[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16

["Arthur Entlich" <artistic-1@shaw.ca>]

As Austin made quite clear, (and you will notice no one argued against)
there are merits to using higher than 8 bits in B&W (which is pretty
obvious to most people, since we are speaking about a MONOCHROME image
which has no multiplier effect).  An 8 bit B&W image has only 256 steps
of gray.  However, as I have previously explained, that is not the same
as a color image.  24 bit color images (8 bits per color (RGB) have
65,536 hues each with 256 brightness shades or about 16.8 million
distinct colors.

You are correct about one thing. A completely monochromic image of one
hue of green could be improved upon with higher than 8 bit capture
during manipulation.  However, in real world color images the likelihood
of needing more than 8 bits of color depth after manipulation (and in
most cases even before) approaches zero.

Once again, your desire to do so is in no way of concern to me, since
you apparently have the resources and willingness to spend the time
doing so.  You may also wish to use pi carried out to several hundred
decimal places when determining the volume of a sphere, or whatever, but
chances are no one will care but you.

Luckily, most math teachers explain the relative significance of each
decimal place position, so one can avoid such minutia, but, once again,
you are welcome to do as you please.

However, once again, for anyone still bothering to read this thread who
is new to digital capture and manipulation, the value of storing files
post-manipulation in 16 bit color depth is so minimal that the waste of
resource doesn't justify doing so, even for those with perfect human
color perception.

Art


Robert Logan wrote:

> 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
> --


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