[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16

["Robert Logan" <bert_logan@btopenworld.com>]

Austin Franklin wrote:
> I believe you're missing the point.  It doesn't matter if you have a color
> file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually capable (because
> you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color
> file.  It has nothing to do with the "tools [of] tomorrow".

Ahem, I'll clarify, as youve missed the point.
The tools of tomorrow, be they better hardware,
or better software, may allow me to manipulate
the 16 bit data (14 bit in my case), better
to produce a better looking image.

If I have 256(8bit) greens in my file, and in the
other I have 257(16bit), then I have more to work
with to achieve an end.

I may not be able to make any noticeable changes
using the tools now, and produce noticeable results,
(although I think they do, and I can, hell, I can,
I can, Im still young, my eyes havent began to lose
colour acuity so much yet) but Im optimistic that
something better will come along to help get more
from the image than I already have.

I AM NOT looking at 16 bit files and saying, "mmmm,
thats lovely, far nicer than that 8 bit one" - I am
saying that if I scan it at 16 bit and store it thus,
then I will be able to go back and get more out of it
than if I scan it at 8 bit.

You can now make a reasoned argument out of why 8 bit is
enought to archive files, and why we pay for better
hardware anyway. I need convincing completely in this
case.

But this is dull beyond compare. Good god its dull.
You think you are right, I think Im right and were not
talking of the same things.

bert
--
Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach.

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