[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Laurie,

> At the risk of raising Austin's ire,

Au contraire!  You hit the nail on the head ;-)

> I think that he is being more of a
> purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and
> the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat
> artwork and prints.  His position is basically that the scanner when used
> properly should produce an accurate and proper reproduction of
> the subject
> matter that it is capturing and that the use of post scanning
> image editing
> programs (either scanner programs or applications like Photoshop)
> should not
> be necessary and are only to be used as (a) a last resort, (b) to do
> creative manipulations and artsy derivatives generated off the
> original, or
> (c) to do restorations.

Exactly!

> While I do see some technical disagreements in
> the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans
> (raw lineal
> or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of
> enhancement
> and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files,

But...here's the rub.  If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections
reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done using
high bit data...  it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the
discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large
tonal moves post scanning.

> As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems
> are either
> produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal
> with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is
> essentially an
> empirical and practical question (even if theoretically and
> analytically a
> case could be made for said claims).  Thus, Austin's request for concrete
> examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims.

And, interestingly enough, no one can come up with any images that
demonstrate this.

> That they
> have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do
> not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his
> refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not
> wanting to partake in the discussion...

Hey, did I say that? ;-)

Regards,

Austin

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