As far as I know the resolution of a film is limited to the size of the individual grains that make up the photosensitive material. Although tiny, it is limited.
They are impressive in every aspect. Not only it was a technological and logistical challenge with amazing results, the photos taken were also invaluable documents of a lost time. They all were taken in the last years of the russian empire before 1917, when everything changed, especially for the former russian empire. They are vivid documents of a time period long gone, buildings gone, cultures gone, even lots of the depicted activities not performed anymore for centuries now. I think this makes them even more fascinating.
soriac I was thinking the same thing when I was looking at the architecture. And remembering my history about the last Czar of the Russian Empire..but I only seen black and white pics of that era.
It ought to be mentioned that they came out only in the past decade, because they required extensive post-production (in other words, PhotoShop) in order to look as good as they do. But yes, somebody still had to take them, and they are gorgeous.
I believe Sergey's camera was automated to take the 3 exposure in quick succession, with the glass photographic plates and filters automatically sliding into place between exposures. Hence minimal color fringing of live subjects.
@@Good9tTo9t disgusting and also concerning how these two immediately jumped to the worst possible conclusion, like really? how bad must your lives be to view something that innocent as possibly sinister? goodness
Well, the subjects from Sergey didn't really need to stant completely still, because Sergey used a "camera" or projector that took 3 shots at the same time, because of that he was able to "record" relative slow moving objects but not fast moving objects, the same problem we have today.
For even more fun, take a b/w photo, then move the camera a few inches to the side (still pointing at the original target) and then take another. Then composite the two photos with red for one side and green for the other and you'll get a 3D stereogram.
Haha! The portraits with much fringing almost became anaglyph stereoscopic 3D! Just tested it with some red/cyan glasses I had on my desk! The girl do pop out from the background
The term colourblind is a misnomer, as it doesn't mean we can't see those colours, it just means certain colours are confusing, and we can't always see the differences.
Aha ok, but you say you can't see the difference between some colors, that means you do not see the right color, so then the word colorblind is the right work no?
I wouldn't say it's a misnomer. Monochromacy (only seeing greys) exists, it's just very rare. Most people who are color blind can still see color, but the colors they can see are limited, so they are blind to those colors, at least.
That's how the Hubble telescope works, too; astronomers take this concept further by creating composites in visible light AND ultraviolet, often the source images are obtained by different observatories.
This really isn't a workaround, it is the basis of how each and every color image ever created is conceived. But yes I agree, using this old B&W security camera to compile a color picture is a fun innovative way of demonstrating how capturing color images works!
James Clerk Maxwell's first attempt at a color photo had messed-up colors for the same reason you had problems. His emulsion was sensitive to invisible wavelengths that his filters were letting through. The Cassini space probe used color filter wheels with a B/W CCD to take color separations. I remember using that GIMP technique to combine them back into color photos after getting them off the Cassini raw-images website. Many of the moons of Saturn don't actually have a lot of color, so the results were sometimes not spectacular--but Titan does.
The 8-bit Guy That's how colour photography was invented. Maxwell proved that all colours can be broken down to RGB additive primaries in different proportions and demonstrated that using the same method as Gorsky. Even the sensitive materials available at the time was blue-sensitive, Maxwell still managed to get a decent image. Note that neither Maxwell and Gorsky produced tangible photographs (which would have needed subtractive primaries, as in CMY), but just projected images produced by three carefully aligned projectors. The professional movie camera using a set of prisms and three monochrome sensors is a direct descendants of the "one-shot" still camera where the three colour-separation exposures were done simultaneously through one lens. For convenience materials giving colour pictures that can be used in a regular camera were devised, such as the additive system using RGB primaries, but the subtractive system brings about higher quality.
He would have been using either medium format or sheet film, which is multiple hundred times larger than any digital sensor in a phone camera, so the quality blows them out of the water
Bolling Holt agreed, I've only heard of him once before in a history of color photography video, but I had no clue he took that many photos, the only thing that gives away the fact they weren't taken yesterday are the clothes lmao
This makes me remember a guy i knew that had a setup just like this for the Amiga. It was in the year of 1990. Just a a couple of days ago i was going thru a buch of old Amiga diskettes and a found a couple of pictures he helped me scan :) This was very expensive hi tech at the time if you did not have an Amiga 500 and a black and white surveillance-camera :)
You could use a spinning wheel with filters mounted in it, and 2 or 3 examples of each color. Driving the wheel with a variable speed motor will allow you to sync the filters speed with the frame rate of the camera. Instead if capturing still images, capture video. Then go and select 3 consecutive frames from the video. The time elapsed between each frame will be miniscule, making movements of human subjects much smaller.
This is the principle as when taking astrophotos with non-RGB sensors. Just to make it a bit harder for you, Red, Green and Blue don't have the same focal point due to its wavelength.
I remember having a Digi-View set up for the Amiga and I had a B&W camera and the 3 wheel setup and you could get great colour photos. It was an early Digitizer of the day. My camera had a Vidicon tube in it from memory. I still have the old camera somewhere.
In fact, even "consumer grade" cameras use this technique. There is a filter with a color pattern at the front of the sensor, that assign colors to each pixel separately.
tristan3510 Beam splitting with a dichroic mirror, used in 3CCD cameras, is mentioned in the video. Antoine is talking about the Bayer filter used in most, but not all, single sensor cameras.
The Russian chemist mentioned in the video here was commissioned by the Czar to use this technique of color photography to document life in Imperial Russia. The photos are really high quality and include landscapes and portraits across all of Russia at the time. I would highly recommend a search for the gallery of these that were put online several years ago.
I'm reminded of a very early attempt at color TV by using a color wheel in front of a B/W TV, and an identical wheel in front of the B/W camera. As it spun, the TV would display the red, green and blue images alternately and the color wheel would show them in the correct color. Due to persistence of vision, you'd see a full color image. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice keeping the wheels in sync between the camera and the TV screen proved next to impossible; not to mention the horrible flickering effect!
Tomsonic41 It wasn’t just an attempt. CBS made history’s first color broadcast using this format. That was 1950, nine years after system ‘M’ was adopted. The market chose to abandon the color wheel system for its lack of backwards compatibility, not its flickering. I’ve seen one demonstrated though, and the color artifacts are not distracting. It’s actually quite crisp.
The Apollo Moon missions sent color video back from the Moon using a version of this method. The color video cameras of the time were far too massive and bulky to take on a spacecraft, but there were B/W video cameras that were relatively compact, and they used the color-wheel method to get video separations and combined them using a lot of analog video wizardry Earthside. (If I recall correctly, part of the process literally involved correcting for Doppler shift by adjusting the slack in a strip of videotape.)
yes a lot of DLP projectors used color wheels, I can't stand them because I can actually see the color tearing sometimes... this isn't a problem with 3DLP projectors since they use a trichro like the 3CCD cameras referred to in the video
This is a very similar color video methodology that has been used in endoscopy because you want to minimize the size of the incision you have to make in a human. Quoting the abstract of a 1991 research paper written by Vakil N, Knyrim K, and Everbach EC titled The appreciation of colour in endoscopy, "Colour is synthesized by using sequential illumination using filters or by filters placed over the CCD. Fibre-endoscopes may alter colour by selectively transmitting certain portions of the visible spectrum..." Instead of using a full-color camera, endoscopes would use sequentially changed colored light, and software to recompose the separate video frames taken in each color to create full-color composite frames.
Many CCD and some CMOS cameras used for astronomical imaging use this technique because monochrome sensors are typically more sensitive. Putting a Bayer matrix over the sensor to get color in one shot means that to reach the same amount of signal requires a longer exposure and some interpolation is required. Using a filter wheel in front of the sensor means each pixel gets access to each color, and also means you can use specialty filters that only allows certain specific wavelengths through.
That's correct but I just want to point out that all sensors are 'mono' in that it only senses a photon hitting it. And it has no idea about frequency (colour) of it. Hence the need to add filters (including bayer) to reproduce colour. Normally there is also an IR filter (astro photography excepted) added as well, to keep colour reproduction more accurate.
I was a kid in 1969 when the first color TV pictures from space were sent from Apollo 10. th-cam.com/video/KbGHIQvObN0/w-d-xo.html They used a color wheel, I remember Walter explaining it. They also converted it to broadcast color with a camera aimed at a screen at Mission Control. Occasionally some white space debris would fly through the view and appear as sequential red, green, and blue dots.
Monochrome cameras are also used in astronomy due to the higher resolution given. All pixels are one colour over 2* or more images, rather than a mix of red/green/blue in the one image. Essentially, a Bayer filter divides a sensor into 3, so an 18 megapixel sensor is really only capturing 6 megapixels per colour. A monochrome sensor using individual filters, 18 megapixels are captured per colour. *Sometimes, only 2 colours are used for astronomical images. Consisting of one red exposure and one blue exposure. The red and blue can then be combined to create or extrapolate the green image..
Its not very portable but you can plug a gameboy camera into a Super Nintendo game boy adaptor or gamecube gameboy player and then run the console through a usb capture card to the pc.
Ha! I actually bought a red, green, and blue GB Camera for this exact purpose. :-) I also bought a yellow one because... hey I already had the other three, so why not. But also figured I could use one B&W image as a luminance gain input. Now I just need to find one of those prisms. I'm hoping to work out something where I can initialize the imaging devices and read their output in real time without a host Game Boy, and without modifying the cart. Then I could potentially have a Color GB Video Camera! ;-)
In 1950 CBS labs invented a color television system that used the same "sequential color" system, with a color wheel spinning in front of the image sensor on the camera, as well as a larger filter spinning in front of the display CRT. The system failed because it was not compatible with existing B&W TV's. The system was modified and updated by Westinghouse and used during the Apollo program to allow live color pictures from the Moon, as well as live color close up pictures of the launch from a camera mounted on the launch tower. To make standard broadcast NTSC color first an arrangement like the CBS system was used with a color wheel on the converter camera and on the display tube, then by Apollo 14 RCA had developed a digital system that used (non imaging) CCD's and RAM to store the frames of video then combine them digitally. Color fringing will always be a problem with sequential color systems since each frame is taken at a different time and the subject may be in a different position.
6 ปีที่แล้ว
mspysu79 [Automatic answer to a comment mentionning Apollo 11 and the Moon] No you sheepie wake up we never went to the Moon fake Nasa liars lol [insert a bunch of "proofs"]
Here are the first Color TV pictures from space using the Westinghouse camera with the sequential color wheel. You can see it at 10:00. th-cam.com/video/KbGHIQvObN0/w-d-xo.html
Carpoolparty Old TV shows shot on analog color cameras had this look. Lots of ‘70s sitcoms and dramas, especially. The fringing wasn’t this bad, though.
its also really easy to replicate the effect in post with photoshop or some other photo editing software, always good to give an image that extra retro flair haha.
If you want to, you can easily replicate the effect with a regular colour camera. The red, blue and green channels of a colour image can easily be separated by Gimp and then you can combine the channels from different pictures just like in this video.
I love those classic cctv cameras. They look so nice and are very reliable. I have a few SANYO cameras with a PTZ mount and lens. Have them connected to a DVR. It also rotates them from time to time
I think the security camera is deliberately designed to pick up IR light so you can use it in conjunction with an IR light to see what it's filming at night.
I just knew this would showcase Prokudin-Gorsky's work. The people photos he took are impressive when you think about taking 3 exposures in a row with really slow chemistry. The filters slowed his exposure even more.
It’s true, but Prokudin-Gorsky took advantage of using silver bromide based negatives, they were more sensitive to light, which helped to decrease exposure time a bit. It definitely wasn’t fast, but considering that he needed to take 3 shots each time, it helped quite a lot.
The first color movies before color film used this technique which required 4 projectors and 4 rolls of film in the theaters. Thankfully color film was soon invented.
Technicolor camera was three strips (color) films system. That is why we can see "Gone With the Wind" in color now. The Technicolor on 35mm films is considered the best color system until now.
Of course there was the time the BBC worked out how to get moving colour information from a black and white film... ...What you never heard of that? Yeah, so because some of their black and white film recordings (for overseas sale in non-colour countries) of old PAL colour programs were so badly made, the individual pixels which made up the colour signal were photographed directly onto the film. Then the Colour Recovery Working Group figured out a method to convert those pixels back into a colour signal. Sounds pointless? Well no, because in the intervening years the colour master tapes were wiped of so many programmes, with just the black and white (but hidden colour) film remaining... There's a dozen or so Doctor Who episodes out there on DVD these days that are in colour due solely to this method.
It's because composite video inherently has problems with color, so you'll see different colors produce different artifacts. Now Dr Who was mostly shot on tape, and the film stuff they did shoot was also transferred to tape for editing. The black and white tape copies they could find were made from the tape masters to poorer foreign markets where they'd still show TV using a direct telecine.
It wasn't film. It was recovery of color from black and white videotape and it was due to imperfect filtering of the color carrier when they removed it for black and white video. If they had filmed a color signal, the artifacts would not appear.
Color images from satellites like Himawari are composed exactly this way. The multi spectral cameras use multiple filters for red, green, blue and many near and far infrared wavelengths. If they combine the 3 color channels were get a color image from the earth.
Almost all telescopes, both Earth-based and the ones in space, use monochrome sensors + filter wheels. It's the way it has always been done, and probably the way it will always be done. Monochrome image sensors are just superior in many ways. It's also easier to create very high-quality filters that are external, and you can put them in a filter wheel to have dozens of filters available, that can automatically be rotated around as required by the telescope.
These old photographs fascinate me. Then I called my brother to look at them and guess the age of the photo, and he was totally wrong, and wide-opened his eyes in surprise when I told him these are over 100 years old.
The first digital studio camera back for the Hasselblad worked this way, they were black and white and a rotating colour filter would change and 3 shots were taken. We assembled the final in photoshop with a plugin at the time
8:06 this image is extremely interesting, not only does it show tht this image is a composite of multiple pictures _but_ his process actually seems to be similar to the modern YCbCr. The girl pointed out with the arrow has clearly blue and yellow abberation. if you look at the girl in the front-right of her though you can clearly see a subtle red abberation. Even more the girl behind her with some massive red green abberation going on. this would mean that those pictures aren't made up of 3 pictures using RGB filter but of at least _4_ images using blue, yellow, magen / red and green filters. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 5th monochrome image involved for added contrast. This would explain though, how he was able to render such crisp and vibrant colors.
"this would mean that those pictures aren't made up of 3 pictures using RGB filter but of at least 4 images..." No, you are seeing primary and secondary colors. If the person moves to a new position during the blue exposure (but not red and green) you see blue and yellow fringes. Similarly for red/cyan or green/magenta. If they take up three positions, you could see all six primaary and secondary colors, depending on how the light and dark parts of their clothing overlaps.
yeah, you're right^^ whatever made me think I need 2 exposures to get a 2-colored abberation x'D my bad. Previous point still stands though, I think that it's fairly similar to YCbCr plus probably a monochrome for contrast. In fact, the technicolor process reminds me alot of this
If your filters are transparent to IR and UV you should take additional R+G and R+B pictures. This way you can compansate UV and IR without any additional filters. Red layer will be RG - G or RB - B, green layer will be RG - R and blue layer will be RB -R.
Not understanding your technique - do you suggest 5 different exposures - the two additional being through a Yellow filter (R+G) and a Magenta filter (R+B)??
Requim Dream 6:22 LOL WTF does clouds have autism in my day cloud stood still at all times now they move because wind?? lol something wrong with cloud clock tower can stand still just fine
If you wanted to see what it would look like, you could take your 3 black and white images taken with a camera and reduce it to 2bits per pixel, then apply the compose. Here is an article I found of someone using the GB camera to do the techniques in the video though: www.wired.com/2014/06/game-boy-camera-color/
i can't help not being incomotaded that the rubik's cube in this guy's shirt is a impossible scramble, there's a corner with white and yellow for example
Security cameras are made to capture infrared light to provide black-and-white nighttime pictures. Many security cameras are manufactured with built-in IR projectors.
Fascinating! I have a JVC 1980s pro video camera that got knocked down and from bumping, its colors are out of alignment--this concept there makes sense! Fascinating pictoral results!! Has a very retro look!
Thank you for mentioning Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky-although you pronounced his name not quite correctly ;) I admire this guy and his work ever since I’ve seen his photographs the first time many years ago. Btw: Most of his work you can find online today was digitally composed from the original black-and-white parts. Back in the days, such a perfect and flawless composition of all three components was not possible.
Can't believe that 8bit Guy didn't know about it! The DigiView had that auto filter wheel, as others have pointed out. And you got full NTSC (well, up to whatever your camera delivered) resolution, without Bayer filter losses.
Cctv cameras don't have IR for low light levels directly, they allow the use of IR lighting that humans won't notice but dramatically improves the cctv image.
FYI. This was exactly how the Digiview + digidroid worked on the Amiga. The digidroid was actually a cardboard plater with three color filters ( RGB ), which rotated in front of a monochromatic camera automatically via a small motor, for each take. High tech, at the time! :)
So glad to see ma boi Sergi get some love, digitized works are available from the Library of Congress (Amazing story of how they ended up there) though the Russian wiki also has a fantastic portal to his archived work.
What's amazing is that all of the indoor photos you captured look *exactly* like photos from the 70's and 80's. It's a super awesome way to get a natural "vintage" look to pictures with digital techniques.
And this is a way to save storage space, since black.and white photos take less memory space to store. Well, unless 3 separate photos taken with the filters still take less space than a color photo, considering that each photo taken with the filters is monochrome. That I have to check.
The russian Guy probobly had some advantage. While His filters was probobly worse... He used the same filters to take the image as to view Them. This should give Close to perfekt color quality even with worse filters. I would say this is a drawback with the computer composing
You would lose colorspace yes. But you would lose it at the exactly same way as its presented. So the pictures would be 100% accurate, but with less colorspace. In the case in this video, he may have more colorspace, but the space is less accurate, so the color will be tilted. If cause, you can compose it digitaly with the right colorspace and not just use RGB, its of cause doable, but a bit more technically advanced.
"You would lose colorspace yes. But you would lose it at the exactly same way as its presented. So the pictures would be 100% accurate, but with less colorspace." No, if the color filters are wide (desaturated colors), they reduce the difference between the primary images, thus reducing color saturation, and then reduce it again when they are used as the projector primary colors. Before the advent of electronic imaging, which allows electrical matrixing to correct saturation, color film used narrow sensitivity curves to get maximum difference between the primaries on non-neutral objects, and compensate for the less than perfect saturation of the print dyes. Color process (magazine printing) used photographic "masks" to subtract some of one primary from the others and thus increase the difference (saturation) and skew the hue towards correct values. For example, most magenta printing inks absorbed too much blue, and this had to be compensated. Eventually analog computers were developed to make these corrections for the major printing companies (think LIFE and Time magazines). Today, compensation is much more sophisticated, by using digital "profiles" to correct the saturation and hue.
You are wrong on several parts. While you are technicaly corect about desaturasation. The issue is that humans eye don´t quite see 3 colors. It see more of 2,7.-2,8 colors. But the overlap is not exactly the same as the RGB spectrum. Having a smoth overlap does increase the transfer from the real world to the eye much better than having a sharp overlap. ", color film used narrow sensitivity curves to get maximum difference between the primaries on non-neutral objects" You clearly don´t understand how this color images are made, and you totaly missed the point that i was making
If you interested in Prokudin-Gorsky story you can watch russian documentary (with english subtitles) on vimeo. It's called Russia in Bloom. (Tsvet Natsii)
@@napomania basically back in the days they don't have enough bandwidth on TVs because of the limited technology, so to compensate for that, they had to cut the frame of a video in two parts and then send it that way and alternate between the two parts, now CRTs hides most of the flicker because they can refresh really fast, but modern LCDs work by refreshing the screen for a whole frame instead of shooting electrons to each pixel on the screen so you can actually see the fields alternating which causes a lot of flicker. Deinterlacing means combining those 2 cut up frames (called a field) into one frame.
that video was very interesting to get into the basic technical concepts of color imaging and problems with infrared light interferences. I got it! Thumbs up 👍
Interestingly this method of colour photography is still more or less the de-facto standard in astronomy, both Earth-based as well as space telescopes like Hubble, and also for an overwhelming amount of scientific and medical imaging, this is still the way it's done. Technically *all* digital image sensors are monochrome, there's no such thing as a digital colour sensor. "Colour" sensors are really just monochrome sensors with a checkerboard of RGB filters literally glued onto the sensor pixel wells, it's called a Bayer array, which is then processed by the camera processor to do what you did in this video basically. And yes, that means the pixel resolution of a colour image sensor is divided into at least 3 different colours, but thanks to math and algorithm magic, you still get a useable resolution that is very close to the "spec sheet" resolution. Anyhow, the preference for monochrome sensors is due to them usually being a lot more sensitive to light, and depending on various other factors and requirements, there are many other benefits to monochrome sensors as well. Furthermore, since a "naked" sensor will just capture ALL the light it sees, it means you are not only limited to Red, Green and Blue, but also UV, IR, and even specific single wavelengths of light of interest (H-α spectral lines are a favourite in astronomy for example). Most telescopes, both amateur and big huge scientific telescopes, as well as space telescopes, have filter wheels. These filter wheels can accept basically any combination of filters that you desire, and, as the name suggests, it's a wheel that can just rotate the filter you want into place, and off you go. You can then combine all this raw data in any way you want, including creating natural colour photographs of things. Or, composing photographs that are based on non-human-visible colours such as UV and far-Infrared, or whatever absorption/emission spectral lines you want really, into something that we can view and comprehend. Sadly the latter usually gets misunderstood by the general public, and you end up with misinformation along the lines of "those beautiful Hubble pictures of galaxies and nebulas are fake colours" ... Well, not true, it's just not literally RGB filters, it's a combination of dozens of spectra, mapped onto a human-visible spectrum. Just because our crappy human eyes can't see those wavelengths of light doesn't mean they are not there. Anyway, just thought that might be an interesting extra bit on top of what you showed in this video. It's a straightforward and neat technique, and it's fascinating that it is just as useful today as it was over 100 years ago, and likely it will be just as relevant 100 years from now.
Thanks for the excellent explanation. I too dislike all the "fakery" shouts when Hubble pics are displayed. Yes indeed, those nebulae and galaxies look like that... if our eyes could deal with IR and UV. Even X and u-waves.
I remember when you showed this off with the Connectix Quickcam! Super cool idea and I've used it myself a few times and get some cool results! Also, man you had already renamed yourself in 2016? (I just went and looked, apparently I've been watching for 3 years! My first video was the USB raid array and remember the keyboard restorations afterward). I'm happy you're still making great content and releasing it for free. Thank you!
6:15 is such an interesting picture. The subject came out great, it's got that grainy 70's home video look (the shorts help even more!), and the filter flares occur in a way that really adds to the picture. Very nice.
![[ TEASER ] เงาะป่า - วงL.กฮ. | TMG RECORD](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/M4ObdFfcPww/mqdefault.jpg)
Those 110 year old photos look better than photos from some cameras today.
When light projects onto film there is infinite resolution as it takes in all light while digital is due limits on pixels
dan i know right
@@TekTokYT Why was film abandoned then? I could see how digital cameras are better in some situations but having "infinite" resolution is amazing!
As far as I know the resolution of a film is limited to the size of the individual grains that make up the photosensitive material. Although tiny, it is limited.
Stenky Official film has not been abandoned but digital is the main way people record now there's a difference between less use and abandoned
Those color photos from early 1900’s are just amazing! Thank you for the follow-up video, I loved it 😁
No kidding! Maybe it's just because of TH-cam compression, but those rival a lot of professional shots I've seen, quality-wise.
they look like they could have been taken today!
They are impressive in every aspect. Not only it was a technological and logistical challenge with amazing results, the photos taken were also invaluable documents of a lost time. They all were taken in the last years of the russian empire before 1917, when everything changed, especially for the former russian empire. They are vivid documents of a time period long gone, buildings gone, cultures gone, even lots of the depicted activities not performed anymore for centuries now. I think this makes them even more fascinating.
soriac I was thinking the same thing when I was looking at the architecture. And remembering my history about the last Czar of the Russian Empire..but I only seen black and white pics of that era.
It ought to be mentioned that they came out only in the past decade, because they required extensive post-production (in other words, PhotoShop) in order to look as good as they do. But yes, somebody still had to take them, and they are gorgeous.
Those early 20th century photos look like they're from a 90's natgeo magazine
Ikr
That and the fact that BW Prints does not degrade over time unlike color prints.
doncha mean pikachu
I believe Sergey's camera was automated to take the 3 exposure in quick succession, with the glass photographic plates and filters automatically sliding into place between exposures. Hence minimal color fringing of live subjects.
How did he mechanically compile the 3 images though? That was never explained.
It is just because we leave now in a different world that have polution and ultra rayons .... not like old years ago. Easy peasy
@@misterdude4296 Did you not watch the video?
I remember he got some fringing in pictures of water, though.
@@Muslim_011 What?
Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky was a real genius. Today the most part of his collection of photographs is in the Library of Congress.
Lies. Everybody knows that the world was black and white before 1950. :D
Yes. Totally fake. In real life Rubik's Snake contains only two colors en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubik%27s_Snake.
Except color movies were popular since the 30s.
@@MarkBaldridge r/woooosh
And everybody was an expert dancer, doing back flips and tumbles in a fully choreographed routine at a typical high school dance.
Wizard of Oz?
the 8-bit family is a national treasure, they are rarely in front of the cameras but we all know and appreciate how they support David.
"Hey can my dad take a load of photos of you for a video he's going to put online?" 😂
He said she volunteered, not that she accepted when asked.
Is this guy a PDF file?
@@ric8961 I think the same, why the interést in his daughter friend?
@@julianjv7325 maybe she saw the 8-bit guy messing around with the security camera and asked what he was doing.
@@Good9tTo9t disgusting and also concerning how these two immediately jumped to the worst possible conclusion, like really? how bad must your lives be to view something that innocent as possibly sinister? goodness
Well, the subjects from Sergey didn't really need to stant completely still, because Sergey used a "camera" or projector that took 3 shots at the same time, because of that he was able to "record" relative slow moving objects but not fast moving objects, the same problem we have today.
1:55 A cantilever bridge with bricks and mortar piles in a "brand new" condition is not something you see everyday
It is if you live in North Queensferry.
I wanna see colour pictures taken with a Game Boy camera
Google.
th-cam.com/video/vA125ypMdJ0/w-d-xo.html
The internet is really an amazing thing.
Color pictures taken by gameboy camera cartridge in super game boy
th-cam.com/video/FPkJaEG-C_M/w-d-xo.html
I just spent forever going through that archive of images. It's the closest thing to a time-machine I've ever experienced! Astounding.
For even more fun, take a b/w photo, then move the camera a few inches to the side (still pointing at the original target) and then take another. Then composite the two photos with red for one side and green for the other and you'll get a 3D stereogram.
I put the light into different places then it looks like the room is lit by 3 colored lights red green and blue.
These photos look like they have been taken in the 80's! That is totally amazing!!! Honestly, you did an excellent work, sir!
Haha! The portraits with much fringing almost became anaglyph stereoscopic 3D! Just tested it with some red/cyan glasses I had on my desk! The girl do pop out from the background
Very satisfying... even with colorblindness 🤦♂️😉 The lens flare shot is actually very cool!
So your color blind, did not know that, and i have seen more then a few video's of you, and which colors do you not see?
Is there something in retro computers that give color blindness?
The term colourblind is a misnomer, as it doesn't mean we can't see those colours, it just means certain colours are confusing, and we can't always see the differences.
Aha ok, but you say you can't see the difference between some colors, that means you do not see the right color, so then the word colorblind is the right work no?
I wouldn't say it's a misnomer. Monochromacy (only seeing greys) exists, it's just very rare. Most people who are color blind can still see color, but the colors they can see are limited, so they are blind to those colors, at least.
1:57
Even when the video ended, i’m still stunned this photo is 105 years old. This easily could be a standard android background.
Respect for that scientist who Took Those color photos back in 1906 😞
Techmo Manser yes
That's how the Hubble telescope works, too; astronomers take this concept further by creating composites in visible light AND ultraviolet, often the source images are obtained by different observatories.
These old photos were amazing. Hard to believe, that they are that old. Very good video, thanks!
I love how people always find really creative workarounds :D
EpicLPer
Aren’t humans awesome?! 😝
FRIENDLY JAPANESE BUSINESSMAN that’s a pony. DONT TRY TO FIND OUT WHY.
Wait a second.... Aren't you from Barnacules?
Jonas hes in that server yes... but nothing important 😉 if lper is reading this offcourse im kidding 😛.
This really isn't a workaround, it is the basis of how each and every color image ever created is conceived. But yes I agree, using this old B&W security camera to compile a color picture is a fun innovative way of demonstrating how capturing color images works!
You brought a power generator to the park, because, well, of course you did!
pnadk I’m pretty sure the camera actually contains a rectifier, so you could power it with DC
pf
Hahaha, I about died laughing at your post.
@@atomstarfireproductions8695 you mean UsInG ThE *FULL BRIDGE RECTIFIER!!!*
You could probably just use 2 SLA's in series.
James Clerk Maxwell's first attempt at a color photo had messed-up colors for the same reason you had problems. His emulsion was sensitive to invisible wavelengths that his filters were letting through.
The Cassini space probe used color filter wheels with a B/W CCD to take color separations. I remember using that GIMP technique to combine them back into color photos after getting them off the Cassini raw-images website. Many of the moons of Saturn don't actually have a lot of color, so the results were sometimes not spectacular--but Titan does.
The 8-bit Guy That's how colour photography was invented. Maxwell proved that all colours can be broken down to RGB additive primaries in different proportions and demonstrated that using the same method as Gorsky. Even the sensitive materials available at the time was blue-sensitive, Maxwell still managed to get a decent image. Note that neither Maxwell and Gorsky produced tangible photographs (which would have needed subtractive primaries, as in CMY), but just projected images produced by three carefully aligned projectors. The professional movie camera using a set of prisms and three monochrome sensors is a direct descendants of the "one-shot" still camera where the three colour-separation exposures were done simultaneously through one lens. For convenience materials giving colour pictures that can be used in a regular camera were devised, such as the additive system using RGB primaries, but the subtractive system brings about higher quality.
I'm blown away by the quality of these old photos!
I'm surprised that guy and his work aren't more well-known. Those were AMAZING!
He would have been using either medium format or sheet film, which is multiple hundred times larger than any digital sensor in a phone camera, so the quality blows them out of the water
They're more than 100 years older actually
Bolling Holt agreed, I've only heard of him once before in a history of color photography video, but I had no clue he took that many photos, the only thing that gives away the fact they weren't taken yesterday are the clothes lmao
They almost look like they were taken today, to be honest.
This makes me remember a guy i knew that had a setup just like this for the Amiga. It was in the year of 1990. Just a a couple of days ago i was going thru a buch of old Amiga diskettes and a found a couple of pictures he helped me scan :) This was very expensive hi tech at the time if you did not have an Amiga 500 and a black and white surveillance-camera :)
You could use a spinning wheel with filters mounted in it, and 2 or 3 examples of each color.
Driving the wheel with a variable speed motor will allow you to sync the filters speed with the frame rate of the camera.
Instead if capturing still images, capture video.
Then go and select 3 consecutive frames from the video.
The time elapsed between each frame will be miniscule, making movements of human subjects much smaller.
a mexican did this in 1938 and created the very first color tv system
+0X29Adecay Trichromatic Color System, designed and patented by Gullermo Gonzalez Camarena
Or blend the frames in Gimp for 10fps color video!
This is the principle as when taking astrophotos with non-RGB sensors.
Just to make it a bit harder for you, Red, Green and Blue don't have the same focal point due to its wavelength.
I remember having a Digi-View set up for the Amiga and I had a B&W camera and the 3 wheel setup and you could get great colour photos. It was an early Digitizer of the day. My camera had a Vidicon tube in it from memory. I still have the old camera somewhere.
I'm happy to see a brand new 8bit guy episode
Martell Tha Cool Sadly its just a rehash of a old video he did about capturing colour images on an old black and white webcam.
In fact, even "consumer grade" cameras use this technique. There is a filter with a color pattern at the front of the sensor, that assign colors to each pixel separately.
tristan3510 yes but he explained that professional cameras had 3 sensors, one for each color, so it is a different system
tristan3510 Beam splitting with a dichroic mirror, used in 3CCD cameras, is mentioned in the video. Antoine is talking about the Bayer filter used in most, but not all, single sensor cameras.
The Russian chemist mentioned in the video here was commissioned by the Czar to use this technique of color photography to document life in Imperial Russia. The photos are really high quality and include landscapes and portraits across all of Russia at the time. I would highly recommend a search for the gallery of these that were put online several years ago.
I'm reminded of a very early attempt at color TV by using a color wheel in front of a B/W TV, and an identical wheel in front of the B/W camera. As it spun, the TV would display the red, green and blue images alternately and the color wheel would show them in the correct color. Due to persistence of vision, you'd see a full color image. It was a good idea in theory, but in practice keeping the wheels in sync between the camera and the TV screen proved next to impossible; not to mention the horrible flickering effect!
Tomsonic41 It wasn’t just an attempt. CBS made history’s first color broadcast using this format. That was 1950, nine years after system ‘M’ was adopted. The market chose to abandon the color wheel system for its lack of backwards compatibility, not its flickering. I’ve seen one demonstrated though, and the color artifacts are not distracting. It’s actually quite crisp.
Even the newest generation of laser projectors still have wheels.
The Apollo Moon missions sent color video back from the Moon using a version of this method. The color video cameras of the time were far too massive and bulky to take on a spacecraft, but there were B/W video cameras that were relatively compact, and they used the color-wheel method to get video separations and combined them using a lot of analog video wizardry Earthside. (If I recall correctly, part of the process literally involved correcting for Doppler shift by adjusting the slack in a strip of videotape.)
DLP projectors work pretty much the same
yes a lot of DLP projectors used color wheels, I can't stand them because I can actually see the color tearing sometimes... this isn't a problem with 3DLP projectors since they use a trichro like the 3CCD cameras referred to in the video
This is a very similar color video methodology that has been used in endoscopy because you want to minimize the size of the incision you have to make in a human. Quoting the abstract of a 1991 research paper written by Vakil N, Knyrim K, and Everbach EC titled The appreciation of colour in endoscopy, "Colour is synthesized by using sequential illumination using filters or by filters placed over the CCD. Fibre-endoscopes may alter colour by selectively transmitting certain portions of the visible spectrum..." Instead of using a full-color camera, endoscopes would use sequentially changed colored light, and software to recompose the separate video frames taken in each color to create full-color composite frames.
Many CCD and some CMOS cameras used for astronomical imaging use this technique because monochrome sensors are typically more sensitive. Putting a Bayer matrix over the sensor to get color in one shot means that to reach the same amount of signal requires a longer exposure and some interpolation is required. Using a filter wheel in front of the sensor means each pixel gets access to each color, and also means you can use specialty filters that only allows certain specific wavelengths through.
Came here to say this. Looks like it may be time for the "8-bit-astrophotography Guy" channel! :)
That's correct but I just want to point out that all sensors are 'mono' in that it only senses a photon hitting it. And it has no idea about frequency (colour) of it. Hence the need to add filters (including bayer) to reproduce colour. Normally there is also an IR filter (astro photography excepted) added as well, to keep colour reproduction more accurate.
I thought so. The look totally reminds me of Voyager and Mars Rover photos.
I was a kid in 1969 when the first color TV pictures from space were sent from Apollo 10. th-cam.com/video/KbGHIQvObN0/w-d-xo.html They used a color wheel, I remember Walter explaining it. They also converted it to broadcast color with a camera aimed at a screen at Mission Control. Occasionally some white space debris would fly through the view and appear as sequential red, green, and blue dots.
Monochrome cameras are also used in astronomy due to the higher resolution given. All pixels are one colour over 2* or more images, rather than a mix of red/green/blue in the one image. Essentially, a Bayer filter divides a sensor into 3, so an 18 megapixel sensor is really only capturing 6 megapixels per colour. A monochrome sensor using individual filters, 18 megapixels are captured per colour.
*Sometimes, only 2 colours are used for astronomical images. Consisting of one red exposure and one blue exposure. The red and blue can then be combined to create or extrapolate the green image..
I've seen this done with the GameBoy Camera before, always wanted to try it.
Was about to say the same thing I remember the site that has a tutorial on the process and have always been tempted to try the process
Trekeyus Yeah, sadly I have no way to get the GB Camera photos onto my PC.
mystman12 look into the ASM retro altane or that thingy that emulates the gb printer and prints to imagine files on an SD card
Its not very portable but you can plug a gameboy camera into a Super Nintendo game boy adaptor or gamecube gameboy player and then run the console through a usb capture card to the pc.
Ha! I actually bought a red, green, and blue GB Camera for this exact purpose. :-) I also bought a yellow one because... hey I already had the other three, so why not. But also figured I could use one B&W image as a luminance gain input.
Now I just need to find one of those prisms.
I'm hoping to work out something where I can initialize the imaging devices and read their output in real time without a host Game Boy, and without modifying the cart. Then I could potentially have a Color GB Video Camera! ;-)
You can also make red-blue 3-D pictures, just move camera few centimetres between pics.
Seeing color photos from that long ago is amazing. Almost like I time traveled or something
Found your channel by occasion. I'm glad I did, what a good content! I feel like I'm watching my favorite arts professor from High School!!!
In 1950 CBS labs invented a color television system that used the same "sequential color" system, with a color wheel spinning in front of the image sensor on the camera, as well as a larger filter spinning in front of the display CRT. The system failed because it was not compatible with existing B&W TV's.
The system was modified and updated by Westinghouse and used during the Apollo program to allow live color pictures from the Moon, as well as live color close up pictures of the launch from a camera mounted on the launch tower.
To make standard broadcast NTSC color first an arrangement like the CBS system was used with a color wheel on the converter camera and on the display tube, then by Apollo 14 RCA had developed a digital system that used (non imaging) CCD's and RAM to store the frames of video then combine them digitally.
Color fringing will always be a problem with sequential color systems since each frame is taken at a different time and the subject may be in a different position.
mspysu79 [Automatic answer to a comment mentionning Apollo 11 and the Moon]
No you sheepie wake up we never went to the Moon fake Nasa liars lol
[insert a bunch of "proofs"]
Here are the first Color TV pictures from space using the Westinghouse camera with the sequential color wheel. You can see it at 10:00. th-cam.com/video/KbGHIQvObN0/w-d-xo.html
The color fringing actually looks super cool though. I'm gonna remember that technique for later.
Carpoolparty Old TV shows shot on analog color cameras had this look. Lots of ‘70s sitcoms and dramas, especially. The fringing wasn’t this bad, though.
its also really easy to replicate the effect in post with photoshop or some other photo editing software, always good to give an image that extra retro flair haha.
Carpoolparty its called chromatic abberation :)
That could be used in a music video
If you want to, you can easily replicate the effect with a regular colour camera. The red, blue and green channels of a colour image can easily be separated by Gimp and then you can combine the channels from different pictures just like in this video.
Seeing these old color pictures blows my mind
how do you type this message when your mind is blown
Thank you us flag
I love those classic cctv cameras. They look so nice and are very reliable.
I have a few SANYO cameras with a PTZ mount and lens. Have them connected to a DVR. It also rotates them from time to time
I think the security camera is deliberately designed to pick up IR light so you can use it in conjunction with an IR light to see what it's filming at night.
Color from B&W?
"Ooooooh, CAN DO! I'm Mr. Meeseeks . Look at me!!!"
Wow, this photos literally there made before USSR existed
I just knew this would showcase Prokudin-Gorsky's work. The people photos he took are impressive when you think about taking 3 exposures in a row with really slow chemistry. The filters slowed his exposure even more.
It’s true, but Prokudin-Gorsky took advantage of using silver bromide based negatives, they were more sensitive to light, which helped to decrease exposure time a bit. It definitely wasn’t fast, but considering that he needed to take 3 shots each time, it helped quite a lot.
probably thats the reason why most of his images are in bright sunlight.
The first color movies before color film used this technique which required 4 projectors and 4 rolls of film in the theaters. Thankfully color film was soon invented.
Technicolor camera was three strips (color) films system. That is why we can see "Gone With the Wind" in color now. The Technicolor on 35mm films is considered the best color system until now.
Of course there was the time the BBC worked out how to get moving colour information from a black and white film...
...What you never heard of that?
Yeah, so because some of their black and white film recordings (for overseas sale in non-colour countries) of old PAL colour programs were so badly made, the individual pixels which made up the colour signal were photographed directly onto the film. Then the Colour Recovery Working Group figured out a method to convert those pixels back into a colour signal.
Sounds pointless?
Well no, because in the intervening years the colour master tapes were wiped of so many programmes, with just the black and white (but hidden colour) film remaining...
There's a dozen or so Doctor Who episodes out there on DVD these days that are in colour due solely to this method.
It's because composite video inherently has problems with color, so you'll see different colors produce different artifacts. Now Dr Who was mostly shot on tape, and the film stuff they did shoot was also transferred to tape for editing. The black and white tape copies they could find were made from the tape masters to poorer foreign markets where they'd still show TV using a direct telecine.
And Dad's Army too
It wasn't film. It was recovery of color from black and white videotape and it was due to imperfect filtering of the color carrier when they removed it for black and white video. If they had filmed a color signal, the artifacts would not appear.
Color images from satellites like Himawari are composed exactly this way. The multi spectral cameras use multiple filters for red, green, blue and many near and far infrared wavelengths. If they combine the 3 color channels were get a color image from the earth.
iirc somewhere on the net is a satellite photo that shows a jet with color fringing due to the multiple exposures required.
Almost all telescopes, both Earth-based and the ones in space, use monochrome sensors + filter wheels. It's the way it has always been done, and probably the way it will always be done. Monochrome image sensors are just superior in many ways. It's also easier to create very high-quality filters that are external, and you can put them in a filter wheel to have dozens of filters available, that can automatically be rotated around as required by the telescope.
These old photographs fascinate me. Then I called my brother to look at them and guess the age of the photo, and he was totally wrong, and wide-opened his eyes in surprise when I told him these are over 100 years old.
The first digital studio camera back for the Hasselblad worked this way, they were black and white and a rotating colour filter would change and 3 shots were taken. We assembled the final in photoshop with a plugin at the time
8:06 this image is extremely interesting, not only does it show tht this image is a composite of multiple pictures _but_ his process actually seems to be similar to the modern YCbCr. The girl pointed out with the arrow has clearly blue and yellow abberation. if you look at the girl in the front-right of her though you can clearly see a subtle red abberation. Even more the girl behind her with some massive red green abberation going on. this would mean that those pictures aren't made up of 3 pictures using RGB filter but of at least _4_ images using blue, yellow, magen / red and green filters. And I wouldn't be surprised if there was a 5th monochrome image involved for added contrast.
This would explain though, how he was able to render such crisp and vibrant colors.
"this would mean that those pictures aren't made up of 3 pictures using RGB filter but of at least 4 images..." No, you are seeing primary and secondary colors. If the person moves to a new position during the blue exposure (but not red and green) you see blue and yellow fringes. Similarly for red/cyan or green/magenta. If they take up three positions, you could see all six primaary and secondary colors, depending on how the light and dark parts of their clothing overlaps.
yeah, you're right^^ whatever made me think I need 2 exposures to get a 2-colored abberation x'D my bad. Previous point still stands though, I think that it's fairly similar to YCbCr plus probably a monochrome for contrast. In fact, the technicolor process reminds me alot of this
It looks yellow in areas, because the wrong colours are mixing
Amiga, Newtek, DigiDroid....1988. I still have it, the Amiga 1000, and the Panasonic staticon tube B&W security camera we used it with.
I went to a museum which was showing photos by Sergey Produkin-Gorsky, they were otherworldly, color photos from a totally different world!
If your filters are transparent to IR and UV you should take additional R+G and R+B pictures. This way you can compansate UV and IR without any additional filters. Red layer will be RG - G or RB - B, green layer will be RG - R and blue layer will be RB -R.
Not understanding your technique - do you suggest 5 different exposures - the two additional being through a Yellow filter (R+G) and a Magenta filter (R+B)??
That affect with objects moving makes me want to really try this out at some point, I can see myself really getting creative with that
Trying to get a teenager to stand still... That could be an entire video... Great job, I love the video!
The Heck is wrong with you? Get your shit together and get lost. At least before you get banned.
Fucking Hell man, God I hope you're just trolling. Not everyone can stand perfectly still, Autism has nothing to do with it
Doot the dooter I'm sure he was flailing wildly as he typed that out lol
Requim Dream 6:22 LOL WTF does clouds have autism in my day cloud stood still at all times now they move because wind?? lol something wrong with cloud clock tower can stand still just fine
Wouldn't the real challenge be taking good color photos with the gameboy camera? ;)
Would not have a high amount of colours or resolution.
If you wanted to see what it would look like, you could take your 3 black and white images taken with a camera and reduce it to 2bits per pixel, then apply the compose. Here is an article I found of someone using the GB camera to do the techniques in the video though: www.wired.com/2014/06/game-boy-camera-color/
People have actually tried that
The most challenging technical aspect in this video was to make a teenager stand perfectly still.
i can't help not being incomotaded that the rubik's cube in this guy's shirt is a impossible scramble, there's a corner with white and yellow for example
Security cameras are made to capture infrared light to provide black-and-white nighttime pictures. Many security cameras are manufactured with built-in IR projectors.
Just fyi, at least in the UK, 'glamour model' means someone who appears in photos you find in playboy.
Skellious oof
It's the same here - though plenty of people are not familiar with the term
I'm a glamour model for a Japanese magazine that specialises in long men hair, it's gross what some people will get into but money is money
Not even remotely the definition in North America.
Glamour implies the photography is erotic xD
Dude I did not know about those old colour pictures. Those look awesome.
(colorized)
Fascinating! I have a JVC 1980s pro video camera that got knocked down and from bumping, its colors are out of alignment--this concept there makes sense!
Fascinating pictoral results!! Has a very retro look!
With headphones, the intro is so rich with bass and shit. I love it 💓
1. Those indoor pics of Jordan would make cool album art.
2. You should take pics using just IR/UV and blocking out the regular spectrum
Thank you for mentioning Sergey Prokudin-Gorsky-although you pronounced his name not quite correctly ;)
I admire this guy and his work ever since I’ve seen his photographs the first time many years ago.
Btw: Most of his work you can find online today was digitally composed from the original black-and-white parts. Back in the days, such a perfect and flawless composition of all three components was not possible.
The most like minded TH-cam channel I have ever found.
Awesome :) Amazing that a colour photo can be made from 3 filtered black and white photos :)
This was big in early amiga digitizers some with a motor for automatic filter change
Can't believe that 8bit Guy didn't know about it! The DigiView had that auto filter wheel, as others have pointed out. And you got full NTSC (well, up to whatever your camera delivered) resolution, without Bayer filter losses.
5:12 okay, this is the method I need to use for the cover of my synthwave record.
Prokudin-Gorsky ahead of his time! Thank's! Спасибо! :)
Cctv cameras don't have IR for low light levels directly, they allow the use of IR lighting that humans won't notice but dramatically improves the cctv image.
FYI. This was exactly how the Digiview + digidroid worked on the Amiga. The digidroid was actually a cardboard plater with three color filters ( RGB ), which rotated in front of a monochromatic camera automatically via a small motor, for each take. High tech, at the time! :)
As a young kid, I thought the world was black and white before 1980.
I thought it was tinted brown
So glad to see ma boi Sergi get some love, digitized works are available from the Library of Congress (Amazing story of how they ended up there) though the Russian wiki also has a fantastic portal to his archived work.
What's amazing is that all of the indoor photos you captured look *exactly* like photos from the 70's and 80's. It's a super awesome way to get a natural "vintage" look to pictures with digital techniques.
I get excited everytime I see the 8-bit Guy in my notifications!
Same
And this make me to apreciate more film
And this is a way to save storage space, since black.and white photos take less memory space to store. Well, unless 3 separate photos taken with the filters still take less space than a color photo, considering that each photo taken with the filters is monochrome. That I have to check.
*Before watching:* Surely you just use RGB filters and mix the values in Photoshop?
*After:* Huh, I was right for once
no, you're not, he used gimp. ;)
Lol
Yes, I do. And don't call me Shirley.
@@minoanlight4545 ...
_LEGENDARY MEME_
The russian Guy probobly had some advantage. While His filters was probobly worse... He used the same filters to take the image as to view Them. This should give Close to perfekt color quality even with worse filters.
I would say this is a drawback with the computer composing
You would lose colorspace yes. But you would lose it at the exactly same way as its presented. So the pictures would be 100% accurate, but with less colorspace.
In the case in this video, he may have more colorspace, but the space is less accurate, so the color will be tilted.
If cause, you can compose it digitaly with the right colorspace and not just use RGB, its of cause doable, but a bit more technically advanced.
"You would lose colorspace yes. But you would lose it at the exactly same way as its presented. So the pictures would be 100% accurate, but with less colorspace."
No, if the color filters are wide (desaturated colors), they reduce the difference between the primary images, thus reducing color saturation, and then reduce it again when they are used as the projector primary colors. Before the advent of electronic imaging, which allows electrical matrixing to correct saturation, color film used narrow sensitivity curves to get maximum difference between the primaries on non-neutral objects, and compensate for the less than perfect saturation of the print dyes. Color process (magazine printing) used photographic "masks" to subtract some of one primary from the others and thus increase the difference (saturation) and skew the hue towards correct values. For example, most magenta printing inks absorbed too much blue, and this had to be compensated. Eventually analog computers were developed to make these corrections for the major printing companies (think LIFE and Time magazines). Today, compensation is much more sophisticated, by using digital "profiles" to correct the saturation and hue.
You are wrong on several parts. While you are technicaly corect about desaturasation.
The issue is that humans eye don´t quite see 3 colors. It see more of 2,7.-2,8 colors. But the overlap is not exactly the same as the RGB spectrum. Having a smoth overlap does increase the transfer from the real world to the eye much better than having a sharp overlap.
", color film used narrow sensitivity curves to get maximum difference between the primaries on non-neutral objects"
You clearly don´t understand how this color images are made, and you totaly missed the point that i was making
I really don't know why I watch your videos... but I'm never disappointed.
Images look so vintage, beautiful
Those 110 year old photos look better than my phone's camera.
If you interested in Prokudin-Gorsky story you can watch russian documentary (with english subtitles) on vimeo. It's called Russia in Bloom. (Tsvet Natsii)
Cool seeing my town of Ft Worth thru the lense of my favorite TH-camr
The lack of deinterlacing on the B/W video hurts my soul.
Can you explain in some words what is the deinterlacing mode?
@@napomania Getting rid of interlacing: removal or repair of every even or odd horizontal line by stretching, or interpolating.
@@napomania basically back in the days they don't have enough bandwidth on TVs because of the limited technology, so to compensate for that, they had to cut the frame of a video in two parts and then send it that way and alternate between the two parts, now CRTs hides most of the flicker because they can refresh really fast, but modern LCDs work by refreshing the screen for a whole frame instead of shooting electrons to each pixel on the screen so you can actually see the fields alternating which causes a lot of flicker.
Deinterlacing means combining those 2 cut up frames (called a field) into one frame.
That intro will never get old
that video was very interesting to get into the basic technical concepts of color imaging and problems with infrared light interferences. I got it! Thumbs up 👍
Using a hires B/W camera is done in Astronomy with filters.
"Hires" as in _high-resolution_ not "hires" as in _employs_ .
I'm old 'n slow. Took me a second to figure out what you meant. Maybe "hi-res"?
Wait could you do this with the game boy camera? (Although extremely low res I think it’s black and white and shows enough detail, right?)
You can do that.
Interestingly this method of colour photography is still more or less the de-facto standard in astronomy, both Earth-based as well as space telescopes like Hubble, and also for an overwhelming amount of scientific and medical imaging, this is still the way it's done.
Technically *all* digital image sensors are monochrome, there's no such thing as a digital colour sensor. "Colour" sensors are really just monochrome sensors with a checkerboard of RGB filters literally glued onto the sensor pixel wells, it's called a Bayer array, which is then processed by the camera processor to do what you did in this video basically. And yes, that means the pixel resolution of a colour image sensor is divided into at least 3 different colours, but thanks to math and algorithm magic, you still get a useable resolution that is very close to the "spec sheet" resolution.
Anyhow, the preference for monochrome sensors is due to them usually being a lot more sensitive to light, and depending on various other factors and requirements, there are many other benefits to monochrome sensors as well. Furthermore, since a "naked" sensor will just capture ALL the light it sees, it means you are not only limited to Red, Green and Blue, but also UV, IR, and even specific single wavelengths of light of interest (H-α spectral lines are a favourite in astronomy for example). Most telescopes, both amateur and big huge scientific telescopes, as well as space telescopes, have filter wheels. These filter wheels can accept basically any combination of filters that you desire, and, as the name suggests, it's a wheel that can just rotate the filter you want into place, and off you go. You can then combine all this raw data in any way you want, including creating natural colour photographs of things. Or, composing photographs that are based on non-human-visible colours such as UV and far-Infrared, or whatever absorption/emission spectral lines you want really, into something that we can view and comprehend. Sadly the latter usually gets misunderstood by the general public, and you end up with misinformation along the lines of "those beautiful Hubble pictures of galaxies and nebulas are fake colours" ... Well, not true, it's just not literally RGB filters, it's a combination of dozens of spectra, mapped onto a human-visible spectrum. Just because our crappy human eyes can't see those wavelengths of light doesn't mean they are not there.
Anyway, just thought that might be an interesting extra bit on top of what you showed in this video. It's a straightforward and neat technique, and it's fascinating that it is just as useful today as it was over 100 years ago, and likely it will be just as relevant 100 years from now.
Thanks for the excellent explanation. I too dislike all the "fakery" shouts when Hubble pics are displayed. Yes indeed, those nebulae and galaxies look like that... if our eyes could deal with IR and UV. Even X and u-waves.
I remember when you showed this off with the Connectix Quickcam! Super cool idea and I've used it myself a few times and get some cool results!
Also, man you had already renamed yourself in 2016? (I just went and looked, apparently I've been watching for 3 years! My first video was the USB raid array and remember the keyboard restorations afterward). I'm happy you're still making great content and releasing it for free. Thank you!
Those photos from early 1900s were very sharp for its age 😶
6:15 is such an interesting picture. The subject came out great, it's got that grainy 70's home video look (the shorts help even more!), and the filter flares occur in a way that really adds to the picture. Very nice.
Cool, I love the look it gives that camera. Could totally create some retro-style videos this way.