What filter did you have installed? For instance, if you chose 590nm, you can add any filter with a longer wave length, and will act as a camera that new longer wave length. Example, if you have a 590nm conversion, you can add a 636nm, or a 720nm, or even an 850nm.

But it doesn't work the other way. If you have a 720nm, you can't add a 590nm.

I prefer to have these in general photography as it shows us what is trying to be passed off as real photography. Put it somewhere else and I would never know about it.

And the agree that this result is really poor.

Actually, each photosite only has a luminance value. It is only luminance values that are read during the sensor readout. During Demosaicing, the process knows what color filter is over each photosite and then mathematically determines a Red, a Green and a Blue value for each pixel in the output file by averaging some number of photosites together, where it only averages red sites, then only green sites and then only blue sites..

Please note that the Demosaicing process follows rules and is determined by the camera manufacturer and may vary from one model to another model. And it may vary between different Software suppliers. In fact, RawTherapee provides about 10 different Demosaicing algorithms to choose between.

Also, when a new camera is released, the camera manufacturer is responsible for releasing Demosaicing rules for the Software manufacturers to follow. This is why you see a new camera work in JPEG only at first, and then later, RAW files can be used after the manufacture releases the rules and the Software people incorporate it into their product.

This means that demosaicing is also not an exact science. Colors may vary from one process to another process.

Also, fine detail can be impacted too when Demosaicing uses a greater number of pixels to average to get better color. This is a trade off that has to be considered by the manufacturer. Also considered is how it senses edges since the averaging may have to be adjusted. The process is not simple.

We've come a long ways from when I was young that first generation transistor radios used to advertize how many transistors they used. Usually 6 or 7.

I stand corrected. This site even mentions transistor radios using only 2 transistors. I had my first transistor radio in the 50's (probably 1958 when I discovered baseball cards) when my favorite baseball team was the Pittsburgh Pirates and I would lay in bed at night listening real quietly when my team would take road trips out to LA and San Francisco for which the night games were way past my bed time. And I remember all the horrible night time static on AM radio during those summer nights. There was always a storm somewhere close enough to supply the static noise.
https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/guest-column-collecting-vintage-transistor-radios-of-the-1950s-and-60s/

No one ever asks such questions now.

A single pixel is just a value. A value that represents how many photons it has captured. That single pixel has to be converted from a voltage into a digital value of that voltage, plus any adjustments that the manufacturer had predetermined through the use of an ADC then mathematics. At this point, that single pixel doesn't yet represent any color. This comes later when demosaicing is used to mathematically determine a RGB value for every pixel which can done in-camera (JPG) or in post processing (RAW). This process takes into account the knowledge of what color filter is above each pixel.

I find that I like my B&W results using a 590nm filter more than I do using 720nm or 830nm. The beauty of B&W comes from great tonality, meaning shades of gray. Since the 590nm allows more visible light to pass, there are more shades of gray in the result.

But you can always add a 720nm or 830nm externally when wanted.

I don't have a big sensor camera with the Sony A7iii being only 24Mpixels and it normally takes my computer about 6 sec to process.

When buying a computer, I looked at only fast gaming computers and wasn't disappointed.

Part of the problem I encounter is that many times I don't even like the sharpened result. Especially when I magnify it. Some images sharpen up nicely. Others don't.

But my PC is quite fast, and it doesn't take long to find out.

I just read a review on this product and it sounds really good. But the person doing the review cautioned about effects of vibration. Perhaps hang a weight under the tripod with some of the weight on the ground so it doesn't swing.

Be sure to post some images. It builds stacked images which go to your phone. It communicates with the phone via Wi-Fi, plus the phone needs internet access thru phone access.

No Brian, the photographers who buy this camera aren't spending $6K for bragging rights. But some photographers are involved in activities where this speed will give them a tremendous edge. And they know as well as everyone else that this is not a general purpose camera. And most, if not all of those photographers, do have other cameras that are more general purpose.

The A9III is a specialized tool, and it can do things more generalized tools can never do. And you can be assured that those who need this tool will know when they need to use this tool.

Maybe someday, the costs for Global Shutter will come down, and hopefully, the weaknesses we see with it now will be ironed out, and some of us hobbyists will have a chance to play too. But that day may yet be a long ways out. Meanwhile, there will be professional photographers using this camera and I do expect to see a major jump in quality of the sports images that I see published, as well as in other fields where speed is everything.

The A9III is a good start for Global Shutter. It only takes a small core of dedicated users to show everyone why this is a good start.

Also, even Sony had previously remarked that they wouldn't release a camera like this until they had improved the known limitations of using Global Shutter. It is not yet clear to us just what they were able to improve, but I am guess we will be finding out the extent of their improvements that managed to get this amazing camera into production. Sony will want to make sure that certain secrets remain secrets since they do not want to help their competitors, but I do expect them to give us some idea of what was overcome.

A new review of the A9III is currently underway at dpreview.com. See: https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/sony-a9-iii-review-in-progress

And here is a paragraph of what they had to say about image quality:

"We've looked at the a9 III's image quality and have found that its performance is up to a stop behind those of contemporary full-frame cameras. Essentially the halving of the photodiode size halves the amount of light the sensor can tolerate. This raises the base ISO, limiting the maximum image quality the camera can deliver (ie: comparing base ISO to base ISO).

The added complexity of the sensor's design also means that it isn't able to offer a second low-noise readout path as has become common in dual conversion gain sensors that dominate the market. This sees up to a stop noise penalty, relative to its full-frame peers.

All of that said, a lot of sports shooting doesn't necessarily happen at ISO 100, so being limited to ISO 250 or higher needn't be a major issue. Likewise, even a one-stop increase in noise at high ISO isn't likely to be a deal-breaking difference, especially if the a9 III's global shutter and incredibly rapid burst rates mean that it can get a shot that its rivals simply miss.

So, while the a9 III's sensor tech may not make as much sense in other cameras, for the high-speed users it's designed for, these aren't necessarily a significant drawback."

The severe problems are only problems to those who deem them to be.

The A9III has a base ISO of 250. It is not going to compete with the other camera offerings in the area of noise and dynamic range. Where it will excel is areas that speed is paramount such as sports, or where ridiculous firing speeds are needed for the flash. It is a niche product, and for those that need what it does, it will be fine. And we do not yet even know how bad it really is. All we have seen is a preproduction release without even RAW capability. Soon we will know more.

But this is not the camera for everyone. It is not a general purpose camera.

It is true that global shutter has been around for quite some time. But mainly in industrial applications. The weaknesses have been visible for all to see. But this is the first for a camera of this type. Sony has broken the ice, and many are now aware of Global Shutter. This is good. We may not soon see another Global Shutter camera since certain things do need to be improved. But some of the best sensor engineers in the world will be all over this. It is likely that some breakthroughs will happen.

Nikon has managed to greatly reduce the sensor read time and they have a very good product. But it is not Global Shutter, thus has restrictions in things it can do compared to what the Sony can do.

The global shutter has been in the works for a long time. We all knew what had to be overcome. Sony managed to get it close to acceptable and produced a niche type product to satisfy the needs of a few that need the strong points that it brings while at the same time, exposing everyone to what it eventually will be able to bring once more refinements are perfected. "Global Shutter" is now in everyone's vocabulary. At some point, it won't cost so much and won't have certain penalties.

Sony achieved what they wanted to happen. Everyone will be watching future products for the next iteration.

And those few who needed this capability now will start showing off what they are able to do with it keeping interest alive.

It will be interesting when the released product is shipping and it has RAW capability because the reviews will start. I look forward to reading those reviews.

I should add that focus stacking would be useful to handle Honey Locust Thorns.