing the elephant in the room, which is Apple.
Savageduck
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 00:25:09 +0200, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> <<< Le Snip >>
>>
>> Have you ever looked at the source code for large operating or application
>> systems?
>
> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
>>
>>> 3. Witholding essential developer's software from companies Microsoft
>>> regarded as a competitor. e.g. A new version of Windows and Word had
>>> been on the market for some six months before Word Perfect was
>>> supplied with version of Visual Basic required by the new version of
>>> Windows. That's when Word got asix month lead on Word Perfect.
>>
>> Have you ever worked for a large company at all?
>
> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
What he is trying to say, or should I say ask, in both cases, is the
question which originated in the Monty Python, "Nudge, nudge" sketch,
"What's it like then?"
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Mxsmanic
> There were many software developers who were much more generous and
> sharing of their product's innards. I can't bring any to mind because
> their companies are not in existence anymore. I'm sure those people
> are happy with new occupations.
It's hard to pay the rent by being generous and sharing.
> Microsoft didn't succeed because Gates was a shark. They succeed
> because they created products that people wanted to buy. The
> shark-like business practices just stopped the remoras from latching
> on.
Every company does it.
Mxsmanic
> It ate the remoras.
That's why it still exists.
Mxsmanic
> there very definitely was, which is why microsoft got sued for abuse of
> monopoly and lost.
A lot of companies get sued for a lot of things, and they may win or lose, and
whether they win or lose may have no relation to reality.
Mxsmanic
> Perhaps Mommy refused to buy you a Macintosh and you have since had no
> option but to use Microsoft/Intel products?
I considered a Macintosh when they first came out, but they were more
expensive than PCs, and the engineers where I worked were given PCs, not Macs
(the secretaries had Macs), so I ended up with PCs.
Periodically I've considered trying Macs, but their high prices and the
extremely heavy-handed and restricted way in which Apple markets and controls
them discourages me each time.
By the way, Macs are Intel products, too.
PeterN
Microsoft also had superior marketing strategies and gave unparalleled
support to developers.
--
Peter
Savageduck
Nope.
Macs are not Intel products. They utilize intel products,(Core i5 & i7
processors) just as they used to utilize Motorola and IBM product.
Mine also uses an ATI Radeon graphics card, & a Hitachi 2TB HD.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
J. Clarke
pete...@nospam.verizon.net says...
This was an ongoing problem with OS/2. The development tools were
horribly expensive, hence not much application support arose.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> This is not an equivalent situation. Mac make their own computers and
>> operating systems. MS make only the operating systems.
>
>In other words, Apple forces you to use both their hardware and their
>software, a far more restrictive arrangement than anything Microsoft has done.
>Apple doesn't force manufacturers to install its software simply because it
>doesn't allow anyone else to manufacture its computers at all. You cannot
>criticize Microsoft for agreements it has made with hardware vendors without
>considering the much more anti-competitive policies practiced even today by
>Apple.
As far as I know there has never been more than the one operating
system available for Apple. Your bought an Apple, you _needed_ the
Apple OS.
That has never been the situation with X86 machines. There has always
been a choice of operating systems for them. Microsoft took the line
with OEMs that if they wanted to install an MS operating system they
had to install it on all their machines. You could not get a machine
without an operating system.
Here you have cut out my original text and your reply. I have replaced
it.
>>> 2. Embedding lying error messages in MS software which activated when
>>> the software was run on competing operating systems (e.g. DR-DOS).
>
>>Have you ever looked at the source code for large operating or application
>>systems?
>
>> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
>
>All operating systems and application software contain gadgets designed to
>favor marketing ends, including time limits, feature disabling switches, and
>the like.
But I know of no others which deliberately reported non-existent
errors to discourage users from using a competing OS. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DR-DOS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AARD_code
>
>>>Have you ever worked for a large company at all?
>> Yes I have. What are you trying to say?
>
>If you've worked for a large company, you know that they all work the same,
>and Microsoft hasn't done anything out of the ordinary.
The fact that others might behave in the same way, and that you accept
it, doesn't mean that I can't dislike it.
>
>You're also missing the elephant in the room, which is Apple.
That's changing the subject. In any case I'm not going to continue
discussing this with someone who chops around and deletes sections of
my post when answering it.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Oh, he knows.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Eric Stevens writes:
>
>> It ate the remoras.
>
>That's why it still exists.
And why so many of the remoras don't.
Microsoft now incorporates the services which most of the remorahs
used to provide.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
Not if they were trying to develop a product which Microsoft intended
to compete with.
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>Bruce writes:
Macs are in the process of switching to ARM
Regards,
Eric Stevens
Savageduck
Not Macs.
ARM was used in Mobile devices such as phones.
The iPhone uses the 620Mhz ARM CPU.
Apple has their own dual-core Apple A5 in the iPad.
iMacs currently use 2.5GHZ quad-core Intel i5, 2.7GHZ quad-core Intel
i5, 3.1GHZ quad-core Intel i5, with custom online configurations with
2.8GHZ quad-core Intel i7, or 2.5GHZ quad-core Intel i7.
MacbookPro laptops are loaded with 2.0GHZ, or 2.2GHZ quad-core Intel
Core i7's, with an optional 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 with 8MB L3
cache v the standard 6MB L3 Cache.
The Mac Pros come with the following configurations; 1 x 2.8GHz
Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem", 2 x 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
"Westmere", or 2 x 2.66 6-Core Intel Xeon "Westmere" processors.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
--
Regards,
Savageduck
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> As far as I know there has never been more than the one operating
> system available for Apple. Your bought an Apple, you _needed_ the
> Apple OS.
nope. on intel macs, windows is fully supported by apple via boot camp.
for older macs, apple had a port of linux for a while called mklinux.
third parties ported freebsd and others.
> That has never been the situation with X86 machines. There has always
> been a choice of operating systems for them. Microsoft took the line
> with OEMs that if they wanted to install an MS operating system they
> had to install it on all their machines. You could not get a machine
> without an operating system.
true, which is why beos was squashed.
nospam
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> Macs are in the process of switching to ARM
no they are definitely not switching to arm.
there's a ridiculous rumour that macs *might* switch to arm in 2-3
years but it makes absolutely no sense.
nospam
Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> ARM was used in Mobile devices such as phones.
> The iPhone uses the 620Mhz ARM CPU.
no, the current iphone 4 uses an a4 chip running at approximately
700-800 mhz (apple doesn't specify exactly).
> Apple has their own dual-core Apple A5 in the iPad.
the a4 and a5 are arm cpus.
> iMacs currently use 2.5GHZ quad-core Intel i5, 2.7GHZ quad-core Intel
> i5, 3.1GHZ quad-core Intel i5, with custom online configurations with
> 2.8GHZ quad-core Intel i7, or 2.5GHZ quad-core Intel i7.
3.4 ghz i7 is the top configuration.
> MacbookPro laptops are loaded with 2.0GHZ, or 2.2GHZ quad-core Intel
> Core i7's, with an optional 2.3GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 with 8MB L3
> cache v the standard 6MB L3 Cache.
i5 is also available.
> The Mac Pros come with the following configurations; 1 x 2.8GHz
> Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Nehalem", 2 x 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon
> "Westmere", or 2 x 2.66 6-Core Intel Xeon "Westmere" processors.
two 3.3 ghz 6 core is the top configuration (12 core total).
Eric Stevens
wrote:
>In article <bfkus6d5ajhmqa4rj...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> As far as I know there has never been more than the one operating
>> system available for Apple. Your bought an Apple, you _needed_ the
>> Apple OS.
>
>nope. on intel macs, windows is fully supported by apple via boot camp.
>for older macs, apple had a port of linux for a while called mklinux.
>third parties ported freebsd and others.
I stand corrected. You are quite right. But neither have ever looked
like being a force to be reckoned with.
>
>> That has never been the situation with X86 machines. There has always
>> been a choice of operating systems for them. Microsoft took the line
>> with OEMs that if they wanted to install an MS operating system they
>> had to install it on all their machines. You could not get a machine
>> without an operating system.
>
>true, which is why beos was squashed.
Regards,
Eric Stevens