[filmscanners] 8 bit vs. 16 bit -again...

["Brad Davis" <DocBradd@mac.com>]

Hi,

Some months ago, there was a very tedious discussion of 8 bit representation
vs. some higher number, usually 16 bit.  I was soundly on the side of the 8
bit devotees for all the reasons given then (I won't rehash them here).  I
recently obtained the new Photoshop - CS, or version 8.  I have a scanner
(Polaroid SS 4000) that is supposedly capable of 12 bit tonal resolution,
yielding 4096 levels rather than the paltry 256 tones offered by 8 bit.  I
decided to try it using the higher ( 12) number of bits (not 16, but still a
considerable increase).

I purposely have worked with about 10 different images, some easy to deal
with, some with various problems.

As my father used to say. "The test of the pudding is in the eating." I have
to conclude that 12 bits are better, that my images have a smoothness that
wasn't present before, and worse, I can see it on the monitor, not just in
my prints.  So, somewhat against my rational perception, and all that I
think I know as a sensory psychologist, I am convinced.  That convincing is
even though making higher bit Image files is somewhat inconvenient - they
are twice as big, they take longer to transfer from my P4 (the machine the
scanner is attached to) to my G4 Dual Mac (where PS CS resides), and the
Mac's response time is noticeably longer (not a surprise, but, as I said, an
inconvenience).

It is as though my hard drives just dropped to 1/2 their previous size.

I still don't believe that 16 bits is even do-able in the usual house
environment, but perhaps I will have to change my mind on that in the
future.

Brad

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