|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
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.