Rafe wrote:
>>The sky in the "Prarie" photo looks smooth as silk
>>on my PC, with 24 bit video. With the screen set
>>to "256 colors" I get topo maps in the sky.
and Bob wrote:
>Thanks Rafe. Mine looked smooth as silk too. I couldn't figure out >what
>I was suppose to be seeing and wasn't. Now I get it.
OK, I'm not exactly sure what's going on here, that one display set to
factory specs (mine) shows posterization in an Internet JPEG, and two others
(Rafe's and Bob's) do not.
Should Internet picture postings come with the caveat, "Warning, This
Picture Must Be Viewed At 48-Bits!"? That doesn't sound altogether
realistic, to me. :-)
Best regards--LRA
>From: "Bob Kehl - Kvernstoen, Kehl & Assoc." <BobKehl@kvernkehl.com>
>Reply-To: filmscanners@halftone.co.uk
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
>Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2001 20:09:24 -0500
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: rafeb <rafeb@channel1.com>
>To: <filmscanners@halftone.co.uk>
>Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 7:00 PM
>Subject: RE: filmscanners: image samples of digital artifacts
>
>
> >
> >
> > Hold everything! Do you mean, "Prairie, Northern Tibet?"
> >
> > If you're seeing "topo map" effects in the sky, it's
> > almost certainly because you have your video set to
> > "256 colors." There's no way you want to attempt ANY
> > image editing or capture with your screen set that way.
> >
> >
> > The sky in the "Prarie" photo looks smooth as silk
> > on my PC, with 24 bit video. With the screen set
> > to "256 colors" I get topo maps in the sky.
> >
>
>Thanks Rafe. Mine looked smooth as silk too. I couldn't figure out what I
>was suppose to be seeing and wasn't. Now I get it.
>
>Actually, no-one COULD edit photos at "256 colors" but they might try at 16
>bit. At 16 bit the "topo map" effect" is clearly visible too.
>
>I think you found the problem.
>
>BK
>
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
