Re: 8 verses 16 bit

[rafeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

On 3 Mar 2002 at 0:59, Hersch Nitikman wrote:

> Let's accept that a healthy human eye, and the brain that processes its 
> input are capable of distinguishing more shades than 8bitsx3colors can 
> produce. There are essentially 2 classes of viewing systems for our images:
> Transmitted light, a good example being a good monitor of some kind.
> A print, reflecting the image in the presence of illumination.
> To the best of my understanding, neither a color print, (whether chemical 
> or inkjet) nor a monitor, whether CRT or LCD (or plasma display) have a 
> gamut that exceeds the 8-bit image. If this is so, then the best/only(?) 
> reason for going to 16 bits per primary color is to have spare pixels to 
> maintain the quality of the image through the editing/optimization process, 
> before dropping down to 8 bits for display. Am I wrong in this? If so, I'm 
> sure I'm not the only one who'd like to know wherein.
> Hersch


I'm with you, Hersch.  I think David's analysis is full of holes.
And I do agree that 16-bits does give you more "headroom" 
to manipulate colors in your file, before grevious harm sets in.

As I recall, David also has claimed that Epson prints benefit 
from resolutions up to 600 dpi, and that he can see the 
improvements at those resolutions.


rafe b.

-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.