• Open Menu Close Menu
  • Apple
  • Shopping Bag
  • Apple
  • Mac
  • iPad
  • iPhone
  • Watch
  • TV
  • Music
  • Support
  • Search apple.com
  • Shopping Bag

Lists

Open Menu Close Menu
  • Terms and Conditions
  • Lists hosted on this site
  • Email the Postmaster
  • Tips for posting to public mailing lists
Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow


  • Subject: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
  • From: "Martin [apple account]" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Sun, 05 Aug 2001 10:46:38 +0100

on Fri, 3 Aug 2001 10:31:40 -0700, email@hidden (Bruce Fraser) wrote:

> Images that tend to posterize during color conversion (gradients,
> skies, etc.) tend to do so much less when you do the conversion at
> 16-bits/channel.

In theory yes, but do you have any examples that you can show others?

> Color neg absolutely needs 16 bits, IMHO. It captures a much wider
> dynamic range from the scene than does transparency film, and you
> need the extra bits to do the necessary tonal shaping and compression.

That is/was my belief also.

However, I have a bug in my scanning software that means that I have two
choices when scanning negative:

1. Scan in 16 bit mode (genuine 14bit) of the raw negative and then have to
invert and do colour work in Photoshop

2. Scan in 8 bit and be able to carry out inversion and colour manipulation
during scanning -- resulting in clean 8 bit positive image

So, in the belief that I am short changing my clients by not scanning negs
in 16 bit mode, I scan lots of image in twice and compare the results.

What do I find? Bugger all difference.

Now, it may just be that I don't have big enough range of source negs to
work with -- all the photographers that supply negs to us are mostly
shooting on 5x4 inch or sometimes 6x7 cm.

If you have a sample image that was scanned in 16 bit and then transformed
in such a way that an 8 bit version of the original would give noticeably
inferior final results -- show me!

> The other reason I use 16 bits is that my film is precious and
> fragile. I only want to expose it to the rigors of scanning once, and
> when I do so, I want to make sure that I've captured everything the
> scanner can pull off the film.

That's why I prefer using flatbeds for all but the most difficult images.
The sound of an oil-mounted transparency coming loose from a drum at 250 rpm
is most unpleasant!

--
Martin
Idea Digital Imaging Ltd - the "image" specialists
http://www.idea-digital.com


  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
      • From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
  • Prev by Date: Re: ICC in PDF / iQueue
  • Next by Date: Re: Conversion Steps/PRO/Observations
  • Previous by thread: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
  • Next by thread: Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit workflow
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread