Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

   


   


   















      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: filmscanners: Semi OT: 16-bits [was Which Buggy Software?]




> Still, all this is academic and makes assumptions about the 'purity' of
> 16bit data which may be incorrect in practice. Like Margulis, I'd agree
> that empirical evidence matters more than theory. I know I have managed
> to
> produce posterised sky areas in 16 bit, even with modest manipulations.
> Whether better or worse than if I'd used 8 bit I cannot say without
> returning to the image and trying both.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony Sleep
> http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner
> info
> & comparisons
>
>

In my experiments I have found that a gamma correction of 1.5, say, in Nikon
Scan produces no posterisation whilst the same operation in Photoshop
produces fairly severe posterisation.  Both in 16-bit.

Makes me feel nervous about PS.  I notice, these days, that I can get PS to
posterise relatively easily - and no, I'm not talking about curves that have
horizontal or vertical sections or curves that double-back on themselves.
Hmm.

It's interesting to ponder whether grain/aliasing helps to hide "errors" or
makes them show-up more.  There is, maybe, an argument in favour of
dithering the image (adding noise - preferably shaped in the frequency
domain - a bit like dither in digital audio systems) before manipulation, if
one's first attempt showed heavy posterisation, in a bid to perform the same
manipulation with less posterisation.

Jawed




 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.