Re: 8 verses 16 bit

[Kennedy McEwen <rkm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

In article <3C8724AD.8030204@shaw.ca>, Arthur Entlich 
<artistic-1@shaw.ca> writes
>
>
>Kennedy McEwen wrote:
>
>
>>  Why - no studies have ever shown that human beings can discriminate 
>>more  than 8-bits in each of the primary colours (and significantly 
>>less than  this in blue, in particular).  There is no debate!
>
>Most higher primates (including humans) can see somewhere in the area 
>of 2.3 million discernible colors.
>
>Even if the monitors and printers really could produce 8 bits per color 
>(and they can't) we couldn't see them all as distinctly different.
>
>In fact, to show one dot each of the full color spectrum available in 
>the 8 bit/color (24 bit depth) one would have to cover an 11" x 17" 
>piece of paper, edge to edge at 300 dpi.
>
>That's a heck of a LOT of colors.
>
Yes - its a shame you need to print them at 300ppi to reproduce all 
16million of them since that makes it a bit difficult to tell whether 
they fail to be resolved or discriminated by eye.   ;-)

However the 16-bit/colour that David considers a reasonable workspace, 
would require a print just over 1000x1500 YARDS to place all of the 
colours at 300ppi!

And for 24-bits/colour this goes up to 3000x4500 miles of paper!  :-)

But really, I would want each colour printed at around 10ppi so that I 
could have a good chance of seeing the difference between individual 
tones and hues if they are visible at all - and that needs a sheet many 
times larger than the entire surface of the earth.  In fact it would 
need about half the surface area of Jupiter and more than a lifetime to 
walk across it.

Now, when will Epson get up to these "really useful" feed sizes on their 
printers.  :-)
-- 
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.