In its most raw form, camera sensors only see illumination not color.

In front of the sensor is a bayer filter which results in each physical pixel seeing illumination filtered R G or B.

From there the software onboard the camera or in your RAW converter does interpolation to create RGB values at each pixel. For example if the local pixel is R filtered, it then interpolates its G & B values from nearby pixels of that filter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer_filter

There are alternatives such as what Fuji does with its X-trans sensor filter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujifilm_X-Trans_sensor

Another alternative is Foveon (owned by Sigma now) which makes full color pixel sensors but they have not kept up with state of the art.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor

This is also why Leica B&W sensor cameras have higher apparently sharpness & ISO sensitivity than the related color sensor models because there is no filter in front or software interpolation happening.

▲

XCSme a day ago | parent | next [-]

What about taking 3 photos while quickly changing the filter (e.g. filters are something like quantum dots that can be turned on/off)?

▲

lidavidm a day ago | parent | next [-]

Olympus and other cameras can do this with "pixel shift": it uses the stabilization mechanism to quickly move the sensor by 1 pixel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_shift

EDIT: Sigma also has "Foveon" sensors that do not have the filter and instead stacks multiple sensors (for different wavelengths) at each pixel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foveon_X3_sensor

▲

itishappy a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> What about taking 3 photos while quickly changing the filter

Works great. Most astro shots are taken using a monochrome sensor and filter wheel.

> filters are something like quantum dots that can be turned on/off

If anyone has this tech, plz let me know! Maybe an etalon?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabry%E2%80%93P%C3%A9rot_inter...

▲

XCSme a day ago | parent [-]

> If anyone has this tech, plz let me know!

I have no idea, it was my first thought when I thought of modern color filters.

▲

card_zero a day ago | parent [-]

That's how the earliest color photography worked. "Making color separations by reloading the camera and changing the filter between exposures was inconvenient", notes Wikipedia.

	▲	to11mtm a day ago \| parent [-]
		I think they are both more asking about 'per pixel color filters'; that is, something like a sensor filter/glass but the color separators could change (at least 'per-line') fast enough to get a proper readout of the color in formation. AKA imagine a camera with R/G/B filters being quickly rotated out for 3 exposures, then imagine it again but the technology is integrated right into the sensor (and, ideally, the sensor and switching mechanism is fast enough to read out with rolling shutter competitive with modern ILCs)

▲

MarkusWandel a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Works for static images, but if there's motion the "changing the filters" part is never fast enough, there will always be colour fringing somewhere.

Edit or maybe it does work? I've watched at least one movie on a DLP type video projector with sequential colour and not noticed colour fringing. But still photos have much higher demand here.

▲

numpad0 21 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

You can use sets of exotic mirrors and/or prisms to split incoming images into separate RGB beams into three independent monochrome sensors, through the same singular lens and all at once. That's what "3CCD" cameras and their predecessors did.

▲

stefan_ a day ago | parent | prev [-]

B&W sensors are generally more sensitive than their color versions, as all filters (going back to signal processing..) attenuate the signal.