Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
- Subject: Re: Colorsync-users Digest, Vol 2, Issue 150
- From: Larry Wangelin <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 15 Apr 2005 15:24:10 -0500
On Friday, April 15, 2005, at 02:04 PM,
email@hidden wrote:
I am one of those people that has taken say 30 images. Half of them
were 8
bit and the other half were 16 bits. I then whacked the pixels by
making
large tone and color corrections over 25 times per image using
Photoshop. I
then printed the images.
IMHO to do this test correctly you needed to have all 30 images in both
8 and 16 bit. Each image should have the same amount of whacking to the
pixels for each instance. Then printed for a side by side comparison.
Easy to batch process the lot of them for accuracy.
Then I asked a group of experts (over 30 people) to tell me which
images
were 8 bit and which ones were 16 bits. This test showed they were
right
about 50% of the time. This illustrated that the experts were guessing
and
they could not clearly say that image a, b or c was 8 or 16 bits. .
Maybe they were guessing, maybe they weren't experts? Who really knows?
I just think that the testing methodology needs to be improved.
This is very hard evidence that the current 8 bit image processing
technology is very good when the experts can't see the difference
on the
final prints between 8 and 16 bit files.
This is a leap of faith I am not willing to buy into.
Larry
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden