RE: 8 verses 16 bit

["Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Look: it's really quite simple. If you have control over the dynamic range,
then eight bits per channel is plenty. If it weren't, then it would be
impossible to print a good image, because printers only accept eight bit
data anyway. The only place you need sixteen bits per channel is where you
don't have complete control over the dynamic range, as when initially
capturing an image in a camera or scanner. I don't even think it's important
for archiving, as long as you adjust the curves to make optimum use of the
eight-bit range before you save.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com

> From: David Chien
>
>   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.

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