On Friday 20 July 2007 00:26:00 Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:
> Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:52:58 +0100 schrieb David Marrs:
> > David Southwell wrote:
> >> Anyone...
> >> Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??
> > Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.
> > Incidentally, unless you've got a pro camera and lens, a high quality,
> > properly calibrated monitor and a very good printer, I really don't think
> > you're going to benefit from the extra bit depth. Probably you know this
> > already but I suspect many people out there are under the mistaken
> > impression that they're losing quality if they use Gimp when really
> > they're not.
> this is not quite true. Even without calibrated equipment you can benefit
> a lot from 16bit color depth. Simply because the picture contains more
> information. If you want to brighten a dark area of a picture for example.
> The 8 bit picture does not reveal details in that area and it remains dark
> resp. grey. But the 16bit picture will reveal details in that area which
> do not even exist in the 8bit picture.. This is simply a matter of
> information density and has nothing to do with color calibration.
I agree with you - David Marrs has missed the point. 16 bit color depth
provides far more detail and noone who is producing high quality professional
photographic images for their clients would consider working with 8 bit
rather than 16bit depth. The work produced at 8bit would be laughed at by
discriminating clients. While this is a major draw back with gimp I
understand the need is recognised and will hopefully be remedied in the near
future. When that happens gimp will be laying the foundation for an entry
into the professional arena. Until that happens it is a very useful piece
that does not compete at the professional level with the default industry
> Gimp-user mailing list
Gimp-user mailing list