Yahoo Groups archive

Digital BW, The Print

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 22:56 UTC

Thread

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-09 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/9/07 6:41:47 PM, jnhugo@... writes:


> So while converting doesn't add info it does less damage
> to the file when applying adjustments? Amadou, C David what about
> image degrading when lots of adjustments are applied?
> 

ALL image editing loses data. High bit format loses less data than low bit. 
Photoshop uses high bit formats for most of its adjustments, so most of the 
advantage is already hidden in there, even when working with low bit files. Big 
adjustments to low bit files will cause problems, which see only minor relief 
from conversion to high bit before processing. The real answer is to capture in 
high bit in the first place.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by BKPhoto@aol.com

C. Tobie wrote:
 
 "ALL image editing loses data."
 
 I respectfully disagree. Image edits such as density/contrast changes, or color balancing redistribute data within the image file. This is easily confirmed by launching Photoshop's Histogram window. Open a file and keep the Histrogram open on the desktop. Make an extreme edit to the image and watch the Histogram change; the number of pixels, and the size of the file do not. The edit has caused data to be moved, but it hasn't been lost.
    Bill Kennedy
 K2 Press
 Austin, Texas
 Author: The Photographer's Guide to the Digital Darkroom (Allworth Press)  
________________________________________________________________________
AOL now offers free email to everyone.  Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

RE: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Paul Roark

>> So while converting doesn't add info it does less damage
>> to the file when applying adjustments? 

True. 

>ALL image editing loses data...

Perhaps in some technical sense, but if one starts with an 8 bit file and
converts it to 16 bit, there is so much room to move data around within that
space that no significant amount of information should be lost with moderate
adjustments to, for example a curve.  The action should simply re-distribute
the steps up or down the scale.

With 8 bit per channel RGB originals (like Jpegs), I convert to 16
bit/channel Tiff before converting to 16 bit grayscale.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/9/07 7:46:59 PM, paul.roark@... writes:


> 
> >ALL image editing loses data...
> 
> Perhaps in some technical sense,
> 

Many years ago, when creation of a bitmap editing application was pondered by 
some of the experts of the day, the concensus was that a program to 
selectively throw away data was not a very interesting idea. Fortunately Tom Knoll did 
not agree. The great irony of digital image editing is that losing data can 
make an image look better, so much better that its hard to fathom that the 
process used to get there was one of tossing image data; be that tossing it out the 
window entirely, or tossing it through the cracks in the 8 bit per channel 
floor boards, where is might possibly resurface later.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/9/07 8:37:26 PM, BKPhoto@... writes:


> 
> I respectfully disagree. Image edits such as density/contrast changes, or 
> color balancing redistribute data within the image file.
> 
How does one 'redistribute' 256 values into the same 256 slots without 
dumping some, and interpolating others? Thats where high bit can be useful, though 
not perfectly useful, in supplying some values that may be better than simple 
interpolations, and capturing the 'dumped' values in a way that MIGHT actually 
utilize them later. Color balancing has no choice but to follow the same 
process. Counterintuitive as it may be, image editing is a downhill slope all the 
way, no matter how much better the results may look to the eye than the 
original. 

In fact, on way of thinking about it is that the   process is one of 
optimizing for the perceptual nature of the eye, from the linear source. Take a look 
at what a 'RAW' file really looks like (in its original form) if you don't 
think that the trip from source to perpeptually ideal isn't a rollercoaster ride 
downhill!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Alan Ansell

A fascinating debate this and I might be overlooking something fundamental here, but in an attempt to ensure I am following this correctly: Is this discussion about 8-bit images in what is referred to as 8-bit TrueColor ie that each pixel has a value described by 8 bits to represent its RGB value. If so - or if in some other case - then how can data be considered to be 'shifted' or 'hidden'? If it cannot be described in 8 bits, then surely it cannot exist within the current colour space?

-- 
  Alan Ansell
  aansell@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original message -----
From: CDTobie@...
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:37:40 EDT
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

In a message dated 4/9/07 7:46:59 PM, [1]paul.roark@... writes:
>
> >ALL image editing loses data...
>
> Perhaps in some technical sense,
>
Many years ago, when creation of a bitmap editing application was pondered by
some of the experts of the day, the concensus was that a program to
selectively throw away data was not a very interesting idea. Fortunately Tom Knoll did
not agree. The great irony of digital image editing is that losing data can
make an image look better, so much better that its hard to fathom that the
process used to get there was one of tossing image data; be that tossing it out the
window entirely, or tossing it through the cracks in the 8 bit per channel
floor boards, where is might possibly resurface later.
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
[2]CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com
**************************************
See what's free at
[3]http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


References

1. mailto:paul.roark%40verizon.net
2. mailto:CDTobie%40colorvision.com
3. http://www.aol.com/
4. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/84771;_ylc=X3oDMTM2YXA1aDdrBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0NzkzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxMzM3OAR0cGNJZAM4NDc3MQ--
5. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxaGhyZmc3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0NzkzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxMzM3OA--?act=reply&messageNum=84793
6. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlaWIycjN0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxMzM3OA--
7. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2k5OXV1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxMzM3OA--
8. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
9. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
  10. http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkN2NvNWNvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTc2MjEzMzc4
  11. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZ2g2cmYxBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-
  12. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest
  13. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional
  14. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZmtqc3QyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTc2MjEzMzc4
  15. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  16. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=
  17. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZTM5MTVjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-
  18. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJlc2hrOGw1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxMzM3OA--
  19. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjcXU4dnBqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=AhyJLEY_mHSSQCNHMyZ1HQ
  20. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjZ2RoNXR2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=SvQKuVtg6IzggzvbNW76cQ
  21. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMmE5cTQyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=g1PLpDs3VAJRCiHquYf9Kw
  22. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjZnBndnJkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+technique&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=z42wd62NioHid6gdeL6dXQ
  23. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjdmRubXNvBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTMzNzg-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=a-SzixGQMrtqCBQRWDYQjw
  24. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ih2ng5q/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176220578/A=3848606/R=0/SIG=12t5n1ri6/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=A9FJqZeOvK5EKmgAbwsLMxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg--
  25. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ju149qe/M=493064.10512181.11138666.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176220578/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance
  26. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12irmttad/M=493064.9803235.10510228.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176220578/A=4299902/R=0/SIG=11as379aq/*http://apprentice.tv.yahoo.com/trump/06/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by amadou diallo

A neat app for looking at linear raw files (on the Mac) is RAW
Developer <http://www.iridientdigital.com/products/rawdeveloper.html>.
It has a "Disable all processing" checkbox that, while still doing a
matrix interpolation, produces a linear gamma representation of the
file.

On 4/10/07, CDTobie@... <CDTobie@...> wrote:
> Take a look
>  at what a 'RAW' file really looks like (in its original form)
-- 
amadou diallo
Author, Mastering Digital Black and White
www.masteringdigitalbwbook.com

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Ernst Dinkla

CDTobie@... wrote:
>or tossing it through the cracks in the 8 bit per channel
> floor boards, where is might possibly resurface later.

David:

A nice analogy, the architect isn't lost here



Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 10:59:30 AM, aansell@... writes:


> A fascinating debate this and I might be overlooking something fundamental 
> here, but in an attempt to ensure I am following this correctly: Is this 
> discussion about 8-bit images in what is referred to as 8-bit TrueColor ie that 
> each pixel has a value described by 8 bits to represent its RGB value. If so - 
> or if in some other case - then how can data be considered to be 'shifted' 
> or 'hidden'? If it cannot be described in 8 bits, then surely it cannot exist 
> within the current colour space?
> 

8 bits per channel, means 256 levels per color channel. Anything more is 
treated as 16 bits per channel by Photoshop. So 10 to 12 bit camera files rattle 
around in 16 bit space; while 8 bit files converted to 16 rattle even more. But 
we can only see 8 bits per channel of even our high bit files; photoshop 
deals with that as the "displayable" portion, while dragging whatever else is in 
between along for the ride. And we can only print about (notice I said ABOUT I 
don't care to argue exactly how much data can be printed yet again! <G>) 8 
bits per channel worth, so whether any data dumped, as I said earlier, through 
the cracks in the 8 bit/channel visible floorboards of our 16 bit/channel 
Photoshop image, into the Midden of Extra Bits Below, may or may not ever resurface 
to do us any good. 

Sorry to be waxing quite so analogous today, but the 'Midden of Extra Bits 
Below' is nearly as much fun as the '8 bit floorboards' that Ernst was 
complementing earlier! <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Alan Ansell

Ah - excellent. Thanks.
So, referring to the very valid point that - taking 8-bit colour here to mean 8-bit per channel and hence we are 'actually' talking about 24 bit images (referred to as True Color!) - the human visual system can only see roughly the  eqiuvalent of  the 16.7 million colours produced by 256³ (3 x the 8-bit channels), is the purpose of 16 bit colour (hence, 48 bit colour) simply to enable accurate conversion between devices?

Are there calculations performed by software/devices/operating systems that allow each device to connect to the Profile Connection Space more accurately using the greater information in 16/48 bit image space?

I suppose what I'm asking in another sense is why use 16 bit colour at all in a practical sense? I understand that it is 'better' in a mathematical sense but again, if the printer works within something more akin to 8/24 bit colour, what's the deal?

-- 
  Alan Ansell
  aansell@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original message -----
From: CDTobie@...
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:22:48 EDT
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

In a message dated 4/10/07 10:59:30 AM, [1]aansell@... writes:
> A fascinating debate this and I might be overlooking something fundamental
> here, but in an attempt to ensure I am following this correctly: Is this
> discussion about 8-bit images in what is referred to as 8-bit TrueColor ie that
> each pixel has a value described by 8 bits to represent its RGB value. If so -
> or if in some other case - then how can data be considered to be 'shifted'
> or 'hidden'? If it cannot be described in 8 bits, then surely it cannot exist
> within the current colour space?
>
8 bits per channel, means 256 levels per color channel. Anything more is
treated as 16 bits per channel by Photoshop. So 10 to 12 bit camera files rattle
around in 16 bit space; while 8 bit files converted to 16 rattle even more. But
we can only see 8 bits per channel of even our high bit files; photoshop
deals with that as the "displayable" portion, while dragging whatever else is in
between along for the ride. And we can only print about (notice I said ABOUT I
don't care to argue exactly how much data can be printed yet again! <G>) 8
bits per channel worth, so whether any data dumped, as I said earlier, through
the cracks in the 8 bit/channel visible floorboards of our 16 bit/channel
Photoshop image, into the Midden of Extra Bits Below, may or may not ever resurface
to do us any good.
Sorry to be waxing quite so analogous today, but the 'Midden of Extra Bits
Below' is nearly as much fun as the '8 bit floorboards' that Ernst was
complementing earlier! <G>
C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
[2]CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com
**************************************
See what's free at
[3]http://www.aol.com.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


References

1. mailto:aansell%40fastmail.fm
2. mailto:CDTobie%40colorvision.com
3. http://www.aol.com/
4. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/84771;_ylc=X3oDMTM2b2xqazRhBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0Nzk5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxODYwNQR0cGNJZAM4NDc3MQ--
5. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxczk0c2dkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0Nzk5BHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxODYwNQ--?act=reply&messageNum=84799
6. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcDNvYWljBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxODYwNQ--
7. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlNWFtcHBmBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxODYwNQ--
8. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
9. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
  10. http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkdDllMmdyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTc2MjE4NjA1
  11. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmdTFqMzVkBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-
  12. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest
  13. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional
  14. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJkZHBwZzNlBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTc2MjE4NjA1
  15. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  16. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=
  17. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmN2k5Y3NsBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-
  18. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJldGJlMmx1BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIxODYwNQ--
  19. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjdXBqYXY2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=AhyJLEY_mHSSQCNHMyZ1HQ
  20. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjb2podnJ0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=SvQKuVtg6IzggzvbNW76cQ
  21. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMTBzZnA0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=g1PLpDs3VAJRCiHquYf9Kw
  22. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjNWpqY3BuBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+technique&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=z42wd62NioHid6gdeL6dXQ
  23. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMmRwN2kwBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMTg2MDU-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=a-SzixGQMrtqCBQRWDYQjw
  24. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12iffcvvi/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176225805/A=3848611/R=0/SIG=12t54fmfj/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/753;_ylt=A9FJqYYsvq5E.kwAkwOyFz4D;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg--
  25. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12j9g672q/M=493064.10512181.11138666.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176225805/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance
  26. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12ie0572a/M=493064.9803235.10510228.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176225805/A=4491577/R=0/SIG=11mllii3e/*http://tv.yahoo.com/american-idol/show/34934/photos/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 11:28:49 AM, mark@... writes:


> Will any future digital camera ever shoot in 32 bit?
> 
Before its justified to go that far, it would be necessary to fill the 65,000 
steps of a 16 bit file with meaningful data...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 11:51:03 AM, aansell@... writes:


> I suppose what I'm asking in another sense is why use 16 bit colour at all 
> in a practical sense? I understand that it is 'better' in a mathematical 
> sense but again, if the printer works within something more akin to 8/24 bit 
> colour, what's the deal?
> 
> Extra headroom, so that the 256 levels you end up with after all is said and 
done in each color channel are the best possible 256, not a hacked up, 
interpolated 256.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com




**************************************
 See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Bruce Watson

Alan Ansell wrote:
> ...the human visual system can only see roughly the  eqiuvalent of  the 16.7 million colours produced by 256\ufffd (3 x the 8-bit channels), ...
>   
What makes you think that?

We use eight bits per channel (RGB) because it fits the (current) 
computer architecture (and makes a smaller memory footprint and smaller 
files), not because it's a good fit with human perception. A closer fit 
to human visual capability would be around 14 bits per channel. Some 
studies apparently have shown that you need a full 16 bits per channel, 
while some showed you could get by with as little as 12 bits per 
channel. In fact, the resolution you need is not the same with each 
channel -- you need more with green than you do with red or blue. But 
from a computer standpoint, you need either eight or 16 bits per 
channel, so if you want to capture it all, you need 16 bits per channel.

If you want to learn more about human perception with the emphasis on 
art, try "Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing" by Margaret 
Livingstone. I highly recommend it.
--
Bruce Watson

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Alan Ansell

Hi Bruce,

As I understand it, the basis for colour management - the CIE color space - was produced after extensive studies of the human visual system. Without going into a depth (there is a very full definition available on Wikipedia - search both "Color vision" and "CIE 1931 Color Space") and with respect to your experience in this field, I feel that is putting the cart a little before the horse.

It's no coincidence that computer graphics standards have striven for and now essentially settled on a 24 bit colour space. It is because it is possible to represent the CIE (or all other) color spaces within the color cube defined by 256x256x256 values and, in a sense, this color space represents a model of everything that we can see. I know that this is in a sense a subjective statement since perception is in part a pyschological phenomenon - look at things like color constancy as an example - a camera will record the light density changes across a wall, while our eye/brain system will often simply see a white (or other colour) surface (unless we know about colour constancy and look again). So the very establishment of an international colour standard was in one sense an attempt to quantify the human visual system which is an attempt that can only approach the visual system. So I regard our attempts to produce some sort of 'definitive' and all encompassing reproduction system to
be doomed to failure - largely because what we think we see  depends a lot on contextual information and not some kind of application to a number of 'levels'.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm going off at a tangent here but I feel that a lot of this talk about bit depths and image size is about a pursuit of a technical excellence that begins to depart from the actual process  of vision.


-- 
  Alan Ansell
  aansell@...
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original message -----
From: "Bruce Watson" <bwyg@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 12:52:34 -0400
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

Alan Ansell wrote:
> ...the human visual system can only see roughly the eqiuvalent of the 16.7 million colours produced by 256³ (3 x the 8-bit channels), ...
>
What makes you think that?
We use eight bits per channel (RGB) because it fits the (current)
computer architecture (and makes a smaller memory footprint and smaller
files), not because it's a good fit with human perception. A closer fit
to human visual capability would be around 14 bits per channel. Some
studies apparently have shown that you need a full 16 bits per channel,
while some showed you could get by with as little as 12 bits per
channel. In fact, the resolution you need is not the same with each
channel -- you need more with green than you do with red or blue. But
from a computer standpoint, you need either eight or 16 bits per
channel, so if you want to capture it all, you need 16 bits per channel.
If you want to learn more about human perception with the emphasis on
art, try "Vision and Art: The Biology of Seeing" by Margaret
Livingstone. I highly recommend it.
--
Bruce Watson


References

1. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/84771;_ylc=X3oDMTM2djNnZDVpBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0ODIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3Z0cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIzNzU5NQR0cGNJZAM4NDc3MQ--
2. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJxMHMwMzYyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBG1zZ0lkAzg0ODIzBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3JwbHkEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIzNzU5NQ--?act=reply&messageNum=84823
3. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJlamx2dnVnBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA250cGMEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIzNzU5NQ--
4. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/messages;_ylc=X3oDMTJlcjY1MWFiBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA21zZ3MEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIzNzU5NQ--
5. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
6. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
7. http://groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJkaXBndmxqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2dmcARzdGltZQMxMTc2MjM3NTk1
8. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/join;_ylc=X3oDMTJmNHVoZ3VqBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA3N0bmdzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-
9. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-digest@yahoogroups.com?subject=Email%20Delivery:%20Digest
  10. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-traditional@yahoogroups.com?subject=Change%20Delivery%20Format:%20Traditional
  11. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJkbG41ZXQ2BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwNmdHIEc2xrA2hwZgRzdGltZQMxMTc2MjM3NTk1
  12. http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
  13. mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=
  14. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/members;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMmg3bjM3BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZtYnJzBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-
  15. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint;_ylc=X3oDMTJlY2NqbGpjBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzM3MDIzMTEEZ3Jwc3BJZAMxNzA1MDE5MTgyBHNlYwN2dGwEc2xrA3ZnaHAEc3RpbWUDMTE3NjIzNzU5NQ--
  16. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjMzhhamY0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzEEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=AhyJLEY_mHSSQCNHMyZ1HQ
  17. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjbnVodXMyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzIEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=SvQKuVtg6IzggzvbNW76cQ
  18. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjOGJwc2t0BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzMEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=g1PLpDs3VAJRCiHquYf9Kw
  19. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjaTBxcHBzBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzQEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+technique&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=z42wd62NioHid6gdeL6dXQ
  20. http://groups.yahoo.com/gads;_ylc=X3oDMTJjZDNlOHM5BF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BF9wAzUEZ3JwSWQDMzcwMjMxMQRncnBzcElkAzE3MDUwMTkxODIEc2VjA3NsbW9kBHN0aW1lAzExNzYyMzc1OTU-?t=ms&k=Fine+art+photography+print&w1=Fine+art+photography&w2=Digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+print&w4=Digital+photography+technique&w5=Fine+art+photography+print&c=5&s=149&g=2&.sig=a-SzixGQMrtqCBQRWDYQjw
  21. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i7uri5t/M=493064.9803190.10510181.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176244795/A=3848606/R=0/SIG=12t5n1ri6/*http://news.yahoo.com/i/721;_ylt=A9FJqZeOvK5EKmgAbwsLMxIF;_ylu=X3oDMTA2NWJlcmlsBHNlYwN0bg--
  22. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12jp92d1l/M=493064.10512181.11138666.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176244795/A=4507179/R=0/SIG=12de4rskk/*http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=50284/*http://finance.yahoo.com/personal-finance
  23. http://us.ard.yahoo.com/SIG=12i0rmfo0/M=493064.9803235.10510228.8674578/D=groups/S=1705019182:NC/Y=YAHOO/EXP=1176244795/A=4299916/R=0/SIG=112p3i6po/*http://games.tv.yahoo.com/trump/


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 3:15:08 PM, mtoledo@... writes:


> or the equivalent of 9.5 greyscale bits.
> 

Well... somewhere between that and eight bits.

But shooting raw and working with high bit certainly offers more than enough 
gray levels; the question is more one of camera dynamic range than bit depth 
at that point.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Alan Ansell

Not wanting to over-egg the pudding, but for anyone interested, you might enjoy the following link:
http://www.fho-emden.de/~hoffmann/ciexyz29082000.pdf

-- 
  Alan Ansell
  aansell@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by CorrPro96@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/2007 2:30:19 PM Eastern Daylight Time,  
dealy663@... writes:

Please  keep in mind that I've massively simplified how these things
work in the  real world. A contrast adjustment is not likely to be a
simple  subtraction/addition of a single value to all pixels in the
image not equal  to the midpoint.

Maybe I should take the time to write a full fledged  article on how
this stuff works.



That would be a great service to all of us.
 
Richard (Brooklyn)



************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-10 by Bruce Watson

Alan Ansell wrote:
>  Hi Bruce,
>
> As I understand it, the basis for colour management - the CIE color space - was produced after extensive studies of the human visual system. Without going into a depth (there is a very full definition available on Wikipedia - search both "Color vision" and "CIE 1931 Color Space") and with respect to your experience in this field, I feel that is putting the cart a little before the horse.
>   
We've learned a bit since 1931. We've developed better instruments and 
can take better measurements. And we've learned more about what we 
should be measuring. We've found people with a fourth visual cone 
(orange). We've found that the cones we do have vary from person to 
person. One person has a "red" cone while the person sitting next to 
them has a "red-orange" cone. We've learned a great deal more about 
visual perception in the last 75 years.

I'm thinking that the basis for modern color management is coming from 
the International Color Consortium (ICC) and the ISO:

http://www.color.org/icc_specs2.html
> It's no coincidence that computer graphics standards have striven for and now essentially settled on a 24 bit colour space. It is because it is possible to represent the CIE (or all other) color spaces within the color cube defined by 256x256x256 values 
I have to disagree on this. Unfortunately I was there (jeez I'm old) 
working in the field when some of these choices were being made. Back 
then (late 1970s to early 1080s) we were still having the octal vs. 
hexadecimal debate (remember the DEC PDP-8?). The reason that computer 
graphics are eight bit is just money and technology. Eight bits was as 
wide as we could go at the time. Sixteen bits wasn't available and 
therefore wasn't even an option. Back then 8K of memory cost more than a 
car. Remember back to 1987 when IBM released the VGA monitor 
specification. Sixteen or 256 colors out of 262144 (six bits per 
channel). Took special chips which were worth making because the extra 
two bits cost a fortune.

We had eight bit color for a long time because many in the industry 
thought it sufficient. But this predates programs like Photoshop. When 
people started using computer photo editors they began a steady push 
toward 16 bits per channel. The fact that memory and disk space today is 
for all intents and purposes free just rids us of a possible constraint.
> and, in a sense, this color space represents a model of everything that we can see. I know that this is in a sense a subjective statement since perception is in part a pyschological phenomenon - look at things like color constancy as an example - a camera will record the light density changes across a wall, while our eye/brain system will often simply see a white (or other colour) surface (unless we know about colour constancy and look again). 
Color constancy is interesting. Since 1931, we've discovered a bit about 
how it works. The brain apparently contains some black point 
compensation circuitry that is separate from the rest of the visual 
cortex. Really most of us see in RGBK. Without it, moving from shadows 
to direct sunlight would result in perceived color shifts that would 
make our heads spin. And it's one of the reasons that our visual system 
is so bad at quantifying individual colors.
> So the very establishment of an international colour standard was in one sense an attempt to quantify the human visual system which is an attempt that can only approach the visual system. So I regard our attempts to produce some sort of 'definitive' and all encompassing reproduction system to
> be doomed to failure - largely because what we think we see  depends a lot on contextual information and not some kind of application to a number of 'levels'.
>   
The problem with standards is that they are just that - standards. When 
you learn more it's difficult to break free of the now outdated standard 
because you've build up so much useful stuff on top of the standard.

> Please feel free to correct me if I'm going off at a tangent here but I feel that a lot of this talk about bit depths and image size is about a pursuit of a technical excellence that begins to depart from the actual process  of vision.
>   
I know some experts and realize that I'm not one. I'm not correcting 
anything. I'm just giving you my perspective which is based on my 
experience and my reading. I think we all want the same thing which is, 
in the end, better prints.
--
Bruce Watson

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 9:28:32 PM, garww@... writes:


> So, if my understanding is correct,
> 

Actually, I didn't see ANYTHING in there that was correct. Guess that article 
would be a good idea!

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/10/07 9:28:48 PM, garww@... writes:


> In any case, the monitor doesn't display all the data.
> 

Even "high bit" monitors have a low bit bottleneck in the process, so all 
current monitors are limited to 256 levels of data per channel from the 
application. Extra data may be present, but it won't be displayed. Extra data may 
effect the print, but not the screen preview.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by Gary Brown

Would'nt it be simpler to capture all images in RAW and convert them to 16 
bit tiffs, do all of the editing, then save as an 8 bit file ?

Gary


www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown
Show quoted textHide quoted text
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manuel Toledo Quinones" <mtoledo@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 12:11 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit


So, if my understanding is correct,

8-bit rgb = 256 levels x 3 channels = 768 levels (if converted to b&w)

or the equivalent of 9.5 greyscale bits.

Converting the 8-bit file to a 16-bit file produces 64k possible
levels, which will be initially discretely distributed into 256
levels, i.e. each pixel color will have a value equal to 256*x,
where x is the original 8-bit pixel value. So just after the
conversion the information is the same in both the 8- and 16-bit
files. The numbers are just bigger but you still have use 256 levels
per color.

However, after the conversion, you can adjust the pixel values more
finely because you have the 64k levels.  So processing the image in
16-bits should create less artifacts that doing so in 8-bits. The
difference might be visible depending on how good your sight is
and on the amount of processing.

Right?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dealy663"
<dealy663@...> wrote:
>
> A little bit of computer science here.
>
> An 8 bit BW file can have at most 256 levels of gray tones, a 16 bit
> file can have 65536 independent tones. Converting from 8 to 16 bit
> simply maps those original 256 tones into the 65536 space. If you had
> a linear gradient going from black to white at the start it would
> appear exactly the same after the conversion. You would still have 256
> independent tones. However you would also have room between each tone,
> 256 blank spots with no gray vales on either side. By this I mean that
> for the gray value that was originally 128 in the 8 bit file it would
> now be 32768. The difference being that in the 8 bit file there were
> picture elements represented by values 127 and 129. While in the 16
> bit file those values would be represented by 32512 and 330224, there
> would be no pixels in the image with values between 32768 and these
> other two numbers.
>
> Next lets say that you adjust the global contrast of your image. In a
> simplified algorithm, an increase in contrast makes the values below
> the midpoint (128 8-bit) darker and the values above the midpoint
> lighter. In an 8 bit file if we subtract 1 from each value less than
> 128 then we now have 126 tones where we had 127 tones before the
> subtraction. This is because the pixels that were formerly at value 1
> are now at zero along with all the pixels that were previously at
> zero. The same logic applies above the midpoint, so where we
> originally had 256 tones before the contrast adjustment we now have
> 254. In a 16 bit file applying the same type of correction still
> leaves you with the original 256 independent tones, because there was
> 256 bits of headroom between each original pixel value. You would have
> to adjust the contrast by more than 255 points before you started
> reducing the number of tones in your image.
>
> The scenario I've described above leads to the posterization that we
> see when making large adjustments in 8-bit files. It is not true that
> all image editing leads to the loss of data, but large movements
> certainly can. There are other issues with 8 vs 16 bit related to
> rounding errors also.
>
> With all that said, I rarely change my 8-bit files to 16-bit before
> editing. I would only do so if there was something really wrong with
> my exposure and I needed to make large adjustments to the file.
>
> Hope I didn't confuse the issue too much.
>
> Derek
>




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as 
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to 
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same 
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep 
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. 
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the 
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W 
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from 
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and 
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU 
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY 
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, 
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND 
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE 
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY 
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR 
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY 
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by CDTobie@aol.com

In a message dated 4/11/07 12:04:27 PM, baffin@... writes:


> Would'nt it be simpler to capture all images in RAW and convert them to 16
> bit tiffs, do all of the editing, then save as an 8 bit file ?
> 

Thats a typical flow, but the percentage of images that reach each step are 
smaller as you go along. Unless I have to send an image out it never gets to 
the 8 bit/channel step at all. If it has Photoshop layers in it, it may never 
get to the TIFF step, and if it doesn't get special retouching, it stays RAW.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


**************************************
 See what's free at 
http://www.aol.com.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by Tyler Boley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson
<bwyg@...> wrote:
...
> I know some experts and realize that I'm not one. I'm not correcting 
> anything. I'm just giving you my perspective which is based on my 
> experience and my reading. I think we all want the same thing which is, 
> in the end, better prints.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>
whatever the level of expertise, I found that very interesting. The
last sentence is so right after all is said and done. From my
experience, most of us use 8 bit for years seeing no problems, even if
there may be some unseen sacrifice. Then suddenly one file is simply
impossible to print without problems, and had it been high bit all the
way through you'd be done and moved on. From there on out, just to
avoid that, we do hi bit. We may be unaware of the precise
improvements we get from there on out, and I suspect it varies
dramatically from image to image.
Someone mentioned this issue nearly disapears with such cheap storage
and memory these days, it's used to be a bigger problem. Also, PS
could do little to nothing with it back then.
If the over-riding concern is those better prints, why even bother
taking the chance?
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-11 by Bruce Watson

Tyler Boley wrote:
> If the over-riding concern is those better prints, why even bother
> taking the chance?
> Tyler
>   
Exactly. Succinct as usual Tyler.
--
Bruce Watson

Re: [Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-12 by Ernst Dinkla

Tyler Boley wrote:

> Someone mentioned this issue nearly disapears with such cheap storage
> and memory these days, it's used to be a bigger problem. Also, PS
> could do little to nothing with it back then.

And 16 bit may have passed the editing, archiving stages:

16 bit printer drivers are popping up too: GutenPrint, the 
Canon wide format PS plug-in,  Wasatch SoftRip 6.1, ImagePro 
(claims to be 16 bit much longer already), the Pocket Rip 
:-) another PS plug-in of mixed reputation.

On the scanner front the HP's G4010 and G4050, 6 color, 96 
bit, may be strange birds but together with N-color 
printers, color capture and printing gets wider gamuts + 
better defined color. The scanner has two spectrally 
different light sources so two scan passes, one RGB sensor 
system, two images stacked at 96 bit and processed,  so a 
very slow process !  Cheap scanners, consumer reports are 
not positive, the driver lacks but Vuescan supports the 
scanners already. My guess is that it is another range of 
scanners that has more potential than the normal consumer 
will exploit.

Review in Dutch :-)

http://www.hardware.info/nl-NL/articles/amdnY2psZGSa/HP_Scanjet_G4050_review/

So far only Sony had a digital camera with a 4th color in 
the Bayer mosa\ufffdc filter sensor, but it will not be the last 
attempt to get better color definition by more spectral 
sampling.


Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

[Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-13 by digikdm

Not to dwell on this forever, but while memory these days is cheap 
it's not dirt cheap. Whether to save your final versions as 8 bit vs. 
16 bit files remains a good question. If you merely save your keeper 
original raw "negative" files, plus the keeper raw conversion files, 
plus one non-layered keeper final print file and possibly a back-up 
raw conversion-DNG file (not to mention any B&W conversion files), it 
doesn't take that long to fill a 500GB hard drive. Saving your final 
print as an 8 bit file does save some storage space and money. Does 
anyone think we will ever be able to tell the differnce visually 
between a good 8 bit color file print and a 16 bit color file print?





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Bruce Watson 
<bwyg@...> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> Tyler Boley wrote:
> > If the over-riding concern is those better prints, why even bother
> > taking the chance?
> > Tyler
> >   
> Exactly. Succinct as usual Tyler.
> --
> Bruce Watson
>

[Digital BW] Re: 8bit to 16 bit

2007-04-13 by Tyler Boley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "digikdm"
<monroekd@...> wrote:
>
> Not to dwell on this forever, but while memory these days is cheap
> it's not dirt cheap.

I didn't mean to sound elitist. Any expense is an issue for many of
us. With regard to hi bit's effect on memory use- I have a workaround
I have been using for years as I've never been able to afford the
amount of memory I would prefer. I'll post it if anyone is interested,
it's obvious and not rocket science.

> Whether to save your final versions as 8 bit vs.
> 16 bit files remains a good question.

And this would be a storage issue, not a memory issue.

> If you merely save your keeper
> original raw "negative" files, plus the keeper raw conversion files,
> plus one non-layered keeper final print file and possibly a back-up
> raw conversion-DNG file (not to mention any B&W conversion files), it
> doesn't take that long to fill a 500GB hard drive. Saving your final
> print as an 8 bit file does save some storage space and money.

The various versions you mention wanting to keep on hand does make
storage more of an issue. All of us have differing preferences with
regard to this, After an agonizing deliberative process, once I have a
print I like, I only keep the final high bit, if it was a capture I'd
keep the raw as well. I like to commit to my decisions and move on to
another image, life is short. Also, since it's hi bit, it can stand
some future edits if necessary.
However, your last sentence mentions color. Since this list is
primarily about B&W printing, most of my comments relate to that. A hi
bit version of a grayscale file will be smaller than its pixel
dimension equivalent in 8 bit RGB, I still don't consider it a storage
burden. I'd also mention that generally, problems resulting from 8 bit
will more likely show up with a single channel file than color, so may
be more important for B&W particularly with hi fidelity output systems
like the K7s.

> Does
> anyone think we will ever be able to tell the differnce visually
> between a good 8 bit color file print and a 16 bit color file print?

I don't think anyone can claim to have an answer. One assumes the road
to each was the same, and simply converted down to 8 at the end, vrs
saving in 16 bit? So then it's simply a printing issue.
I'd just say again that I don't want to take the chance. But your
point that this approach could become burdensome is well taken.
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-13 by Mark Savoia

Is it legal?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Apr 13, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Peter De Smidt wrote:

>> I didn't mean to sound elitist. Any expense is an issue for many of
>> us. With regard to hi bit's effect on memory use- I have a workaround
>> I have been using for years as I've never been able to afford the
>> amount of memory I would prefer. I'll post it if anyone is  
>> interested,
>> it's obvious and not rocket science.
> Hi Tyler,
>
> I'm interested in your work-a-round.
>
> Regards,
> Peter De Smidt
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other  
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you  
> wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by  
> visiting this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages  
> to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or  
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed  
> from the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital  
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be  
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules  
> and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the  
> group Owner and Moderators. See “Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines”  
> in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE  
> “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL  
> NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,  
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,  
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER  
> INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  “OWNER” AND “MODERATORS” OF DIGITAL  
> BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF  
> SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE  
> THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO  
> OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR  
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO  
> GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE  
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-13 by Peter De Smidt

> I didn't mean to sound elitist. Any expense is an issue for many of
> us. With regard to hi bit's effect on memory use- I have a workaround
> I have been using for years as I've never been able to afford the
> amount of memory I would prefer. I'll post it if anyone is interested,
> it's obvious and not rocket science.
Hi Tyler,

I'm interested in your work-a-round.

Regards,
Peter De Smidt

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-13 by Tyler Boley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Mark Savoia
<mark@...> wrote:
>
> Is it legal?

Yes, so really no fun at all...

This is based on the premise that working on large hi bit files is too
slow, particularly with layers, for most of us cheapos who can't get
more memory and/or powerful processors.
Here it is, merely an updated version of a process put forth by St.
Fraser some time ago-

I assume you have a hi bit raw scan, or whatever to begin with. Either
crop it now, or leave cropping to the very end. Convert it to 8 bit
and "save as" with some meaningful name. You'll leave that hi bit
version alone for later, all work will now be done on the new 8 bit file.

All of your edits will now be done with adjustment layers. If you
don't work this way you can stop reading now, the rest won't work.
I'll suggest you do try to work this way, masked adjustment layers are
great, can be adjusted, and masks edited. Very powerful and undo-able.
You will do all of your proofing with this file, all test prints to
evaluate edits, etc.. Never flattening it. The background layer must
remain identical to the original hi bit.
When you are happy hold down the shift key and click on each
adjustment layer, selecting all of them. In the layers pallette select
"new group from layers". Your layers will all nicely be together in a
layer folder. Save, purge all to clear scratch.

Start a good book. Open that original hi bit version, both files are
now open in Photoshop. While holding down the shift key, drag that
folder icon of all your layers over to the hi bit file. When it's done
close the 8 bit file. Now do the flatten command and grab that book,
could take some time.
Save as the "printer" or whatever, in hi bit.
If you have changed the pixel dimensions of either file in any way,
your layer masks will not be in register. If you have a previous
version of PS that does not do layer groups, just shift drag each
layer over one at a time. If you have an even earlier version that
won't do adjustment layers on hi bit, go here-
http://www.creativepro.com/story/feature/16097-1.html
That's it.
Say your prayers to Bruce Almighty, where would we be had he not tread
ahead of us?
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-13 by Greg Stempel

I would like to hear your workaround. My new CS2/Vista is all of sudden 
experiencing disk space issues.


Take care,
Gregory david Stempel
www.fireframeimaging.com
www.soundexposure.org

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-14 by dealy663

> I assume you have a hi bit raw scan, or whatever to begin with. Either
> crop it now, or leave cropping to the very end. Convert it to 8 bit
> and "save as" with some meaningful name. 

As soon as I read these first two sentences I knew where you were
going with this. Its a good idea, and really can come in handy when
working with large scans.

Derek

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-14 by Edgar

My experience with the masks on adjustment layers has been mixed with
regard to the bit depth. I find that I am able to see on my monitor
(although not in my QTR/piezotone prints) the gradations between
shades when generated from a soft brush or from the gradation tool
showing through the adjustment layer especially in flat sky areas.
This happens in both 8 and 16 bit modes for me. Are the layer masks 8
bit deep even when working in a 16 bit mode? 

More to the point at hand, Tyler, do you see any affect of the 8bit
masks when applied to your 16bit file either on screen or in print?
edgar

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-15 by Tyler Boley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar"
<bakersfieldabalone@...> wrote:
>
> My experience with the masks on adjustment layers has been mixed with
> regard to the bit depth. I find that I am able to see on my monitor
> (although not in my QTR/piezotone prints) the gradations between
> shades when generated from a soft brush or from the gradation tool
> showing through the adjustment layer especially in flat sky areas.
> This happens in both 8 and 16 bit modes for me. Are the layer masks 8
> bit deep even when working in a 16 bit mode? 

I try to stay away from that kind of editing for the reasons you
state. Using a huge blur, or the grad tool, etc. can create these
problems if in certain kinds of image areas like skies. I haven't seen
the problem for a while, so not sure if latest PS versions have hi bit
masks or I've just learned to stay way from these kinds of edits.
Given the rapid escalation of hi bit file size when adding layers in
recent versions, I've wondered if the alpha channels are still just 8 bit.
I tend to use curve adj layers a lot, with masks. If I were trying to
darken a sky that way with gradation in the mask, I'd add noise to the
mask if there is a problem.
Definitely do not run tonal editing on such a layer mask after
creating it, I'll band it for sure, better to rebuild the mask as desired.

> More to the point at hand, Tyler, do you see any affect of the 8bit
> masks when applied to your 16bit file either on screen or in print?

I hope the above answers this, no I don't. However, as you are
implying, there would be nothing gained from the application since the
source (8 bit alpha channel) was created in 8. Again, perhaps I'm
staying away from the problem anyway, so not seeing it for that reason.
Alternately, I wonder what options would exist that don't result in
the same problem. You have to make that gradated edit somehow. Even a
highly feathered selection or gradated quick mask, then tonal edit on
a high bit file, the selection is a temporary 8 bit alpha channel, right?
By the way, monitors are notorious for showing banding that doesn't
exist in the file, particularly monochrome or pastels.
Tyler

Re: [Digital BW] Tyler's Memory Work-a-round

2007-04-15 by Brian Chapman

To add to Tyler's response regarding banding - make sure you're
viewing the image at 100% when you're evaluating banding.  Anything
less than 100% is prone to showing banding that doesn't exist when
viewed at full size.  

Also, as Tyler suggested, adding noise to the mask works wonders for
improving the "smoothness" of the gradation.  The alpha channels are
still 8 bit.

Brian

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Edgar"
> <bakersfieldabalone@> wrote:
> >
> > My experience with the masks on adjustment layers has been mixed with
> > regard to the bit depth. I find that I am able to see on my monitor
> > (although not in my QTR/piezotone prints) the gradations between
> > shades when generated from a soft brush or from the gradation tool
> > showing through the adjustment layer especially in flat sky areas.
> > This happens in both 8 and 16 bit modes for me. Are the layer masks 8
> > bit deep even when working in a 16 bit mode? 
> 
> I try to stay away from that kind of editing for the reasons you
> state. Using a huge blur, or the grad tool, etc. can create these
> problems if in certain kinds of image areas like skies. I haven't seen
> the problem for a while, so not sure if latest PS versions have hi bit
> masks or I've just learned to stay way from these kinds of edits.
> Given the rapid escalation of hi bit file size when adding layers in
> recent versions, I've wondered if the alpha channels are still just
8 bit.
> I tend to use curve adj layers a lot, with masks. If I were trying to
> darken a sky that way with gradation in the mask, I'd add noise to the
> mask if there is a problem.
> Definitely do not run tonal editing on such a layer mask after
> creating it, I'll band it for sure, better to rebuild the mask as
desired.
> 
> > More to the point at hand, Tyler, do you see any affect of the 8bit
> > masks when applied to your 16bit file either on screen or in print?
> 
> I hope the above answers this, no I don't. However, as you are
> implying, there would be nothing gained from the application since the
> source (8 bit alpha channel) was created in 8. Again, perhaps I'm
> staying away from the problem anyway, so not seeing it for that reason.
> Alternately, I wonder what options would exist that don't result in
> the same problem. You have to make that gradated edit somehow. Even a
> highly feathered selection or gradated quick mask, then tonal edit on
> a high bit file, the selection is a temporary 8 bit alpha channel,
right?
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> By the way, monitors are notorious for showing banding that doesn't
> exist in the file, particularly monochrome or pastels.
> Tyler
>

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.