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: 8bits vs. 16bits/channel:cantheeyeseethedifference

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk] On Behalf Of
> Austin Franklin
> Sent: Monday, March 17, 2003 7:47 PM
> To: frankparis@comcast.net
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8bits vs. 16bits/channel:
> cantheeyeseethedifference
> Hi Roy,
> I disagree.  If you were dealing with pure data, yes, but
> this is image data that just doesn't have entire fields of
> 127.5 values...

You're making a mountain out of a molehill and getting distracted by
irrelevant issues. I could easily have a 3x3 pixel array all with the
same value at 127.5 and it would make sense to dither it. You don't need
"entire fields".

> so even if it did as you suggest, it would, at
> best, increase the fidelity insignificantly in a real world image.

Better to do it than not, it would seem to me.

> First, show me that it in fact does as you believe.  Then we
> can discuss the significance.  It's real simple to simply
> take a 16 bit image and just lop off the lower 8 bits, and
> then "compare" that to an image that has been "processed" as
> you suggest, and see if there is a noticeable difference.

You might be able to measure it with a colorimeter, and a trained eye
might be able to see it. If you can't see it, maybe your eye isn't

Frank Paris

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.