V
The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
The Definitive Sony B&W Images Thread
- Thread starter etrigan63
- Start date
scho
Well-known member
Hi Ken,
Yes, processing is different with a monochrome converted camera. I was getting some strange processing artifacts in my A6000m files with AccuRaw so now I use either Irident Developer or just ACR in Lightroom with a desaturation preset. Irident tiff files seem to have lower noise compared to Adobe, but otherwise no major differences.
Carl
scho
Well-known member
Yes, same with AccuRaw.
At 100% you can just make out some kind of box pattern: at 300% they are easy to see.
This is what I found when trying to demosaic non-monochrome images.
Before posting any images from my modified A7R3m (by Daniel at MIS), I thought I'd first compare the usage of the modified camera. I compared it with a stock AR73. All areas I looked at seemed similar except for one: Eye-AF. I only used Sony lenses to avoid 3rd party issues (lenses used were the 55/1.8 at f2 and 100/STF at f5.6T).
Caveat: I did not check the body before modification so perhaps I'm seeing sample variation and not the effect from conversion.
As far as I can tell, Eye-AF while using AF-C is not as accurate with the A7R3m as compared to stock. More than half the time the head shots were blurred using Eye-AF on the A7R3m, but 100% sharp on the stock A7R3 (and this was noticeable from 2m to 5m).
When Eye-AF is used on AF-S or AF-A, both bodies focus equally well (tracking speed on 5).
Head focusing (Face Priority) is equally accurate between the A7R3m and stock. Since continuous eye tracking is inconsistent, I'll be using Face Priority focusing, and not Eye-AF, on the A7R3m.
On the issue of converters, I've used Irident Developer (ID) since it first appeared (as Raw Developer) for all my cameras. Within ID, I tested the several choices available for monochrome RAW conversion under the Mono tab (and within it, the Monochrome pop-up). Without belaboring the issue, while many options appeared the same, I preferred the "CIELab Lightness" pop-up with a slight curves adjustment. A pretty simple conversion (the un-adjusted RAW images from the A7R3m look magenta until the monochrome button is selected within ID).
Caveat: I did not check the body before modification so perhaps I'm seeing sample variation and not the effect from conversion.
As far as I can tell, Eye-AF while using AF-C is not as accurate with the A7R3m as compared to stock. More than half the time the head shots were blurred using Eye-AF on the A7R3m, but 100% sharp on the stock A7R3 (and this was noticeable from 2m to 5m).
When Eye-AF is used on AF-S or AF-A, both bodies focus equally well (tracking speed on 5).
Head focusing (Face Priority) is equally accurate between the A7R3m and stock. Since continuous eye tracking is inconsistent, I'll be using Face Priority focusing, and not Eye-AF, on the A7R3m.
On the issue of converters, I've used Irident Developer (ID) since it first appeared (as Raw Developer) for all my cameras. Within ID, I tested the several choices available for monochrome RAW conversion under the Mono tab (and within it, the Monochrome pop-up). Without belaboring the issue, while many options appeared the same, I preferred the "CIELab Lightness" pop-up with a slight curves adjustment. A pretty simple conversion (the un-adjusted RAW images from the A7R3m look magenta until the monochrome button is selected within ID).
scho
Well-known member
Here is the output from Irident for comparison.Just trying Rawtherapee (latest mac version) again with an A6000m raw file. Set to mono in demosaic panel and just exported to 16 bit tiff. No sharpening or contrast adjustments. Click for original full size file.
bensonga
Well-known member
Just a few more test shots taken today with my A7m (monochrome sensor conversion by Daniel Morrison) with the FE 85/1.8 at f8, ISO 100. These were quickly and very lightly processed from the JPG files (no additional sharpening in PS). Even so, I'm very happy with the results. Even these images made very fine 13x19 and 12x12 prints. I am very happy with the results and prints.
When I have a little more time, I will process these in RawTherapee for comparison.
Gary
Peterbilt
RR Xing
RR Signal Scaffolding
When I have a little more time, I will process these in RawTherapee for comparison.
Gary
Peterbilt
RR Xing
RR Signal Scaffolding
bensonga
Well-known member
Both of these images are really nice Bart. What lens did you use? The only wide angle I have for my Sony cameras is the 16-35/4. I've been happy with it, but of course there might be others I should consider too....
Gary
V
Vivek
Guest
Nothing wrong with your sample that you sent in for the conversion.
The monochrome conversion of CFA removal also gets rid off of the microlenses. This makes the PDAF unusable.
So, only CDAF is available. AF-C and Sony’s “4D” focusing, in addition to PDAF, also use color elements. All those are gone as well.
In essence the cameras become quite slow in AF.
It is best to set the mode to AF-A in A7rII/III.
bensonga
Well-known member
Thanks for this info Vivek! Luckily for me, slow AF is not a concern...as long as it is accurate for most stationary subjects (as seen in my test shots above), so if I ever decide to convert my A7r2 I think I'll be ok too. For now, I am just really happy with the monochrome A7.
Gary
I don't see any box pattern with this one.
They look great, but I wish someone would provide identical side-by-side comparisons of raw files at 100%, made with a tripod-mounted camera. Because contrast, sharpening, compression and resolution are inter-related, isn't anything less what we might call "anecdotal" evidence ? I'd love to see some on the Monochrome Imaging Services web site.
Last edited:
V
Vivek
Guest
KenLee, Google. There is information on the web.
Cooled DSLR | Monochrome Camera
https://maxmax.com/faq/camera-tech/debayer-study
PS: Many argued (and some continue to) that Leica M9 and Leica MM (files) are the same.
Cooled DSLR | Monochrome Camera
https://maxmax.com/faq/camera-tech/debayer-study
PS: Many argued (and some continue to) that Leica M9 and Leica MM (files) are the same.
Excellent - Thank you Vivek !
scho
Well-known member
I asked the developer of AccuRaw about the pattern and this was his explanation: "Unfortunately, that pattern is actually on the sensor. If you take a look, e.g, in the shadow area just below the roof of the building, you can see the pattern fading in and out on individual lines of pixels. AccuRaw can’t do anything in that situation, I’m afraid."
V
Vivek
Guest
Not sure about that, Carl. Rawdigger and others do not give the pattern with a debayered sensor.
I tried Accuraw (trial) and was not pleased its results and did not buy it.
scho
Well-known member
I think that Sandy may be correct about this artifact being the actual pixel pattern on the sensor, but the question is what are other raw apps doing to suppress it that AccuRaw (and also Rawtherapee, see image in my post below) do not.