Quick question...
- Thread starter Superewza
- Start date
- Messages
- 7,415
- Edit My Images
- Yes
It doesn't reduce noise as far as I know, but it does make the effect of noise easier on the eye.
The Noise, normally from high ISO, is appears as random speckles of colour (normally in shadow areas), which is different to the grain in colour film images. By changing the images to B&W, the noise can resemble grainy B&W film images allowing you to get away with noisey images that would look awful in colour with the coloured speckley noise.
- Messages
- 1,602
- Name
- Fiona
- Edit My Images
- Yes
the noise is still there , as has been pointed out u may not see it the same, however keep in mind that by using incamera B + W you are losing a huge amount of tones that you can retain if you convert to mono in post processing,. so the image comes out looking flat and grey rather than black and white with a true white point and a true black point.
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Converting to mono in camera is the same as doing it in post processing, and there's quite a lot of control available too - contrast, filter effects, and toning effects. There's even more control in post, working from the Raws, but unless you want to do something fairly extreme beyond the scope of what the camera can do there is no difference to the result.
Mono conversion doesn't reduce noise as such, but it reduces the visible effect of it, or at least some of it. There's chroma noise, the coloured speckles, and luminance noise which is white spots. By removing the colour from chroma noise, it becomes less intrusive, even if it's still there.
If you shoot Raw and JPEG, adjusting the camera styles as best you can, the LCD will give a very good representation of what you'll get, which is a good working guide and may be all you need for final output. You then still have the full colour Raws to do what you want with, if needs be.
Mono conversion doesn't reduce noise as such, but it reduces the visible effect of it, or at least some of it. There's chroma noise, the coloured speckles, and luminance noise which is white spots. By removing the colour from chroma noise, it becomes less intrusive, even if it's still there.
If you shoot Raw and JPEG, adjusting the camera styles as best you can, the LCD will give a very good representation of what you'll get, which is a good working guide and may be all you need for final output. You then still have the full colour Raws to do what you want with, if needs be.
Last edited:
- Messages
- 809
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- No
Title "Quick Question"
is anything but that
Bottom line is experiment. Shoot same pic in colour then bw mode. Check noise. Then photoshop the colour into bw.
Whatever result you like best .... use that. Getting into sensor types, processing in camera will just hurt your head.
You like ... you like. The rest is piffle
T
is anything but that
Bottom line is experiment. Shoot same pic in colour then bw mode. Check noise. Then photoshop the colour into bw.
Whatever result you like best .... use that. Getting into sensor types, processing in camera will just hurt your head.
You like ... you like. The rest is piffle
T
Title "Quick Question"
is anything but that
Bottom line is experiment. Shoot same pic in colour then bw mode. Check noise. Then photoshop the colour into bw.
Whatever result you like best .... use that. Getting into sensor types, processing in camera will just hurt your head.
You like ... you like. The rest is piffle
T
Generally speaking yes, but in astrophotography every photon counts
- Messages
- 809
- Name
- Tom
- Edit My Images
- No
Generally speaking yes, but in astrophotography every photon counts
Get in touch with Nick, tell him Tom Caulfield sent you
http://s175657640.websitehome.co.uk/CCDLandWebSite/index.html
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
I don't know of any exclusively monchrome camera sensor. Do you mean one converted and filtered for infra-red? Different thing.
- Messages
- 4,470
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Don't all digital cameras have monochrome sensors? I thought it was the Bayer filter that created the RGB colours ... or have I got that wrong?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
All sensors are sensitive to light, both the visible spectrum and some way either side. They will record whatever signal they receive, or are allowed to receive, within that range.
With the kind of cameras we use, infra-red and ultra-violet are blocked (filtered out completely) and the red, blue and green of the visible spectrum are filtered and controlled individually. That's the only light which is allowed to get through, so that's what the sensor records.
I don't know of any normal camera sensor that records only black & white, ie has no colour filtration, but for specialist scientific applications there are all sorts of different types, according to the filters applied.
- Messages
- 7,415
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Sounds correct to me,
though it may be muddying the water a bit here as there are no cameras without that Bayer filter afaik, (Foveon Sensor aside) and so no purely B&W sensors/cameras in effect. :shrug:Monochrome sensors (with no filtration)? Just looking at an astro-imaging shop it goes from the budget end of the scale with something like a Sony ICX098BL to a mid range model like a Sony ICX 424 to something ultra high end like the Kodak KAI 11002. I think the idea is that you then use a filter on your scope (eyepiece filters, where the camera is mounted) if you want to shoot a specific part of the spectrum - for instance in Hydrogen Alpha.
- Messages
- 7,415
- Edit My Images
- Yes
But they are Sensors aren't they for a specific application, and not in cameras? :shrug:
Your original question was
Unless someone has more info, there aren't any B&W (only and unfiltered) sensors in any digital cameras. :shrug:
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
After you have first defined what a camera is, that won't fit. What is your point?
You can put a roll of black & white film in your Fuji - no colour, guaranteed.
A camera is a device which records and stores images. Astro-imaging cameras certainly fit into that definition? I'm simply trying to understand the relationship between colour and noise.
And yes, i almost exclusively shoot in black and white film, but then grain is a completely different thing to noise and that's a whole other kettle of worms... or something like that
And yes, i almost exclusively shoot in black and white film, but then grain is a completely different thing to noise and that's a whole other kettle of worms... or something like that
- Messages
- 7,415
- Edit My Images
- Yes
Yes, that is a camera, and it records digital information, but for 99.99% of people it is not a 'digital camera'. :nono: It is a lens and sensor, but without any internal processing and memory, it is not a digital camera in the traditional sense imho. :nono:
Can I take it outside and take pic? (without a computer attached). Can I take it to a party and take some pics? (again without a computer attached) I think not. And looking at the specs some kind of heavy duty cooling system as well to make it work as it should. :bonk:
The cooling isn't to make it work as well as it should, it's to make it work better. Cool sensors have less noise - something that makes a difference when you're doing 5x30 minute subs in a night (or something therabouts). I would argue that the 'traditional' digital camera such as yours does have a computer attached.
Does a camera have to be portable? Is a webcam not a digital camera?
Does a camera have to be portable? Is a webcam not a digital camera?
- Messages
- 23,200
- Name
- Richard
- Edit My Images
- No
Are you bored?
- Messages
- 7,415
- Edit My Images
- Yes
What started out as an interesting thread is becoming a bit farcical in what constitutes a digital camera. If CCD sensor technology was your interest, then an Astrophotography forum would have got you better replies with people starting out talking about the same things.
Excuse me for not being as precise with my words. To make it work as well as it can, cooling would be better. :bonk:
So to work at its best it is better to cool them? So not as usable a working temperature range as the 'traditional' digital camera then.
And that was my point, to make that camera that you linked to 'work' you 'need' a computer attached.
A webcam is a camera that records digital images, but it is not a digital camera again, in the traditional sense. A 'digital camera' for me is a lens, (I know you can buy DSLR without a lens) sensor, some form of internal processing computer, internal memory or the ability to record to memory cards and the ability to take images and alter settings from the camera body. I don't think the camera you linked to, or the vast majority of webcams match those criteria. :shrug:
Excuse me for not being as precise with my words. To make it work as well as it can, cooling would be better. :bonk:
So to work at its best it is better to cool them? So not as usable a working temperature range as the 'traditional' digital camera then.
And that was my point, to make that camera that you linked to 'work' you 'need' a computer attached.
A webcam is a camera that records digital images, but it is not a digital camera again, in the traditional sense. A 'digital camera' for me is a lens, (I know you can buy DSLR without a lens) sensor, some form of internal processing computer, internal memory or the ability to record to memory cards and the ability to take images and alter settings from the camera body. I don't think the camera you linked to, or the vast majority of webcams match those criteria. :shrug:
Last edited: