Tom, I would think an immediate conversion to an 8 bit image wouldn't be any different, but I imagine that a 12 or 22 bit image adjusted with curves and whatever could yield different, better results. This is along the lines of capture the full 22 bits, but only show the 8 bits where most of the information is.
It seems to work for me in Photoshop Elements 4.0 where I can adjust a 12 bit image and then convert to 8 bits versus adjusting an image in Paint Shop Pro X where I can only use 8 bits. Regards, Bob S. On 10/14/06, Tom C <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Yes, that was my point. Converting the image to an 8-bit jpeg should render > any gains from what ever color depth resolution the original capture was, > null & void. > > Granted,the better the original, the better a converted copy may tend to be. > But comparisons of 8-bit images really can't be used to demonstrate the > advantages of a higher resolution senso, or to make meaningful comparisons. > > None of this is to say we don't all enjoy and appreciate nice 8-bit > renderings. :-) > > Tom C. > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > From: graywolf <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: K10D 22 bit A/D conversion > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:04:13 -0400 > > You mean, an 8-bit jpeg, is an 8-bit jpeg? > > Actually you should see a bit better rendering in an 8-bit jpeg made > from a high definition image, than one made from a low definition image, > but it will not be a high definition image its self. > > -- > graywolf > http://www.graywolfphoto.com > http://webpages.charter.net/graywolf > "Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof" > ----------------------------------- > > > Tom C wrote: > > Is one really able to tell anything like fine gradation in an online > image? > > > > > > Tom C. > > > > > > ----Original Message Follows---- > > From: "Ken Takeshita" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Reply-To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List <[email protected]> > > To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: Re: K10D 22 bit A/D conversion > > Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 16:02:48 -0400 > > > > On 10/13/06, Perry Pellechia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > That's a little misleading. The "12" bit rendering is only using 4 > > > bits. The signal could certainly be preconditioned to use the > > > digitizer better than that. > > > > > > > Maybe, but this is a good "illustration" of the magnitude of > > difference between 12 and 22 bit rendering. They are emphasizing the > > difference in gradation (22bit/4,200,000 vs 12bit/4096) which should > > result in a lot higher fidelity in presentating of skin, texture and > > other stuff. > > Well, pentax are the first one to use the 22bit converter with > > supposedly excellent and fast processor (PRIME). From what I saw in > > just a few recent samples, images looked excellent 9and very > > natural). > > Let's see how the final version samples would come out. > > > > Ken > > > > -- > > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > [email protected] > > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
