"Color science" vs RAW

[SigZero]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

Best regs,

Pawel.

 

[Tom Axford]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

It is not just the colour processing that matters, but before that there is the spectral sensitivity of the R, G and B pixels in the sensor. Differences in the spectral sensitivity are more fundamental and cannot (in general) be compensated for by additional processing (either before the raw image is created or afterwards).

 

[SigZero]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

It is not just the colour processing that matters, but before that there is the spectral sensitivity of the R, G and B pixels in the sensor. Differences in the spectral sensitivity are more fundamental and cannot (in general) be compensated for by additional processing (either before the raw image is created or afterwards).

Yep, sure. But that requires modifications to sensor itself unless the bayer filter is a separate part.

Br, Pawel

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Yep, sure. But that requires modifications to sensor itself unless the bayer filter is a separate part.

The Bayer filter or color filter array is typically made of a printed film and attached to the top of the sensor. Fujifilm makes pigments used in color filter arrays:

Loading…

www.fujifilmusa.com

 

[SigZero]

Yep, sure. But that requires modifications to sensor itself unless the bayer filter is a separate part.

The Bayer filter or color filter array is typically made of a printed film and attached to the top of the sensor. Fujifilm makes pigments used in color filter arrays:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/semiconductor_materials/image-sensor-color-mosaic/index.html

Ok, so even if next generation camera has the same sensor as its predecessor it is possible than in the process of improving "color science" the bayer filter can be different.

Br, Pawel.

 

[BobORama]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

Does a marketing term have anything to do with reality?

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

Probably not. Its marketing.

What are they going to say "New Model! Same old drab colors! Buy now!"

-- Bob
http://bob-o-rama.smugmug.com -- Photos
http://www.vimeo.com/boborama/videos -- Videos
http://blog.trafficshaper.com -- Blog

 

[Jack Hogan]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

Phase One recently introduced a new version of an otherwise identical camera with a sensor manufactured by Sony, claiming more accurate colors resulting in better 'definition'. There is some truth to that, although the benefits in practice are hard to see. You can find a limited analysis of the two sensors as it pertains to 'color science' here .

Jack

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Yep, sure. But that requires modifications to sensor itself unless the bayer filter is a separate part.

The Bayer filter or color filter array is typically made of a printed film and attached to the top of the sensor. Fujifilm makes pigments used in color filter arrays:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/semiconductor_materials/image-sensor-color-mosaic/index.html

Ok, so even if next generation camera has the same sensor as its predecessor it is possible than in the process of improving "color science" the bayer filter can be different.

Not just the color filter array (note that some Fujifilm cameras have an X-Trans but not a Bayer color filter array) but also the associated sensor electronics (of which I know nothing but is still important) and then there is the crucially important image processing.

How you use the camera also involves color science: white balance and your light source have large effects.

 

[Mark S Abeln]

Phase One recently introduced a new version of an otherwise identical camera with a sensor manufactured by Sony, claiming more accurate colors resulting in better 'definition'. There is some truth to that, although the benefits in practice are hard to see. You can find a limited analysis of the two sensors as it pertains to 'color science' here .

And the same company has the audacity to release a digital back, using the same Sony sensor, that has 100% color error!

Loading…

www.phaseone.com

Color science? Who needs it?!

 

[Entropy512]

Yep, sure. But that requires modifications to sensor itself unless the bayer filter is a separate part.

The Bayer filter or color filter array is typically made of a printed film and attached to the top of the sensor. Fujifilm makes pigments used in color filter arrays:

http://www.fujifilmusa.com/products/semiconductor_materials/image-sensor-color-mosaic/index.html

Ok, so even if next generation camera has the same sensor as its predecessor it is possible than in the process of improving "color science" the bayer filter can be different.

Not just the color filter array (note that some Fujifilm cameras have an X-Trans but not a Bayer color filter array) but also the associated sensor electronics (of which I know nothing but is still important) and then there is the crucially important image processing.

How you use the camera also involves color science: white balance and your light source have large effects.

The CFA is the most likely item to be customized when a company buys a sensor from Sony. There have been a number of cases where sensor X was used by manufacturers A and B - but both had different CFAs.

CFA changes are pretty much the norm and not the exception - look at dcraw's source code in the color matrix table and you'll see that nearly every manufacturer is constantly making small tweaks.

 

[Jack Hogan]

Phase One recently introduced a new version of an otherwise identical camera with a sensor manufactured by Sony, claiming more accurate colors resulting in better 'definition'. There is some truth to that, although the benefits in practice are hard to see. You can find a limited analysis of the two sensors as it pertains to 'color science' here .

And the same company has the audacity to release a digital back, using the same Sony sensor, that has 100% color error!

https://www.phaseone.com/IQ3-100MP-Achromatic

Color science? Who needs it?!

 

[Iliah Borg]

Phase One recently introduced a new version of an otherwise identical camera with a sensor manufactured by Sony, claiming more accurate colors resulting in better 'definition'. There is some truth to that, although the benefits in practice are hard to see. You can find a limited analysis of the two sensors as it pertains to 'color science' here .

And the same company has the audacity to release a digital back, using the same Sony sensor, that has 100% color error!

https://www.phaseone.com/IQ3-100MP-Achromatic

Color science? Who needs it?!

Generally speaking, to reconcile spectral responsivity of silicon and photopic luminosity function some is needed

 

[Iliah Borg]

look at dcraw's source code in the color matrix table and you'll see that nearly every manufacturer is constantly making small tweaks.

Those are mostly CM matrices suggested by Adobe (they never agree with OOC JPEGs, btw, so not what is used or suggested by the manufacturer). Such matrices are not a proof of anything, especially if one just looks at them - matrices may have different coefficients, but result in very similar colour transforms.

 

[Iliah Borg]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

Best regs,

Pawel.

Tweaking CFAs is mostly "noise science"

 

[fPrime]

Some manufacturers (especially Sony with its new models) is advertising that they are improving their "color science" and reviews confirm it saying that colors are better or not (depending on how reviews sees it)

I can imagine every manufacturer likely makes that claim.

My question is - does this "color science" has to do anything to what we are getting from RAW files. Is there any additional color processing between ADC and RAW to get some different color reproduction or is it just JPG processing engine, and RAW shooter should not care about all this "color science".

The topic of "color science" is broad. If by color science a manufacturer means they merely altered their camera profiles for SOOC JPEGS then the RAW needn't be affected. However, if by improving the color science the company indicates making the CFA more strict, then both RAW and JPEG are definitely affected.

Most RAW shooters these days seem to not care much for improved manufacturer SOOC JPEG camera profiles. What most want is either stricter CFA's for better color fidelity or looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

fPrime

 

[Iliah Borg]

looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

You are making a mistake that was debunked 15+ years ago. "Looser" achieve(s) nothing

 

[fPrime]

looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

You are making a mistake that was debunked 15+ years ago. "Looser" achieve(s) nothing

Semantics, of course "looser" or "less strict" CFA's achieve something. Are you willing to debunk yourself?

"The difference is not in the sensors, but in the colour filters in front of the sensors. The previous generation of cameras had better separation in filters, close to Kodak recipe. In order to get less noise the filters became less strict, the CCD was replaced with CMOS, and noise reduction was applied to raw (not in all camera models). That all happened pretty much in one move. Switching to CMOS has no effect to colours (if NR before recording raw is done properly). But switching to more transparent colour filter arrays has certain effect. As a result of more transparent filters colours become more muted."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/53762887

You also personally prefers cameras with stronger CFA's, even when the color differences are only slight as noted here:

"D3 is a low light camera. This does not come without some sacrifices, colour separation being one of the most obvious for me. I prefer colour from D2X (non-s)."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/31949808

and here:

"D2Xs had slightly "weaker" separation, so I kept D2X original. Same between D3 and D3s."

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/59371749

fPrime

--
Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

 

[Iliah Borg]

looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

You are making a mistake that was debunked 15+ years ago. "Looser" achieve(s) nothing

Semantics,

Learn what semantics is.

of course "looser" or "less strict" CFA's achieve something. Are you willing to debunk yourself?

You don't understand a word I wrote.

I was debunking the idea that "looser" gets them anywhere.

Your "CMOS-y colors", on the other hand

I'm happy to debunk myself when I'm proven wrong or learned better.

You, on the other hand, never learn.

 

[fPrime]

looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

You are making a mistake that was debunked 15+ years ago. "Looser" achieve(s) nothing

Semantics,

Learn what semantics is.

Yawn.

of course "looser" or "less strict" CFA's achieve something. Are you willing to debunk yourself?

You don't understand a word I wrote.

I was debunking the idea that "looser" gets them anywhere.

Oh I understand you all too well. "Looser" or "less strict" buys them high ISO performance and higher pixel density just as you said earlier.

Your "CMOS-y colors", on the other hand

I'm happy to debunk myself when I'm proven wrong or learned better.

But you are so old and set now that you refuse to learn.

You, on the other hand, never learn.

No, I have learned exactly because I am open to science and data. It doesn't hurt that my CFA viewpoint is backed up by Phase One, a camera manufacturer:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60658069

Who backs up your dated viewpoints? Crickets. Until you get hold of an IQ3 trichromatic and debunk its color fidelity you will never win this argument.

fPrime

--
Half of my heart is a shotgun wedding to a bride with a paper ring,
And half of my heart is the part of a man who's never truly loved anything.

 

[Iliah Borg]

looser CFA's for higher resolution and better high ISO performance.

You are making a mistake that was debunked 15+ years ago. "Looser" achieve(s) nothing

Semantics,

Learn what semantics is.

Yawn.

Excellent. You proved my point.

of course "looser" or "less strict" CFA's achieve something. Are you willing to debunk yourself?

You don't understand a word I wrote.

I was debunking the idea that "looser" gets them anywhere.

Oh I understand you all too well. "Looser" or "less strict" buys them high ISO performance

It doesn't.

and higher pixel density just as you said earlier.

It doesn't.

See above, "I was debunking the idea that "looser" gets them anywhere".

Your "CMOS-y colors", on the other hand

I'm happy to debunk myself when I'm proven wrong or learned better.

But you are so old and set now that you refuse to learn.

LOL.

You, on the other hand, never learn.

No, I have learned

LOL.

Who backs up your dated viewpoints? Crickets.

Why do you call yourself a cricket? Is it because you are quoting me ("just as you said earlier", right above), even without understanding what it is that I wrote?

--
http://www.libraw.org/