Re: 8 verses 16 bit

["Dave King" <kingphoto@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Excellent summary, and said topic summarily dispatched please.

Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@ix.netcom.com>
To: <scan@leben.com>
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 12:50 AM
Subject: RE: 8 verses 16 bit


> 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.
>


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