|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
Russell Williams wrote: > > I disagree. Photoshop's behavior is deliberate and preferable for almost > all uses, most especially for converting photographic scans from 16->8 bits > after adjustments and before printing. > > What Photoshop does is add 1/2 lsb (least significant bit) of noise when > converting from 16->8 bits. This is the correct thing to do both > mathematically and in terms of best image quality. If you don't do this, a > smooth gradient in 16 bit will band when converted to 8 bits. Other > programs may or may not do this. If they don't do noise dithering, your > results won't be "cleaner". Rather, they'll be more likely to show banding > -- some images will look subtly worse. Is this like Microsoft overriding your colorspace or profile? I would like the option myself, thank you very much! Thank God I'm still using Photoshop 3.05 and didn't waste any money to upgrade to PS5 for its "16" bit features. This feature may be good for artsy stuff, but not for scientific or engineering applications of Photoshop. I'll have to go back and check NIH Image's 16bit import routines. Michael Greer!, how do your Photoshop alternatives deal with 16 to 8 bit (per channel) conversions? --Ben Haskell, slightly Peeved at Russell Williams and Adobe, but I'll get over it and will soon look forward to RW's posts... -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Please: Stay on topic. Trim quoted messages. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.
[Photo] [Yosemite News] [Yosemite Photos] [Scanner] [Gimp] [Gimp] Users