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



Henk,

> I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a
> headache with
> posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing.

How do you know the original scanner data is any good?

>

> A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding
> it with the
> maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution.

How do you know?

> I have mentioned many times the following link which proves my statement
> when this discussion about 8 bit/16 bit is going on again and again:
> http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/7627.html?cprose=I20

That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation problem
with 8 bit color data.  Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG
problem, and no one can!  This must include a raw scan, the same scan
converted to 8 bit, manipulated, that shows visibly noticeable tonal
degradation.

Regards,

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.