From: bugbear on
NameHere wrote:
>
> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.

You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?

AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.

Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
is advantageous.

BugBear
From: NameHere on
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?

6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
16,777,216 colors.

There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)

>
>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.

All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
discern faithfully.

>
>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.
>
> BugBear

This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of
retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
snapshooters failed to do in the first place.

How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
brain so far.



From: NameHere on
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
<bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:

>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?

6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
16,777,216 colors.

There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
without unsightly dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)

>
>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.

All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
discern faithfully.

>
>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.
>
> BugBear

This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
to use them properly in the first place. They also do a fine job of
retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
with. I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
snapshooters failed to do in the first place.

How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
brain so far.



From: bugbear on
NameHere wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 11:38:59 +0000, bugbear
> <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>
>> NameHere wrote:
>>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>> You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>> What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?
>
> 6-bits per each channel of CMYK. That's a 24-bit color depth resolution.
> 16,777,216 colors.

CMYK is a redundant colour space. It's equivalent (pace gamut concerns)
to RGB.

> There's a good reason that people resort to Piezography for B&W prints.
> Using various shades of gray inks to achieve more than 64 gray levels
> without dithering. (6-bits is 64, not 32)

Indeed. But you said "less bit-depth[than 6]" on paper.
5 is less than 6 (stop me if I'm going too fast for you)

>
>> AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.
>
> All fine and dandy. Now tell me how many distinct hues your human eye can
> discern faithfully.

The human eye is not a trivial light meter - with adaption
it can perceive a truly massive range of intensities.

>> Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>> rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>> is advantageous.
>>
>> BugBear
>
> This is why I said that 10-bit depth per sensor channel is more than is
> needed for the final display. 12 and 14 bit camera sensors are nothing but
> a marketing ploy that is directly targeted to major fools. Rarely do I need
> to do much post-processing to images from my P&S cameras because I know how
> to use them properly in the first place.

If you're happy for your images to printed as captured, that's dandy.
But if you're doing anything interesting, such as contrast curve
adjustment, or pananoramic stitching, you're STILL
going to want deeper data to allow a little room for intermediate
rounding errors.

> They also do a fine job of
> retaining the full dynamic range of the sensor in the JPG file to begin
> with.

This is trivial; here an alogorithm:

RAW 0 -> JEPG 0
RAW MAX -> JPEG MAX

You speak as if this is some kind of achievment.

> I've compared the JPG and eventual RAW manipulated data. There's so
> little difference between the two that it's difficult to best the JPG file
> by starting with RAW. You can spend upwards of half an hour or more trying
> to tweak anything extra out of the RAW sensor data. It's mostly a huge
> waste of time because the camera's programming does it so well in the RAW
> to JPG conversion to begin with. Those who have less capable cameras will
> have to resort to post-processing the RAW data to fix what their camera
> failed to deliver in the first place. Or, more commonly, what they as
> snapshooters failed to do in the first place.
>
> How difficult is this for you to comprehend? It seems to be frying your
> brain so far.

I seem to be comprehending more than you, and better too.

"There seems to be much confusion on the internet about the
relevance of image bit depth on recordable dynamic range."

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

Read and learn.

BugBear
From: Ray Fischer on
bugbear <bugbear(a)trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote:
>NameHere wrote:
>>
>> And it won't do a lick of good if you can only present it in 6-bits worth
>> of resolution on your monitor or even less bit-depth on paper.
>
>You appear to be suggesting that prints only support 32 gray levels.
>What are you using - 24 pin dot matrix?

Do you believe that your printer can do more than 64 levels?

>AMD does 10 bit video cards - welcome to 2010.

Video cards are not monitors.

>Further, since processing involves arithmetic, which involves
>rounding, having extra colour resolution prior to processing
>is advantageous.

During processing it's useful. Afterward? Not so much.

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Prev: D90 body prices falling steeply
Next: Sigma wide zoom = junk