> ...
>> Of course, the number of bits LIMITS the dynamic range, I've always said
>> that...but BTW, that contradicts Roy's last round, as he claims that 8 bits
>> has the same dynamic range as 16 bits...
>
> Yes, I don't agree with Roy on this point.
>
> Julian
>
Hi Julian,
I'm curious whether we're talking about two different things or that you
disagree with what I was actually talking about.
It think that your post (in response to Austin) was talking specifically
about scanner output. In other words the phrase "the number of bits LIMITS
the dynamic range" was in the context meaning "the number of bits in a
scanner LIMITS the dynamic range of that scanner". In this context I
entirely agree -- a 16-bit scanner has more dynamic range than an 8-bit
scanner.
My 8-bit versus 16-bit comment was in a very different context. I was
talking about a 16-bit Photoshop that was ready to be printed. Thus
value 0 was the max black and value 65535 was the max white. At this
time the file was converted to 8-bit such that value 0 represents the
same max black as 0 in the 16-bit file, and value 255 in 8-bit file
represents the same max white as 65535 in the 16-bit file. So both
files represent the same black to white range. In this context I
say the 8-bit file and the 16-bit file have the same dynamic range
because they represent the same tonal range on a output print. The
endpoints are the same only real difference is how many levels are in
between.
So, is there disagreement? If so I'd like to know why and how you
look at it.
Thanks,
Roy
Roy Harrington
roy@harrington.com
Black & White Photography Gallery
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
