Re: 8 verses 16 bit

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <3C83D5CC.ABF520F6@uci.edu>, David Chien <chiendh@uci.edu> 
writes

>You can get a great picture with just
>8-bits even (which is what most people use and have), but after than
>point, you'll need more.
>
>  But for sure, 24-bits is fine, even with me.

David, you seem to be confusing the number of bits per channel (red, 
green OR blue) and the total number of bits used for all channels (red, 
green AND blue).

You certainly cannot get anything remotely like a great picture with 
only 8 bits per pixel - even a carefully selected palette results in a 
significant loss if information in most images.  Neither is this what 
most people use.

You can get a great image with 8 bits per channel, which IS what most 
people use - and is exactly the same as 24 bits per pixel.

So, on the one hand you are saying that 8-bits per channel is 
inadequate, but that you are happy with 24-bits per pixel - which is it, 
happy or unhappy?

Or are you suggesting that you want 24-bits per channel?

The subject line of the thread is referring to the number of bits per 
channel, 8 or 16, resulting in a total of either 24 or 48 bits total per 
pixel.
-- 
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers
-
Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate
subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.