Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
- Subject: Re: 8 bit vs. more bits
- From: Roger Breton <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 08:54:49 -0400
> Photos aren't usually
> the acid test for high bit depths, although I've taken a few
> photographs where you can see the stairsteps in the sky at 8 bits of
> precision.
>
> Robert Krawitz
So, could we made some generalizations about WHEN is 8 bit enough and WHEN
16 bit is too much?
It seems to me from reading all the arguments presented by everyone, that it
is moot to try to establish 8 bit or 16 bit as absolutes. Bruce works in 16
bits whereas Dan works in 8 bits. Jim also like working in 8 bits. Mark like
16 bits. Jon is in favor of 16 bits and so is Ray. I think the *better*
point would be not to adamantly stick to one or the other but open up to a
"pluralistic" approach, some people like 8 bits for all their reasons while
some other prefer for all their reasons. In both camps the arguments
presentable are defendable, it seems. But what I'm slowly gathering is that
bit depths should not be discussed as absolutes but as "situation" or
application-specific. I tend to agree with Robert, above, and his sky
example, because I met my share of gradation problems that have not always
ended happily. With restrospect and based on the recent arguments presented
by many, it seems to me when the subject matter is characterized by rapid
transitionning of tones, lots of alternating dark and medium and light
shades, low bit depth is sufficient to accurately represent the scene, but
when the transitionning is more subtle, as in Robert's example of a sky,
then having more bits to discretely map all that smooth transitionning is
more important.
Roger Breton | Laval, Canada | email@hidden
http://pages.infinit.net/graxx
_______________________________________________
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