ðòïåëôù 


  áòèé÷ 


Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 

  óôáôøé 


  ðåòóïîáìøîïå 


  ðòïçòáííù 



ðéûéôå
ðéóøíá












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

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

[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16


  • To: lexa@www.lexa.ru
  • Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
  • From: "Nagaraj, Ramesh" <Ramesh.Nagaraj@ca.com>
  • Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 14:36:19 -0400
  • Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
  • Thread-index: AcN4kHke8d8uZbANRM+xGWbP3aRKGAAAqJwg
  • Thread-topic: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
  • Unsubscribe: mailto:listserver@halftone.co.uk

>Preston wrote

>When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise
>to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have
>expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner
>8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be
>just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a
>function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is
>doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the
>8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good."

This is an interesting point. I too think Adobe may do better job of converting 
to 8bit than Vuescan. I will follow it.

Thanks
Ramesh



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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.