Yup, I'm in "category 1" too. If you're going to work on the image, 16-bit makes a huge
difference--many operations, especially big curve or gamma adjustments, throw away
bits.
The goal is to still have 8 bits of information left when you're done. Starting at 8
bits
that's pretty tough. But if yo
Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:02 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
> Yup, I'm in "category 1" too. If y
Austin Franklin wrote:
> It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W, there is no
> question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve
> adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any
> difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data.
Have t
Hi Robert,
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> > It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W,
> there is no
> > question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum
> tonal curve
> > adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any
> > difference using 8 bit da
> of each individual color, true, and it's also 16M
> colors. Also, you're not likely to get only one
> color out of three.
Yes, but the 16M is just that, a mythical
number that never appears in most images,
the range of colours is typically more
far restricted.
> For most images, there will be
hould follow theirown light and disregard the opinions of those that push
for 16-bit scans as the gospel.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Logan
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:58 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re:
Robert,
> Yes - 8 bit does work fine for most images, but if
> you really want to throw an image into some editing,
> then relying on 8 bits is foolhardy if you can get
> more to work with.
BUT...you really don't GET 16 bits. You get 10, 12 or 13, and even if you
*think* you get 14, you really d
Austin Franklin wrote:
>>Its well documented in the 3D community that having
>>24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines
>>can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats
>>why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines,
>>and more.
>
> That's an entirely different issue.
I don't thin
Andreas,
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >>Its well documented in the 3D community that having
> >>24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines
> >>can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats
> >>why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines,
> >>and more.
> >
> > That's an entirely diff
Robert Logan wrote:
>
>>For most images, there will be
>>no visible degradation in the image using only 8
>>bits/color. If you haven't tried an experiment, and
>>are only speaking of "theory"
>
>
> Ive noticed it in practice severally. Notably in
> shots with some very variable lighting across
Hi Laurie,
This isn't about minutia, this is about belief systems and religion ;-)
The only real solution to deal with the zealotry would be a carefully
controlled double blind experiment. Otherwise, we are indeed the blind
leading the blind, because simply, we shall see what we expect to see.
Hi Art,
> ...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really
> capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not.
I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16
bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what
I've seen) *claim* 16 bits,
OK, I was covering my butt, in case "someone" (a-hmmm) knew of some I
didn't... I don't deal in the $150,000 scanner market so maybe there are
some scanners that can accurately capture a full 16 bit depth.
Several scanner companies will throw around dMax numbers based upon the
mathematical "possib
Art-I'm actually partially on your side--I agree that 8 bits is mostly the limit of
what
humans can discern. There are rare cases of large, "shallow" (not much tonal range)
gradients that haven't been dithered, either artificially or by film grain, that can
show
banding. But again, that's rare. A
Entlich
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:01 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Laurie,
This isn't about minutia, this is about belief systems and religion ;-)
The only real solution to deal with the zealotry would be a carefully
controlled double
Of interest in this discussion:
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-bit-16-bit.htm
and
http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16-bit-2002.htm
Money quote from Dan Margulis: "The bottom line of all my tests was,
with one important caveat that I'l
ns beat 16-bit scans
every time.
Alan
- Original Message -
From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:30 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Art,
> ...and that's even concluding
Preston Earle
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:58 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
> Of interest in this discussion:
> http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-b
> it-16-bit.htm
> and
> http://www.lede
>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
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> noted: "I MUST stress, that
Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT B&W, and that
distinction is VERY important."
Yes, color *photographic* images. It doesn't apply to computer-generated
images with gradients, tints, etc.,
> ...It doesn't apply to computer-generated
> images with gradients, tints, etc., either.
>
> Preston Earle
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can you scan those with a film scanner?
;-)
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTE
Money quote ...
Yes, here we go again.
You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine.
And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular
favourite, preferred or religious route.
I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive
at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my
I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing 16
bit scans. If you have the time to work with that large a file, and the
disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. I wonder what
you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available (not that I can
see any manuf
Robert,
> Just because the tools today cant make my
> gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont.
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 b
Austin,
I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems
to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and
the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and
Hi Bob,
I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400!
Regards,
Austin
> Austin,
>
> I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
> stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce
> Fraser seems
> to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm
> From: Bob Frost
>
> I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and
> stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce
> Fraser seems
> to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta
> 5400, and
> the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just a
AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Money quote ...
Yes, here we go again.
You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine.
And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular
favourite, preferred or religious route.
I will ALWAY
Austin,
With mixed feelings so far! My unit had something loose inside the case when
I unwrapped it, and eventually I got the offending object out - a very small
black screw. Not knowing what damage this might have done to the optics
whilst rattling around during transit, or what part it might pla
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 [o
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing
> 16 bit scans.
Good. Thats where I am.
> If you have the time to work with that large a file,
> and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it.
Thanks.
> wonder what you'll be doing w
Robert,
> You
> are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working
> with grayscale there is!
Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is
only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three
color channels available, and therefore t
Oh Robert,
> 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 nothin
> From: Robert Logan
>
> 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 m
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is
> only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three
> color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of bits per pixel
> is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color
> > Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits
> available is
> > only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three
> > color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of
> bits per pixel
> > is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead
day, September 13, 2003 2:14 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
> Arthur Entlich wrote:
>
> > I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making
> and storing
> > 16 bit scans.
>
> Good. Thats where I am.
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Austin Franklin
> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:37 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
> Robert,
> I would hardly
> > I would hardly call your "position" enlightened. You've got
> > clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well
> > as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what
> > I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn
> > something, instead of try to rationa
As Austin made quite clear, (and you will notice no one argued against)
there are merits to using higher than 8 bits in B&W (which is pretty
obvious to most people, since we are speaking about a MONOCHROME image
which has no multiplier effect). An 8 bit B&W image has only 256 steps
of gray. Howev
Then again, Frank works binary: I say white, he comes up black, so I'd
take most everything he says with a large "dye cloud" of salt.
Smoking dope may improve color perception. ;-)
You're easily entertained... what have you been smoking? ;-)
Art
Frank Paris wrote:
> Bert, I'm with you. These g
Simply stated: I think Arthur is wrong! ;-)
I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with
posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing.
A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the
maximum available bit-depth from the
"Henk de Jong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
Simply stated: I think Arthur is wrong! ;-)
<<<
Me too, but on to happier things...
>>>
I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with
posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while edit
Hi Henk,
> 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.
> Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8
> bits/channel. VueScan is ideal in bringing all the information which
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
> maxi
> > Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-)
> Yup, it does not cost me anything more than working with
> 8bits but a bit of storage for those images that I archive
> for future editing. So why risk loosing information. Arguing
> for 8bits is just plain silly.
Silly is one word, sophistry is a
> Frank,
>
> > > Arguing
> > > for 8bits is just plain silly.
> >
> > Silly is one word, sophistry is another.
>
> Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows
> ignorance.
>
> Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had
> tonal manipulation done
Frank,
> > Arguing
> > for 8bits is just plain silly.
>
> Silly is one word, sophistry is another.
Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows
ignorance.
Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had
tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and p
Austin Franklin wrote:
> How do you know the original scanner data is any good?
I can tell from the smooth histogram in VueScan and the Dropper Tool in PSP.
>> A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding
>> it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the
> Austin Franklin wrote:
>
> > How do you know the original scanner data is any good?
> I can tell from the smooth histogram in VueScan and the
> Dropper Tool in PSP.
>
> >> A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it
> >> with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner
Henk,
> Most images will do with 8 bit manipulation...
Simply show me one that doesn't.
> but
> some with extreme curves or white and/or black point applied have
> difficulties.
White and/or black points applied? ALL 8 bit images have the setpoints
applied, unless you have some weird/old scann
Austin Franklin wrote:
> If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you
> look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your
> image editing program to get it right for you after the fact.
I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come
Henk,
> > If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you
> > look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your
> > image editing program to get it right for you after the fact.
>
> I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home
>
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:08 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote:
> If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you
> look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your
> image editin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Austin Franklin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
> Henk,
>
> > If you don
Laurie,
> At the risk of raising Austin's ire,
Au contraire! You hit the nail on the head ;-)
> I think that he is being more of a
> purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and
> the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat
> artwork and p
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:12 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie,
>> At the risk of raising Austin's ire,
>Au contraire
: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Austin Franklin
> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:56 AM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>
>
Hi Laurie,
> >But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections
> >reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done
> using
> >high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the
> >discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no
Frank,
> > Frank,
> > Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept
> > to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire.
>
> I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down.
Why, Frank? What ever your agenda, that is no excuse for juvenile behavior,
or mak
much.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Paris
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:10 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMA
wrote:
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:27 PM
>> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>>
>>
>
ut much better tonal curve and density range for the resulting image.
In light of this, it is very possible that you and I could be talking past
each other and that others might also be talking past each other and you
when references are made to "setpoints."
-Original Message-
Fr
Brad Davis wrote:
> Further, if you find that Laurie's response was
> anything other than responsible, you have
> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding
> of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with
> him, she suggested only that those who disagree
> provide evidence to support their
<< (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >>
I would bet he's actually a man :>)
Howard
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
Thanks - it only requires a change in pronoun - the respect expressed (and
implied) remains the same. I've been caught in a default assumption and I
thank you for correcting me. It may mean something that he didn't find a
necessity to do the correction - he sees what is relevant and what isn't
te
Well said, he certainly acts like an adult, a reasonable adult at that -
more so than some, even me.
Brad
On 18/9/03 18:20, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >>
>
> I would bet he's actually a man :>)
>
> Howard
>
> -
ly 9/18/03 at
10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my response only a
few minuts later.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad Davis
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:23 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners]
: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
<< (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >>
I would bet he's actually a man :>)
Howard
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe
s Howard. :-) Thanks for betting on me being a man; you win. At my
> age, I wish I was a boy again. :-)
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTE
First of all I like to make a statement which is a bad excuse after all, but
nevertheless for me an important one:
English is not my native language. It takes a lot of energy and time to
understand what the writers mean and it takes even more energy and time to
write my own ideas and replies in Eng
Henk,
I think you are probably right here. We all have slightly different
workflows, for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good perhaps.
My own workflow differs from that recommended by Austin, in that most of the
advice I have read says that one should get the raw data from the scanne
Laurie,
> Don't worry about it. You will know for the future.
And all the time I've been on this list, I was unaware of that as well, but
in all honesty, I didn't really give it much thought...
> I received both this post,
> Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/0
<< At my
age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) >>
Don't we all (at least those of us over 40).
Howard
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_dige
> << At my
> age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) >>
>
> Don't we all (at least those of us over 40).
Mmm, I wonder if we have any female list members?
Peter
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'un
quot; so I guess a boy named "Laurie" will have to do. :-)
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:47 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie,
> Don
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
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
> 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
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
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 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
"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
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
> 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
85 matches
Mail list logo
