• 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 Printing
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: 16-bit Printing


  • Subject: Re: 16-bit Printing
  • From: "Roy Harrington" <email@hidden>
  • Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:18:44 -0800

I decided to look into this a while back.   A major issue in this is
how you (i.e.
the program) converts from 16-bit to 8-bit.  Photoshop and the CMSs dither
the 8-bit values to more accurately represent the 16-bit input.  In other words
a 16-bit value that lies between say 127 and 128 is not just truncated
to 127 but
instead has a mix of 127 and 128 valued pixels.   Anyway if the values are
dithered it's OK to send just 8-bits but if they are truncated you can
potentially see
steps.  Sometimes it's possible to see steps on a high quality monitor because
this dithering is not usually done on displays.

I think this makes sense because for the current inkjet printers there
is a lot of
dithering needed to represent many levels -- Epsons have at most 3 drop sizes.
Breaking the dithering into two stages does not cause any harm.

I did some tests that showed that 8-bits was enough.  In fact I was
unable to tell
any difference with as few as 6-bits.  If you are interested I wrote a brief
description of the tests I did:    http://harrington.com/bitinfo.html

Roy


On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Fleisher, Ken <email@hidden> wrote:
> The benefits of editing in a 16-bit/channel image vs. an 8-bit/channel image
> are clear, but I have a question about printing a 16-bit/channel image. Some
> new printers with larger color gamuts are now becoming available and the
> ability to transmit a full 16-bit/channel image to the printer is now
> possible. The usual claim is that with the larger color gamut, you can get
> smoother gradients with the 16-bit print path vs. an 8-bit, or even 12-bit,
> print path.
>
> I have not seen any results from one of these printers that can accept a
> full 16-bits/channel and I¹m wondering if those of you who have experience
> with them, can you describe what you have seen? Do you feel there is any
> real benefit to printing a full 16-bit image? Can you actually ³see² a
> difference? If so, is it a significant difference?
>
> I¹m skeptical that there a real need for sending a full 16-bits/channel to
> the printer, so I am looking forward to the discussion to come!
>
> Thanks.
>
> --
> Ken Fleisher
>
> Photographer
> Imaging & Visual Services
> National Gallery of Art
> Washington, D.C.
>
> Phone: (202) 712-7471
> email@hidden
>
>  _______________________________________________
> 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
>
 _______________________________________________
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

  • Follow-Ups:
    • Re: 16-bit Printing
      • From: Andrew Rodney <email@hidden>
    • Re: 16-bit Printing
      • From: Scott Martin <email@hidden>
References: 
 >16-bit Printing (From: "Fleisher, Ken" <email@hidden>)

  • Prev by Date: Re: 16-bit Printing (Fleisher, Ken)
  • Next by Date: RE: PANTONE pallets and ColorPicker
  • Previous by thread: Re: 16-bit Printing
  • Next by thread: Re: 16-bit Printing
  • Index(es):
    • Date
    • Thread