> From: Preston Earle
>
> I don't believe I'm confusing bit depth and resolution, I'm probably
> just not explaining myself very well. I'm trying to say that if a
> scanner can't (or at least "doesn't") scan adjacent pixels of uniform
> color as identical values in 8-bit precision, it doesn't matte
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 06:09 PM, Brad Davis wrote:
> On 22/9/03 16:44, "Roy Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>
>> Brad,
>>
>> You are probably right that -- "This conversation is only about bit
>> depth."
>>
>> But I think that is one of the main shortcomings of the discus
Is there any possibility that we can drop the whole subject? I think that
we've done 8 vs. 16 bit absolutely to death
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubsc
Art,
A suggestion - do what you want here, if the chorus complaining gets too
loud, then consider changing - but even then you don't necessarily have to,
just that feedback is sometimes useful. The only situation where you
absolutely must change is if Tony says to do it differently - then, beca
"Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "This is why I think you may be
confusing DPI with bit depth, this comment (above) refers to spatial
resolution, not intensity resolution. In this issue, (8 bit vs. 16 bit)
the same number of pixels exist in either case, in an 8 bit file, they
may differ by
Sorry if this additional public reply further irritates some.
It is rather obvious that there are several philosophies about internet
lists at play here, and each have their valid points.
Many active members of lists I have been on are strong believers in the
idea of an internet list being a com
On 22/9/03 16:44, "Roy Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 02:04 PM, Brad Davis wrote:
>
>> On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> ...
>>>
>>> 2. All visible files are the product of a final
>>> resize/pixel-combination
>>> of some
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 02:04 PM, Brad Davis wrote:
> On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> ...
>>
>> 2. All visible files are the product of a final
>> resize/pixel-combination
>> of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens.
>
> I don
On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one
> thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion.
> Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of
> "noise" in image data, bu
> From: Preston Earle
>
> I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one
> thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion.
> Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of
> "noise" in image data, but that issue has been bypassed in thes
I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one
thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion.
Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of
"noise" in image data, but that issue has been bypassed in these
discussions in favor of other
Another, if convoluted, way to dodge-burn with16-bit tonality and with great control
is to
duplicate your document, make the move you want on the dupe (which is still 16-bit),
then
convert both dupe and original to 8-bit, and bring the altered dupe in as a separate
layer.
Add a layer mask, inita
> There are a number of semi-valid reasons that a posting of this nature
> (regarding digital cameras) show up in this list.
Yes, and they are only semi-valid. As I said, there are far better lists
for digi-cams where the questioner will get a far wider range of reliable
answers.
There's enough
> From: Bob Frost
>
> Try using curves to limit the lightening/darkening to what part
> of the scale
> you want, and then use History brush to paint it in to where you want.
Good point. Thanks.
--
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
You won't be sadly missed.
Art
Frank Paris wrote:
> Lauri, you're doing exactly what this guy objected to, nit-picking to
> death every little thing he says. Why can't you just let it go? A person
> can't say a fricken' thing on this list without being chased to the
> hills in nit-picking. This
I fully agree. Tony, can you do or say anything about that? I'm really starting to
consider quitting, and that would be a pity, but I don't think I could stand another
100 messages thread like the recent 8 vs. 16 bit...
Alessandro Pardi
> -Original Message-
> From: Ellis Vener [mailto:[
Hi Tom,
>>Why are high bit worksflows harder and take more time? Because of the
>>Photoshop limitations? Wouldn't a 16bit clean program relieve you of these
>>hassles?
>
> Hello afx, I think the slowness is primarily due to the glacial speed that
> the scanner transfers data to the computer. Somet
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote:
>
> Now that both Johnny Cash and Shel Sivlerstein are dead; there is no longer
> a boy named "Sue" so I guess a boy named "Laurie" will have to do. :-)
>
I suspect a "Boy Named Sue" may indeed live on long after the lives of
these two. Not either of their greatest mome
There are a number of semi-valid reasons that a posting of this nature
(regarding digital cameras) show up in this list.
1) The person is a regular reader of this list, and knows that other
readers or participants here have use of or are knowledgeable in this
area, or he respects the opinions of p
Paul,
Try using curves to limit the lightening/darkening to what part of the scale
you want, and then use History brush to paint it in to where you want.
Bob Frost.
- Original Message -
From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't you miss the ability to limit the dodging/burning t
20 matches
Mail list logo
