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]

[filmscanners] Re: Digital Darkroom Computer Builders?

Laurie Solomon wrote:
>>RE DAC quality and can do 3 displays (excellent of Photoshop work).

> I do not have the foggiest idea what this means.  Does can do 3 displays
> mean that it is a three head card versus a two head card or does it mean
> that it can do 3 displays using independent color management for each?

Yes - and yes.

> I think the use of three monitors is rare for most;

Funny, but I remember that same point being put about dualhead.
I have a desktop with 3 display, 2 on a G400, and one on another
PC. When I can drum up the money, I will go 3 head precisely
because of the benfits more real estate provides. Coming from
a Unix background, this is quite normal. And like I
said, the heads are independently colour manageable. More
importantly, Matrox went to great lengths to make sure the
DACs were well filtered for colour work.

> but more importantly if it
> [chop real estate/colour points] A three disply head on a single card without
> independent color management for the displays may be nice and even
> efficient; but it can be accomplish by adding a second card which would then
> allow for 4 displays and the possibility of maybe even   with two if them
> having color management.

Uhu. But as pointed out, its a better card with features dedicated
to image work! 2 crappy cards aint better than one good one if its
quality thats required.

>>it can do 'gigacolor' - 10 bits per RGB channel
>>at the DAC. Again, phgotoshop supports this. A big improvement
>>for working on digital images.

> I doubt if Photoshop can really support completely 10 bits per RGB channel
> with respect to all its functions.  Photoshop only supports high bit images
> with regard to certain functions.

Well, dont doubt it. Adobe have provided a plugin, and
will be pushing this more because chipsets from ATI and Nvidia
are going have 10+ bit depth per channel also. Its just the next
step! Like when we all mucked about with 256 colour, then 15 bit,
then 24bit ...

Yes, currently, and for functions where its very useful in correcting
an image before close editing. Being able to actually see these colours
on the monitor, rather than an 8 bit representation makes the process
even better. Less guess. And PShop 8 may introduce more features for
higher depths later. Again, the card will support this better than
those without.

> Moreover, any high bit file will need to
> be or will be converted to 8 bit per RGB channel if it is to be printed on
> most laser or inkjet printers so with respect to WSIG a 10 bit per channel
> video card is much benefit when it comes to seeing what is to be printed.
> However, I could be missing the point that is being made,

We can say the same of our 8 bit (24 bit total) cards at the moment.
When scanning the image, we want ALL the detail, to facilitate editing
and correcting. Once weve done this we can factor it down far better
to the target colour space. Of course, some people here might be
content in scanning straight into their printers colour space ...

As an aside, I wonder how many of us here have chosen our graphics
card for its colour rendition, and where do we find info on this.
I sit with 3 identical monitors in front of me, and 2 are driven
by my G400, the other by an old ATI card. Even at 24 bit, and well
calibrated - the difference is stark.


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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.