• 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: 16-bit vs 8-bit images
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 16-bit vs 8-bit images


  • Subject: Re: 16-bit vs 8-bit images
  • From: Todd Flashner <email@hidden>
  • Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 02:38:44 -0500

on 2/11/02 10:19 PM, Marco Ugolini wrote:

> We know that very rarely we end up using images without making any
> modifications to them, sometime quite extensive; so, given the SAME image
> scanned in 8 bits and in 16 bits with the SAME scanner (if it allows for
> 16-bit scans), which of the two scans can be altered more radically before
> visible image deterioration occurs? That, to me, seems the question to be
> asked, one based in real-life production scenarios, which are the ones I
> face in my work every day.

Snip

> Besides the difficulty of
> establishing how truly "16-bit" our images are, the other substantial
> problem to be overcome, for the time being, is that Photoshop's support of
> 16-bit workflow is still scant, although better than in the past. But the
> day that editing truly 16-bit images in Photoshop is made as easy and
> far-ranging as in 8 bits, do we doubt that professional work will be done in
> 16 bits?

Hi Marco

I think you've succinctly captured the 16-bit vs 8-bit scenario, but I see
the question a little bit differently. As you've stated, there's no doubt
that 16-bits of data gives you more room to maneuver without visible
detriment, and you've stated that in the future, when PS fully supports
16-bit data with all the tools we need, there'll be little reason not to use
16-bit data.

But in the meantime we are faced with the middle difference, the production
environment where highbit images are twice the size of 8-bit, and some
factor (2x, 4x?) more cumbersome/less flexible to manipulate than 8-bit
images, so when is the the extra effort and resources a highbit workflow
entails worthwhile, and when does the size, speed, convenience, and
flexibility, of 8-bit mode justify itself?

So often the bit depth conversation is discussed in absolute terms, as
though one mode is better than another, when I think the question is what
types of data, images, workflows, outputs, etc., justify the use of one mode
over the other.

Good seeing you here,
Todd Flashner
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: 16-bit vs 8-bit images
      • From: email@hidden (Bruce Fraser)
References: 
 >16-bit vs 8-bit images (From: Marco Ugolini <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: optical startup
  • Next by Date: Getting raw output on a Scanmate 11000
  • Previous by thread: 16-bit vs 8-bit images
  • Next by thread: Re: 16-bit vs 8-bit images
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread