Re: 8 verses 16 bit

[rafeb@xxxxxxxxxxxx]

On 4 Mar 2002 at 15:07, David Chien wrote:


>   If 8-bit WAS good enough, there would be no reason flatbed and film
> scanner makers would even bother with more expensive 16-32 bit
> scanners.  There would be no reason in the digital camera world for
> makers like Sony to use 14-bit HAD CCDs in their digicams, nor toot
> their superior, smoother color gradiants and shadow definition in their
> images.  And, there would be no reason at all for professional
> publications and stock photography shops to even bother with drum
> scanning at anything above 8-bits.


There's no such thing as a 14-bit CCD, David.
There are 14-bit A/Ds, I'll grant you.

Why do scanner manufacturers use them? Because 
they're cheap, and because they know that such 
meaningless specs sell scanners to gullible folks like 
you. <g>

As to printer output DPI, I find it hard to sell (or 
see) any improvement beyond, say, 240-300 dpi, 
and even there quite a few folks say that's overkill.


>   Subjective reasoning that "8-bit's good enough" doesn't cut it in the
> real world where an objective analysis of the current state of messed up
> histograms show that there aren't enough bits.


The real world says I've sold about $10,000 worth of Epson 
prints in the last three years or so, and every one of them 
made from 24-bit (8 bits per color) RGB files.  Nobody gripes 
about the color.

Apparently, you and gary have better eyes than the rest of us.
What can I say? I'm jealous.


rafe b.

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