Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

Started 9 months ago | Discussions thread
Mescalamba Contributing Member • Posts: 902
Re: Two DSLR with a Kodak CCD sensor

bobogdan78 wrote:

Very interesting but what does "Kodak color" mean, what's its signature? I just acquired a Slr/n and it has the deepest, richest colors I've ever seen, it even beats my Fuji S5 Pro! I shoot raw and I use Photo Desk and Digital Photo Interpreter (since I can't use RPP). I also tried other converters each of them naturally giving different results. I suppose Photo desk displays the "Kodak colors" (Kodak looks) just because it's been made by Kodak ?!

People often fail to understand that most important part when it comes to color is CFA. Color filter array (CFA) is thing that filters individual wavelengths of color and then let them hit cells behind it.

Quality of CFA dictates how much color shades can camera differentiate between, how much each channel of color is clean and in some aspects it can dictate even "feel". Altho final feel is usually how well manufacturer tuned software inside camera for interpreting what CFA (well cells of sensor) feeds to it. And last, but not least how well is RAW software you or anyone else using interpret that RAW file.

Original Kodak software has rather okay colors, but as far as I know most folks were happiest with regular Adobe ACR engine. It doesnt give really accurate colors, but definitely gives very pleasing ones. Photodesk I think has/had some issues with different color spaces. Depends how you like it yourself, really.

But to be honest I saw rather amazing results from Kodak camera and Leica R lens, which I think was developed with some old Adobe software. Pics were insanely life-like in color.

Kodak messed up a bit with ppl head cause they didnt aim for truest colors, but more like colors that ppl remember (memory colors). Which is why some consider colors of their films, for example Kodachrome 64 as pinnacle what can be done colorwise. They had certainly long time to perfect their color alchemy. Much like Fuji (I have S5 Pro myself).

Colors can be twisted around a lot, but no color profile can fix lacking quality of CFA. And Kodak CFA definitely was exact opposite of lacking. Sadly not the case of any modern camera. For example last Canon camera that had really good colors was 1Ds MK3 and 1D MK3. Sony now and then produces some good stuff too, but best was probably A900, except it had absolutely horrible way of handling RAW, which made it shine only sometimes.

Manufacturers in general dont invest/interest much in good quality CFA, they mostly just happy if result looks like what their company produces and thats it..
To be honest, most ppl cant tell the difference either, or they dont really care. So cant blame manufacturers only.

Even here you can notice ppl not seeing difference, cause everyone has some degree of color vision (or color blindness) and for male part of the world, having so to speak 20/20 for colors is kinda rare. And it does require color profiles and decent monitor to view it on.

To answer your question. I think Kodak signature is colors that in same time look real (they not) and most ppl find them beautiful. Or at least I do. It can be mythical balance between beautiful and life-like colors. Myself I even remember some pics that were done with SLR/n or 645 cause those colors were that good.

Ofc sadly, those cameras are ancient and horribly outdated, prone to fail a bit due age too. And not that easy to work with. Unfortunately no sight of same color quality even decades after they were made.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow