[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16

["Robert Logan" <bert_logan@btopenworld.com>]

Arthur Entlich wrote:

> I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing
> 16 bit scans.

Good. Thats where I am.

> If you have the time to work with that large a file,
> and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it.

Thanks.

> wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available

Hopefully not rescanning all my negatives, and moping around
listening to tired old arguments. As ever, I'll be hoping
someone else tests it and finds it flaws. And someone else
decrys 32 bit as too much, and 4 bit as just right.

> I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water,
> and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital
> scanning on this list, who are impressionable,

God yes, you are right. Lets make sure they get the facts, the
facts and the facts. Not just your view which is pallid. You
are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working
with grayscale there is! And the colour separations on RGB (the
256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to work on) - yet not on B&W.
P.T. who?

> I see my job here is
> simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is
> basically without merit and that they need not follow a path that
> just wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want
> to).

Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on
enlightenment. Sigh. Funny how technology and its use makes
people descend into these petty mailing list melees.

> Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their
> scanning. ;-)

Entrenched .. no bloody way, Im just right ;)

bert
--
Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach.

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