ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












     áòèé÷ :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: 8bits vs. 16bits/channel: can the eye see the difference


  • To: lexa@www.lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8bits vs. 16bits/channel: can the eye see the difference
  • From: "Karasev, Alexander" <alexander.karasev@gs.com>
  • Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 19:20:18 -0500
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

Actually most observers can, in smooth areas (sky, etc.) particularly in
midrange tones.

Create in Photoshop, Paintbrush, CorelDraw, or other software, two large
adjacent rectangles or other figures, one with a solid RGB24 fill of
[128,128,128] (i.e. neutral grey on the scale of 0-255), and another either
[129,129,129] or [128,128,129]. Most people who used to argue for lack of
benefit [if only in final output] of higher color depths than 8 bits /
channel, are usually quite stunned at their ability to pick up the
difference, often at a glance.

That means, the same limitations can apply to photo reproductions of
substantially high quality and low noise, of smooth areas (such as a clear
blue or uniformly "grey" sky).

Alex

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.