>>3521097>You're sperging over technicialities and call me a retard while misstaking me, who's only talking about composition.
You were talking about instagram filters right before you said "that's why black and white isn't bad" what do you expect? >Btw I think you're overestimating b&w sensors, even for snr, as the theoretical advantages are often diminished by aging technology.
Sensor technology hasn't changed much in forever and likely never will We do not capture colors directly, instead we capture light intensity values with sensors. "Color" sensors are literally "black and white" (technically greyscale, but whatever) sensors with a filter in between. For every four pixels in a 2x2 grid only one captures red light, one captures blue light, and two diagonally capture green light. Software reads and converts this checkerboard of intensity values back into interpolated color detail borrowing most luminance from the greens. This is a net loss in quality compared to all four of them capturing light intensity from the entire spectrum evenly distributed with no interpolation involved. It was relevant even back during the film era where black and white film could capture more detail.
There's no way for the core of this technology to ever be obsolete with a complete overhaul in how we capture light. I see no such solution. super high end sensors and imaging devices simply work around the issue as they see fit. Consumer cameras will slowly just get better as megapixels go up, but b&w will stay sharpest.>Also even with b&w you don't know whether the viewers monile is at the brightest or lowest brightness or night color shift.
This can throw colors out the window but this is almost never an issue when it comes to displaying greyscale images. If the color temp goes up or down according to flux or whatever the black and white detail won't be affected much at all. Contrast may be reduced but it's still way better than a color photo with the colors all fucked up.