BruceLindbloom's 16bit PS observations OT
BruceLindbloom's 16bit PS observations OT
- Subject: BruceLindbloom's 16bit PS observations OT
- From: Brett Baunton Imagery <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 12:25:55 -0800
email@hidden writes:
>
The reason I originally made the images came from a very frustrating and
>
futile exchange I had with Dan Margulis on his Color Theory list last
>
summer.
C. David Tobie writes:
>
My doctor has banned me from the ColorTheory list due to its effects on my
>
blood pressure and mental health.
Agreed.
Good work Bruce. It leaves me wondering about the same things again 16vs8bit.
I saw the Margalis "Challenge" where he said no one could prove that 16bit
images look any better than 8 bit images. Did anyone take him up on that? I
hate to start this again, but now I am really confused. I was believing
that scanning into a 16bit space for raw scans and archiving purposes was
the way to go. Now after seeing Bruce Lindbloom's info on PS6 use of 16bit
(not truly 16 full bits & noise) I'm left wondering again what is the best
scenario for real world printing today and archiving for tomorrow.
The info he puts forth suggests that a 16bit to 8bit conversion in PS
introduces noise. If so, and we need to get to 8 bit for press why waste
the effort of the larger color space and filesize at the cost of image
degradation? He also beleives that profile conversions introduce noise. In
PS6 we are still not seeing enough tools available to do the final work in
16bit. So for masking, dodging, burning etc. we need to convert to 16bit.
Is this introduction of noise something like rounding errors or? Maybe that
is why when we try to rotate an image in 16bit and resave the image grows.
It grows alot when we try the LZW compression on it. Mr. Knoll himself
explained it to me here but I still can't wrap my brain around it. We have
been hearing both sides to this debate. Some experts say we can get more
from an image in 16 bit.
Others say it introduces posterization and or banding by using one of the
large gamut spaces. I'm not trying to start the Mac PC kind of debate.
We all want the best of our images whatever the way.
The variations in the info leaves me more confused, not less.
Anyone care to state their experience or opinions?
Feel free to email me off list.
Brett Baunton