Re: Bruce and Dan are both right: was: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
Re: Bruce and Dan are both right: was: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
- Subject: Re: Bruce and Dan are both right: was: 16 bits = 15 bits in Photoshop?
- From: "email@hidden" <email@hidden>
- Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2005 20:43:19 -0400
I might be picky, but noise usually means amplification of a non-image
data electronic signal. We often see this manifested as blue artifacts
in the shadow end of an image.
Dither is an algorithm which blends color data between two or more
points to interpolate data into a new intermediate point.
I don't quite see how defining a scan or digital camera original fits
into the second scenario, except in discreet edits.
As described in a previous post, 8 bit scans offer a full 8 bits of
integrity (provided that the end points are properly selected), whereas
(as pointed out by Bruce in one of his posts) digital camera files are
grayscale images with a Bayer or other transform, synthesizing the
"look" of a scan. The 8 bit color data in a single shot digital camera
files is never equal to that of a correctly produced 8 bit scan.
Therefore 16 bits of digital camera data is significantly more accurate
than an 8 bit file processed within the dcam and saved to TIFF or JPEG.
Ray, can you please describe again how clean vs dirty image data plays
out in the 8 vs 16 bit discussion?
- Jon
GrafixGear
8 West Glen Avenue
Ridgewood, NJ 07450
(201) 447-1510
email@hidden
http://www.GrafixGear.Com
On Apr 17, 2005, at 8:05 PM, Ray Maxwell wrote:
Now repeat this same experiment except that when you make the vignette
make sure you turn the dither ON. This introduces noise into the
vignette.
Now you will get smooth vignettes in both 8 or 16 bit files.
_______________________________________________
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