Yes, resolution of colour space, or a wider gamut if you like. How can noise dominate a wider gamut, as JCO says?
Still bewildered... Jostein ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ryan Brooks" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 11:06 PM Subject: Re: istD bit depth > Jostein wrote: > > >Um... > >Are you sure resolution has anything to do with this? I thought the > >number of bits at any given pixel describes how many distinct levels > >of illumination that pixel can distinguish. The extra bits of colour > >depth gives more exposure latitude, but does it alter the resolution? > > > >I didn't know that... > > > > > > > Resolution of color space, > > -Ryan > > >bewildered, > >Jostein > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 10:23 PM > >Subject: RE: istD bit depth > > > > > > > > > >>while the scanners may output a 16bit signal that doesn't mean > >>it is truly resolving 16 bits. Noise could dominate well before > >>you get down to that level of resolution. > >>JCO > >> > >>-----Original Message----- > >>From: Jostein [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 4:14 PM > >>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>Subject: Re: istD bit depth > >> > >> > >>Shel, > >>I think what John is saying is that it takes significantly more > >> > >> > >power to > > > > > >>compute the four extra bits per pixel between 12 and 16. You'd need > >> > >> > >much > > > > > >>stronger number-crunching logic around the chip, and more RAM as > >> > >> > >well, > > > > > >>to make processing of the image from chip to storage medium go > >>reasonably quick. With a scanner you accept a much longer exposure > >> > >> > >time > > > > > >>per "shot" than you would with a DSLR. > >> > >>Cameras can have 14 or 16 bit depth, and a price tag to match...:-) > >> > >>Jostein > >> > >>----- Original Message ----- > >>From: "Shel Belinkoff" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>Sent: Saturday, October 23, 2004 9:51 PM > >>Subject: Re: istD bit depth > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>>Hi John ... > >>> > >>>Couldn't forget that linear stuff since I never knew it <vbg> > >>> > >>>Don't really understand the 2D thing. Are there two rows of > >>> > >>> > >pixels, > > > > > >>one > >> > >> > >>>below the other? Nah, that can't be it? So how come the 'blad > >>> > >>> > >can > > > > > >>have a > >> > >> > >>>16-bit sensor, and some DSLR cameras 14-bit? Is it a matter of > >>> > >>> > >>space > >> > >> > >>>(which is what I'm inferring from your remarks)? I heard talk of > >>> > >>> > >a > > > > > >>Nikon > >> > >> > >>>D3 with a 16-bit sensor, BTW ... > >>> > >>>Shel > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>>[Original Message] > >>>>From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>>>Date: 10/23/2004 12:42:22 PM > >>>>Subject: Re: istD bit depth > >>>> > >>>>Shel Belinkoff mused: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>The istD has a bit depth of 12. I seem to recall some DSLR > >>>>> > >>>>> > >with > > > > > >>a bit > >> > >> > >>>>>depth of 14 ... maybe. The specs on the new Hasselblad claim > >>>>> > >>>>> > >a > > > > > >>bit > >> > >> > >>>depth > >>> > >>> > >>>>>of 16. Why is it that so many DSLR cameras are using a bit > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>depth of > >> > >> > >>>12? > >>> > >>> > >>>>>Is there a physical or design reason? Cost? My little Nikon > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>scanner > >> > >> > >>>has a > >>> > >>> > >>>>>bit depth of 16 ... why not a DSLR? > >>>>> > >>>>>Shel > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>Don't forget that your scanner only has a single row of sensors, > >>>> > >>>> > >>not a > >> > >> > >>>>two-dimensional array, and that it only has to work at a single > >>>> > >>>> > >>speed. > >> > >> > >>>>Of the two, the fact that it's only a linear sensor is more > >>>> > >>>> > >>important. > >> > >> > >>>>You can put the extra processing elements, etc., alongside the > >>>> > >>>> > >>sensor > >> > >> > >>>>without having to worry too much how much room they take up. In > >>>> > >>>> > >a > > > > > >>2D > >> > >> > >>>>sensor you're trying to put another row of pixels there. > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > > > > > > > > >
