|[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]|
In article <3C840108.B37A7E04@uci.edu>, David Chien <email@example.com> writes > > I prefer 16-32 bits per channel RGB, with a total of 48-96-bits total >when you add up all three, but even something like 12-bits per channel >with a total of 36bits is better than just 8-bits. Would you mind pointing any of us to ANY electro-optical imaging sensor which actually is capable of producing 16-32 bits per channel? Real bits, please, not a lower 3 or 4 bits of noise - we don't want to degenerate this to "why doesn't the Nikon scanner range achieve its 4.2 dynamic range specification"! I asked yesterday but you haven't produced any info. Similarly with the "human vision studies" that you cited. Without raw data with a dynamic range which exceeds 16 bits per channel there is absolutely NO REASON WHATSOEVER for any software package to provide more than that depth of processing. Without a visual system that is capable of distinguishing more than 8-bits per channel there is NO REASON to increase output dynamic range beyond that. What can be, and is, discussed is where the transition from hi to low dynamic range optimally occurs in any given workflow. There may well be reasons for increasing the functionality of PS operations to 16bits per channel - as has been discussed many times - but, so far, anything other than the minimum of what you are asking for has not been justified. I am interested in reading solid justifications for more than 16 bits, because the arguments that have been presented to date on this thread simply don't stand up to any level of examination. -- 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.