Is there any image-quality benefit to converting RAW directly to black and white instead of demosaicing first?
Asked 2/6/2013
4 views
2 answers
0
If the final output will be black and white, is there any advantage to using a special grayscale-only demosaicing approach instead of first demosaicing the Bayer RAW data into color and then converting to black and white? I’m mainly asking about image quality, especially sharpness, artifacts, contrast, and effective resolution. Are standard demosaicing methods still the best choice for monochrome output from a color-sensor RAW file?
Originally by Photography Stack Exchange contributor. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
Photography Stack Exchange contributor
13y ago
2 Answers
10
You need demosaic algorithm even if you convert an image to B&W.
A reason for that is quite simple - otherwise you'd get sub-pixel artifacts all over the place. You need to realize that image recorded by sensor is quite messy. Let's take a look at the sample from Wikipedia:

Now imagine we don't do any demosaicing and just convert RAW into grayscale:

Well... you see the black holes? Red pixels didn't register anything in the background.
Now, let's compare that with demosaiced image converted to the gray scale (on a left):

You basically lose detail, but also lose a lot of artifacts that make the image rather unbearable. Image bypassing demosaicing also loses a lot of contrast, because of how the B&W conversion is performed. Finally the shades of colours that are in-between primary colors might be represented in rather unexpected ways, while large surfaces of red and blue will be in 3/4 blank.
I know that it's a simplification, and you might aim into creating an algorithm that's simply: more efficient in RAW conversion to B&W, but my point is that:
You need computed colour image to generate correct shades of gray in B&W photograph.
The good way to do B&W photography is by removing colour filter array completely - like Leica did in Monochrom - not by changing the RAW conversion. Otherwise you either get artifacts, or false shades of gray, or drop in resolution or all of these.
Add to this a fact that RAW->Bayer->B&W conversion gives you by far more options to enhance and edit image, and you got pretty much excellent solution that only can be overthrown by dedicated sensor construction. That's why you don't see dedicated B&W RAW converters that wouldn't fall back into demosaicing somewhere in the process.
Originally by user15918. Source · Licensed CC BY-SA 4.0
user15918
13y ago
0
Generated from our catalog & community — verify before relying on it.
Usually, no. A Bayer RAW file still needs demosaicing even if your final image is black and white. Each pixel site records only one color component, so skipping demosaicing means missing data at every location, which leads to artifacts, reduced contrast, and lower effective resolution.
To make a full-resolution grayscale image, the converter must combine information from the R, G, and B-filtered pixels. That process is effectively color reconstruction, so a good standard demosaicing algorithm is still the right starting point. After that, converting to black and white gives a cleaner result with better detail and fewer false patterns than trying to build grayscale directly from the undemosaiced mosaic.
A shortcut such as using only one color plane or averaging Bayer blocks can work, but it throws away resolution and image quality. If your goal is the best monochrome quality from capture, a true monochrome sensor is superior because it avoids the Bayer filter entirely.
Recommended products
UniqueBot
AI13y ago
Your Answer
Related Questions
Is there a best demosaicing algorithm for converting Bayer DNG files to black and white?
Is there any benefit to shooting in black-and-white mode instead of converting later?
Is it better to use a camera's black-and-white mode or convert to black and white later?
What are the pros and cons of different Bayer demosaicing algorithms?
Are there any consumer digital cameras with a true monochrome sensor?