An innocent post from someone fairly new, in the CCD forum, about whether L was necessary led me to look at a disagreement among the best imagers and best thinkers about imaging (which I was somewhat aware of) more closely. I'll paraphrase the main positions, Jon can correct me if I've got his wrong.
Note that this assumes a mono camera, and either 3 filters or 4. No narrowband or light pollution filters, either.
LRGB is (maybe with exceptions) fundamentally a better way of gathering data. It is (almost?) always superior to RGB. Jon Rista
RGB is fundamentally a better way of gathering data. While LRGB can get you a good image in less time, it's a shortcut and there's a ceiling for quality. If you're willing to be less efficient with imaging time, RGB can break through that ceiling. It's the method to use when ultimate quality is the goal. Juan Conejero (author and developer of PI), almost certainly others.
freestar8n appears to just like RGB better, period.
Note that considering time efficiency as a value blurs the debate. For those of us in the less rarified world, that can trump everything. So please do not consider it in this thread. Start your own. The same applies to adding narrowband filters to the mix. Or using a light pollution filter instead of a simple UV-IR block for L. Keep it simple and fundamental, that's complicated enough.
Is LRGB fundamentally better for quality, or is RGB fundamentally better for quality, assuming you're willing to be less efficient with time?
Here's the original thread, but my posts were just not this crisp, I floundered some.
Edited by bobzeq25, 27 April 2017 - 10:35 AM.