[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> From: Preston Earle > > I don't believe I'm confusing bit depth and resolution, I'm probably > just not explaining myself very well. I'm trying to say that if a > scanner can't (or at least "doesn't") scan adjacent pixels of uniform > color as identical values in 8-bit precision, it doesn't matter what the > other eight high-bits are. I don't have a tool to report 16-bit pixel > values, but the 1x1-pixel point-source eyedropper in Photoshop shows > *no* identical 4-pixel squares in a 2820ppi scan from my ScanDual II. > For example, in an area where the pixels should be the same color, four > adjacent pixels have values of 222r201g178b, 220r200g175b, 222r201g176b, > and 200r200g175b. When these "combine" to make a print dot (or some > other visible whatever) the average is 221r200(or201)g176b. If we knew > the decimal values represented by the high bits, it wouldn't change the > average. Thus it is irrelevant what the high-bit values are. That's right. > Maybe at some point in the process the 8th (and 9th, 10th, even 11th or > 12th) bit *is* significant, and there is some "noise" added at some > stage of conversion which eliminates the significance of the high bits. > If so, it's valid to use high-bit data before that conversion. After > that conversion, however, high-bit data is irrelevant. It's > less-than-half-cent data in a dollar world. As I said in another post, it appears to me, at least when scanning slides, that film grain is the main source of noise, so there's no way around that. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 06:09 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > On 22/9/03 16:44, "Roy Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> Brad, >> >> You are probably right that -- "This conversation is only about bit >> depth." >> >> But I think that is one of the main shortcomings of the discussion. >> Resolution >> (DPI or more accurately PPI) and bit depth are certainly very >> different >> and >> clear properties of an image file. However the criteria for >> comparison >> is always >> a print that the human eye looks at to evaluate. At this level PPI >> and >> bit depth >> are no longer independent and well defined properties of the image. >> >> Fewer levels of gray (i.e. less bit depth) is easily compensated for >> by >> a higher >> resolution --- that's the basic principle of halftoning or of >> stochastic dithering in >> printing. >> >> Roy >> > Roy, > > First, I agree, I didn't think that the post I was responding to was > about > PPI (Thanks, that clearly is more apt, although Polaroid rated my > scanner in > DPI - but what do they know, they went bankrupt!). Adding the issues > you > introduce might make the case for 16 bit a little more certain - I > know that > I started out with a strong bias toward 8 bits for a number of > reasons, not > the least being the human perceptual system, but there are subtle > things > that keep coming up which make me think I may have been wrong - the > interaction between PPI and bit depth being one - I was also able to > think > of an example of how a color image might show banding (Austin's > arguments > not withstanding), even though Henk refused to support his opinions > with an > example. > > I still can't figure how a scanner can manage to be noise free > (electronically) at 1/65,000th of its voltage range (that would be > necessary > for a full 16 bits - but I can imagine a somewhat smaller bit size as Brad, I think it's totally a fallacy that a spec of 16 bits means the scanner is that noise free throughout its range. A significant portion of the noise will be proportional to the size of the signal. So while its likely that you can distinguish values 34, 35, 36, 37, when you get to the large numbers like 1 it may be that the next distinguishable value will be 10100. (That would be noise < 1%). If you figure on 16 bits and 1% noise you get somewhere near a maximum of 600 distinguishable values. Take into account the fact that you don't use much of the total possible range and you can get down to 256 quite easily. So in changing from 16 to 8 bits its mainly a matter of whether or not you did well in mapping to an "interesting" set of 256 values i.e. distinguishable in the scan and desirable in the print. Secondly with enough resolution you get some wiggle room because Photoshop dithers between values on conversion to 8 bit. Roy > working (12- 14?). I also wonder how much dithering (effectively > increasing > the apparent bit depth by increasing the number of levels between > adjacent > pixels is done by say Epson or HP - or whoever. > > Also, in all of this, I haven't seen any reference to the limitation of > paper to present more levels on the one hand, and the subtle effects of > increased levels on perception. Simple psychophysics isn't sufficient > to > explain all of our perceptual capacity - photography paper (silver) > could be > much cheaper is we psychologists had it all locked up. > > brad - Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Black & White Photo Gallery http://www.harrington.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
"Brad Davis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "This is why I think you may be confusing DPI with bit depth, this comment (above) refers to spatial resolution, not intensity resolution. In this issue, (8 bit vs. 16 bit) the same number of pixels exist in either case, in an 8 bit file, they may differ by 1/256, no less, in a 16 bit file, they may differ by as little as 1/65,536. Thus if one reduces the range of values (say in the levels setting in PS), there are still levels to provide transitions in the latter case. It is unlikely you will reduce the levels to a point where it is possible to make a discrimination (thus the appearance of banding)." --- I don't believe I'm confusing bit depth and resolution, I'm probably just not explaining myself very well. I'm trying to say that if a scanner can't (or at least "doesn't") scan adjacent pixels of uniform color as identical values in 8-bit precision, it doesn't matter what the other eight high-bits are. I don't have a tool to report 16-bit pixel values, but the 1x1-pixel point-source eyedropper in Photoshop shows *no* identical 4-pixel squares in a 2820ppi scan from my ScanDual II. For example, in an area where the pixels should be the same color, four adjacent pixels have values of 222r201g178b, 220r200g175b, 222r201g176b, and 200r200g175b. When these "combine" to make a print dot (or some other visible whatever) the average is 221r200(or201)g176b. If we knew the decimal values represented by the high bits, it wouldn't change the average. Thus it is irrelevant what the high-bit values are. I'm easily confused by anything that smacks of electrical engineering, so I can be wowed by certain technical explanations. However, *do* understand "significant digits", and I can't see that values in bits 9-16 have any usefulness if the value of bit 8 is not "significant". (If two houses are 112 feet apart and two other houses are two miles apart, the average distance between the houses is not 5,342 feet.) Maybe at some point in the process the 8th (and 9th, 10th, even 11th or 12th) bit *is* significant, and there is some "noise" added at some stage of conversion which eliminates the significance of the high bits. If so, it's valid to use high-bit data before that conversion. After that conversion, however, high-bit data is irrelevant. It's less-than-half-cent data in a dollar world. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
On 22/9/03 16:44, "Roy Harrington" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 02:04 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > >> On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> ... >>> >>> 2. All visible files are the product of a final >>> resize/pixel-combination >>> of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens. >> >> I don't think this is relevant, there are places in this note where I >> suspect that you may be confusing DPI and bit depth at a pixel. This >> conversation is only about bit depth. >> >>> ... >>> For 16-bit processes to be relevant, wouldn't adjacent pixels have to >>> be >>> identical to more than 8-bit precision? >> >> Yes, exactly, a 16 bit representation is more nearly continuous than 8 >> bit. >> The fact that 8 bits look continuous is an artifact of our perceptual >> system >> which can't discriminate that many levels ( and some of the work of >> printer >> drivers to smooth things out for the resolution of the printer). Most >> people can't resolve much more than 2^5th (32) levels, some 2^6th >> (64), very >> few much more than that. ( Of course I presume everyone here can >> resolve >> 2^7th or 128 levels.) Much of the variability in this measure is a >> function >> of differing assumptions and different methodology in measuring it, the >> generally accepted number is 6 +/-1 bits with few people getting much >> over 6 >> bits. >>> >>> Preston Earle >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> > > Brad, > > You are probably right that -- "This conversation is only about bit > depth." > > But I think that is one of the main shortcomings of the discussion. > Resolution > (DPI or more accurately PPI) and bit depth are certainly very different > and > clear properties of an image file. However the criteria for comparison > is always > a print that the human eye looks at to evaluate. At this level PPI and > bit depth > are no longer independent and well defined properties of the image. > > Fewer levels of gray (i.e. less bit depth) is easily compensated for by > a higher > resolution --- that's the basic principle of halftoning or of > stochastic dithering in > printing. > > Roy > Roy, First, I agree, I didn't think that the post I was responding to was about PPI (Thanks, that clearly is more apt, although Polaroid rated my scanner in DPI - but what do they know, they went bankrupt!). Adding the issues you introduce might make the case for 16 bit a little more certain - I know that I started out with a strong bias toward 8 bits for a number of reasons, not the least being the human perceptual system, but there are subtle things that keep coming up which make me think I may have been wrong - the interaction between PPI and bit depth being one - I was also able to think of an example of how a color image might show banding (Austin's arguments not withstanding), even though Henk refused to support his opinions with an example. I still can't figure how a scanner can manage to be noise free (electronically) at 1/65,000th of its voltage range (that would be necessary for a full 16 bits - but I can imagine a somewhat smaller bit size as working (12- 14?). I also wonder how much dithering (effectively increasing the apparent bit depth by increasing the number of levels between adjacent pixels is done by say Epson or HP - or whoever. Also, in all of this, I haven't seen any reference to the limitation of paper to present more levels on the one hand, and the subtle effects of increased levels on perception. Simple psychophysics isn't sufficient to explain all of our perceptual capacity - photography paper (silver) could be much cheaper is we psychologists had it all locked up. brad > - > Roy Harrington > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Black & White Photo Gallery > http://www.harrington.com > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
On Monday, September 22, 2003, at 02:04 PM, Brad Davis wrote: > On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ... >> >> 2. All visible files are the product of a final >> resize/pixel-combination >> of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens. > > I don't think this is relevant, there are places in this note where I > suspect that you may be confusing DPI and bit depth at a pixel. This > conversation is only about bit depth. > >> ... >> For 16-bit processes to be relevant, wouldn't adjacent pixels have to >> be >> identical to more than 8-bit precision? > > Yes, exactly, a 16 bit representation is more nearly continuous than 8 > bit. > The fact that 8 bits look continuous is an artifact of our perceptual > system > which can't discriminate that many levels ( and some of the work of > printer > drivers to smooth things out for the resolution of the printer). Most > people can't resolve much more than 2^5th (32) levels, some 2^6th > (64), very > few much more than that. ( Of course I presume everyone here can > resolve > 2^7th or 128 levels.) Much of the variability in this measure is a > function > of differing assumptions and different methodology in measuring it, the > generally accepted number is 6 +/-1 bits with few people getting much > over 6 > bits. >> >> Preston Earle >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Brad, You are probably right that -- "This conversation is only about bit depth." But I think that is one of the main shortcomings of the discussion. Resolution (DPI or more accurately PPI) and bit depth are certainly very different and clear properties of an image file. However the criteria for comparison is always a print that the human eye looks at to evaluate. At this level PPI and bit depth are no longer independent and well defined properties of the image. Fewer levels of gray (i.e. less bit depth) is easily compensated for by a higher resolution --- that's the basic principle of halftoning or of stochastic dithering in printing. Roy - Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] Black & White Photo Gallery http://www.harrington.com Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
On 22/9/03 12:09, "Preston Earle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one > thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion. > Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of > "noise" in image data, but that issue has been bypassed in these > discussions in favor of other comments. Yet it seems noise is the reason > high-bit data is superfluous. What I'm thinking: > > 1. High-bit data is very small compared to low bit data. The ninth-bit > is only 0.25% of the value of the full tonal range of 0-100%. Shouldn't this be 0.20% ? I think it is 1/500 (actually 512, but to a first approximation - but maybe I miss something). The issue is real though, the smallest difference between two levels is 1/65,000. I don't want to open the noise issue again, but I do think it is unlikely that most scanners have an intrinsic noise level on the order of 16 microvolts in any usual environment. I wonder if that is why my Polaroid 4000 scanner is rated as only 14 bits. > > 2. All visible files are the product of a final resize/pixel-combination > of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens. I don't think this is relevant, there are places in this note where I suspect that you may be confusing DPI and bit depth at a pixel. This conversation is only about bit depth. > > 3. When scanners measure and assign digital values to image elements, > adjacent pixels are given discrete values that are generally different > by more than 0.25%, that is, the precision of the measurement is less > than 8-bits for adjacent pixels. If using 8 bit scanning adjacent pixels may be the same or differ by at least 1/256 - approximately 0.40%, assuming that the A/D is capable of such discrimination (and it should be) > > 4. Image editing steps which spread existing pixel ranges over larger > ranges do not create more precise intermediate values than the starting > value's precision. If an intermediate pixel value must be created > between two pixels whose values are 128 and 130 (8-bit), the value won't > be more precise if the original values are 127.504 and 129.504 (16-bit). Yes they do. Ignoring the issues of noise for a moment, the addition of 8 bit makes it possible for there to be 256 levels between 127 and 128. The number is no longer 128 (decimal) but 32,768 when the high value in a 16 bit word. > > I don't know how typical CCD scanners scan at lower resolutions than > their maximum. Whether by averaging pixel values along the CCD array and > making larger steps along the film movement, or by some other way, they > still end up with adjacent pixel values that differ by more than 1 unit. > Knowing these values to .5-unit precision doesn't change the average > values reported. This is why I think you may be confusing DPI with bit depth, this comment (above) refers to spatial resolution, not intensity resolution. In this issue, (8 bit vs. 16 bit) the same number of pixels exist in either case, in an 8 bit file, they may differ by 1/256, no less, in a 16 bit file, they may differ by as little as 1/65,536. Thus if one reduces the range of values (say in the levels setting in PS), there are still levels to provide transitions in the latter case. It is unlikely you will reduce the levels to a point where it is possible to make a discrimination (thus the appearance of banding). The issue that has gone on for some time is that in B&W, there are only the 256 levels and an extreme correction (say to get a white in an underexposed shot) may reduce the number of levels to a point where there is something akin to posterization. Austin has been arguing (I think) that in color there are effectively 16,000,000 because most colors are a mixture of 3 - 8 bit channels and therefore one is unlikely to run out of shades. Of course, if a color has value in only one channel (say red), then the same problems as with B&W may occur. > > For 16-bit processes to be relevant, wouldn't adjacent pixels have to be > identical to more than 8-bit precision? Yes, exactly, a 16 bit representation is more nearly continuous than 8 bit. The fact that 8 bits look continuous is an artifact of our perceptual system which can't discriminate that many levels ( and some of the work of printer drivers to smooth things out for the resolution of the printer). Most people can't resolve much more than 2^5th (32) levels, some 2^6th (64), very few much more than that. ( Of course I presume everyone here can resolve 2^7th or 128 levels.) Much of the variability in this measure is a function of differing assumptions and different methodology in measuring it, the generally accepted number is 6 +/-1 bits with few people getting much over 6 bits. > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanner
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> From: Preston Earle > > I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one > thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion. > Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of > "noise" in image data, but that issue has been bypassed in these > discussions in favor of other comments. Yet it seems noise is the reason > high-bit data is superfluous. What I'm thinking: > > 1. High-bit data is very small compared to low bit data. The ninth-bit > is only 0.25% of the value of the full tonal range of 0-100%. > > 2. All visible files are the product of a final resize/pixel-combination > of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens. > > 3. When scanners measure and assign digital values to image elements, > adjacent pixels are given discrete values that are generally different > by more than 0.25%, that is, the precision of the measurement is less > than 8-bits for adjacent pixels. > > 4. Image editing steps which spread existing pixel ranges over larger > ranges do not create more precise intermediate values than the starting > value's precision. If an intermediate pixel value must be created > between two pixels whose values are 128 and 130 (8-bit), the value won't > be more precise if the original values are 127.504 and 129.504 (16-bit). > > I don't know how typical CCD scanners scan at lower resolutions than > their maximum. Whether by averaging pixel values along the CCD array and > making larger steps along the film movement, or by some other way, they > still end up with adjacent pixel values that differ by more than 1 unit. > Knowing these values to .5-unit precision doesn't change the average > values reported. > > For 16-bit processes to be relevant, wouldn't adjacent pixels have to be > identical to more than 8-bit precision? I was the one who brought it up. A couple of points: 1) When you reduce an image by averaging the pixels, you reduce the noise. Cutting the linear resolution in half, for instance, effectively averages a square of four pixels together, which reduces the noise by a factor of the square root of four, which is two, or 6db, so effectively allows for one more bit of useful resolution. 2) To avoid all banding in 8-bit data, the signal-to-noise ratio must be poorer than you might think. I've found from experimentation that you need five or six lsbs of noise, peak-to-peak, to break up the banding. With only two or three lsbs, you won't see outright posterization, but you'll see bands of more noise alternating with bands of less noise. (This is only if you apply a really drastic curve.) I suspect, though, that most good film scanners have plenty of S/N, to where more than eight bits really could be useful, if the film had a quiet enough image. The question, then, is whether film grain itself supplies enough noise to make the extra bits useless. In my experience, scanning Kodachrome 25 and E6 100, I've always seen plenty of film grain noise to render the extra data useless, even for B&W. If I take a clear blue sky, which is about as noiseless an image source as you can find, convert to 8-bit B&W, and then apply a drastic curve to stretch the gradient out to the full black-to-white range, I see no banding at all, just lots of noise. I've not done much negative scanning--it may have less noise. I've also done some pretty rigorous tests on my two digicams, the Minolta DiMage 7 and the Canon 10D. In raw mode, the DiMage 7 has absolutely no useful information in the extra four bits, under even the best circumstances, but the 10D does. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
I've been thinking more about this 8-bit vs. 16-bit question, and one thing puzzles me and has generally been ignored in this discussion. Someone (Arthur, Austin, Laurie, ) brought up the question of "noise" in image data, but that issue has been bypassed in these discussions in favor of other comments. Yet it seems noise is the reason high-bit data is superfluous. What I'm thinking: 1. High-bit data is very small compared to low bit data. The ninth-bit is only 0.25% of the value of the full tonal range of 0-100%. 2. All visible files are the product of a final resize/pixel-combination of some sort, at least until we get 2800x4200 or larger video screens. 3. When scanners measure and assign digital values to image elements, adjacent pixels are given discrete values that are generally different by more than 0.25%, that is, the precision of the measurement is less than 8-bits for adjacent pixels. 4. Image editing steps which spread existing pixel ranges over larger ranges do not create more precise intermediate values than the starting value's precision. If an intermediate pixel value must be created between two pixels whose values are 128 and 130 (8-bit), the value won't be more precise if the original values are 127.504 and 129.504 (16-bit). I don't know how typical CCD scanners scan at lower resolutions than their maximum. Whether by averaging pixel values along the CCD array and making larger steps along the film movement, or by some other way, they still end up with adjacent pixel values that differ by more than 1 unit. Knowing these values to .5-unit precision doesn't change the average values reported. For 16-bit processes to be relevant, wouldn't adjacent pixels have to be identical to more than 8-bit precision? Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > > Now that both Johnny Cash and Shel Sivlerstein are dead; there is no longer > a boy named "Sue" so I guess a boy named "Laurie" will have to do. :-) > I suspect a "Boy Named Sue" may indeed live on long after the lives of these two. Not either of their greatest moments, mind you... ;-) Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hey, I said that I recieved the three posts at the same time - not that I read them at the same time. I typically do read each and respond to each in order upon reading it; but often as in this case the post I responded to also contained the two other posts in its body so I got to read all three before responding and was able to note the times sent as well as the times received by me for each by then referring to the total list of received mail on my browser. My actions are droll because I am a male; if I were a female as some would like to think based on name only, I would be much more dramatic and probably interesting - like reading and responding to my own interpretation of every other phrase in a sentance within the post without any concern for what the writer was trying to say. Now that both Johnny Cash and Shel Sivlerstein are dead; there is no longer a boy named "Sue" so I guess a boy named "Laurie" will have to do. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Friday, September 19, 2003 8:47 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 Laurie, > Don't worry about it. You will know for the future. And all the time I've been on this list, I was unaware of that as well, but in all honesty, I didn't really give it much thought... > I received both this post, > Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/03 at > 10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my > response only a > few minuts later. Come on now. You mean you read all the posts before responding, not just read the first one, respond, read the second one, respond...etc.? Pffft...how droll ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
> << At my > age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) >> > > Don't we all (at least those of us over 40). Mmm, I wonder if we have any female list members? Peter Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
<< At my age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) >> Don't we all (at least those of us over 40). Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie, > Don't worry about it. You will know for the future. And all the time I've been on this list, I was unaware of that as well, but in all honesty, I didn't really give it much thought... > I received both this post, > Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/03 at > 10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my > response only a > few minuts later. Come on now. You mean you read all the posts before responding, not just read the first one, respond, read the second one, respond...etc.? Pffft...how droll ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, I think you are probably right here. We all have slightly different workflows, for a variety of reasons, some good, some not so good perhaps. My own workflow differs from that recommended by Austin, in that most of the advice I have read says that one should get the raw data from the scanner, and then process it in tried and tested software such as PS. Scanner software is usually said not to be as good as the hardware, and the color management (CM) parts are often the weakest. So I scan in my Nikon LS4000 (which outputs 16-bit scans) using either Vuescan or NikonScan (as the mood takes me) with CM off. I manually focus, but do usually use autoexposure which is often not recommended. Then in PS I assign the LS4000 scanner profile that Nikon supplies, and convert the image to whatever large working space I currently favour. I then stay in 16-bit until I need to use a filter/plugin/layer/etc that only works in 8-bit. I just feel happier keeping the data in its original state as long as possible; once you have thrown data away by converting to 8-bit, you can't get it back! I usually finally convert to Adobe98 before printing (this makes life easier if using custom profiles). I do agree with Austin that if your scanner only outputs in 8-bit, then it might be preferable to do as much manipulation in the scanner software before the conversion to 8-bit (depending on the quality of the software), but most higher-end scanners output in 16-bit. So, I read everyone else's ways of working, try some of them, and adopt the ones that are useful to me. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "Henk de Jong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> The purpose of this discussion is not to proof that your religion is the only true one, but to let you re-think about your own favourite workflow which could maybe enhanced or changed by the ideas and workflow of others. It's not a case of wrong or right in my opinion, but a different workflow which has a need for different tools. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
First of all I like to make a statement which is a bad excuse after all, but nevertheless for me an important one: English is not my native language. It takes a lot of energy and time to understand what the writers mean and it takes even more energy and time to write my own ideas and replies in English. I try to explain everybody on this list what my reasons are why I would like to edit in 16bit/channel. Brad Davis wrote: > (And yes Henk de Jong, if the product of your kitchen is flawed, I > may well expect to be brought into the kitchen - to you too, I > suggest that you either provide the evidence or stop making > assertions that you are unwilling to support with evidence. > It gets very old.) Why should I support my ideas with evidence? Austin already admitted that there are circumstances with inferior shots (he claimed he never makes with his Hasselblad ;-) which are better of corrected with 16bit/channel editing. He also pointed out very clearly that white and blackpoint should be set in a 16bit/channel environment. He choose to do that only in the scanner software. My workflow is to do this as much as possible in VueScan and the artistic corrections in the editing software. One is calling names on this list, another is hammering on proof, proof and proof. This whole discussion tends to be about religion where "my God" is the only true one. In the beginning of this discussion someone wrote that advocating in favour of 16bit/channel was wrong advise to newbies. And that was the moment I jumped in. Let the newbies find out themselves, let them work out there own workflow in which they are happy and producing beautiful pictures, because that is were it is all about. It is not the workflow, but the final product which counts. Furthermore I agree with Laurie's postings on this subject: "First, it assumes that the software being used allows for this; but granting that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the discussion for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. Among those is the fact that since as you say if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit, you have done essentially what they say they are doing just they have choose to do the setpoint correction and tonal adjustments to the high bit data in a third party editor rather than in the scanner even if it is possible with the scanner software that they are using since they feel more compfortable with the third party image editor or it is better than that of the scanner software." Maybe not in a very kind way I have pointed out in one of my postings that Austin has none or very few knowledge about VueScan. VueScan can deliver a 16bit/channel image with or without white and blackpoint set and with or without tonal corrections. If you have a 16bit/channel editor you can do all those corrections on high bit data if you prefer. The purpose of this discussion is not to proof that your religion is the only true one, but to let you re-think about your own favourite workflow which could maybe enhanced or changed by the ideas and workflow of others. It's not a case of wrong or right in my opinion, but a different workflow which has a need for different tools. I wish everybody happy scan times and like the Hal 9000 series computer in 2001 A Space Odyssey said: "This conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye" ;-) -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
God... Don't we all! It is interesting to notice the gentle people and the not so gentle (and I unfortunately fall in the latter category too often). Would that we were all so gentle... brad On 18/9/03 20:29, "LAURIE SOLOMON" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Good guess Howard. :-) Thanks for betting on me being a man; you win. At my > age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> > > I would bet he's actually a man :>) > > Howard > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title > or body > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Good guess Howard. :-) Thanks for betting on me being a man; you win. At my age, I wish I was a boy again. :-) -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:21 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> I would bet he's actually a man :>) Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Brad, Don't worry about it. You will know for the future. I thank Peter for the gentle way in which he informed you of the correction. I also appreciate your words. As for my not correcting you, I received both this post, Peter's post, and your original post at the same time ( nemaely 9/18/03 at 10:30 pm Central US Daylight savings time and am writing my response only a few minuts later. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Brad Davis Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 8:23 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Thanks - it only requires a change in pronoun - the respect expressed (and implied) remains the same. I've been caught in a default assumption and I thank you for correcting me. It may mean something that he didn't find a necessity to do the correction - he sees what is relevant and what isn't terribly so in this context, Brad On 18/9/03 17:17, "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Davis wrote: >> Further, if you find that Laurie's response was >> anything other than responsible, you have >> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding >> of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with >> him, she suggested only that those who disagree >> provide evidence to support their case. > > (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Well said, he certainly acts like an adult, a reasonable adult at that - more so than some, even me. Brad On 18/9/03 18:20, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > << (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> > > I would bet he's actually a man :>) > > Howard > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Thanks - it only requires a change in pronoun - the respect expressed (and implied) remains the same. I've been caught in a default assumption and I thank you for correcting me. It may mean something that he didn't find a necessity to do the correction - he sees what is relevant and what isn't terribly so in this context, Brad On 18/9/03 17:17, "Peter Marquis-Kyle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Brad Davis wrote: >> Further, if you find that Laurie's response was >> anything other than responsible, you have >> demonstrated a complete lack of understanding >> of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with >> him, she suggested only that those who disagree >> provide evidence to support their case. > > (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
<< (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) >> I would bet he's actually a man :>) Howard Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Brad Davis wrote: > Further, if you find that Laurie's response was > anything other than responsible, you have > demonstrated a complete lack of understanding > of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with > him, she suggested only that those who disagree > provide evidence to support their case. (Psst! Laurie's a boy!) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
have a higher density range, and lower for negatives. I understand that; but I am not sure of its relevance to the question of tonal manipulation. I would use this as a reason why one would want to do any tonal manipulations on the high bit data which conprises that "part" of the density range in the overall high bit density range of N bits. >Setpoints, yes...but tonal corrections can take place in 8 bit color space >with no visible degradation over high bit space. Not the argument or point at issue of those with whom you have been arguing but my argument and point. You are talking about no visable degradation but visability is dependent on the available devices which make display possible ( i.e., monitors and printers) which currently are mainly low 24 bit constrained devices. I would argue that for purposes of creating a master archive file which contained the full spectrum of data possible for potential use in the future when there may be high bit display devices available for making the 16 bit image visible doing tonal manipulations in 16 bit may be useful - if not important and valuable - and may show a difference in visable degradation in the future. However, your response to my comments while informative and grounds for discussion was not really responsive to my intended thrust of my comments. I said: > I think they all recognize that to apply some Photoshop plugins > and features or even to print they need to convert the file to 24 bit in > order to do so and that that should take place after the tonal corrections > and setpoionts have been established. Here, I was referring to the use of some Photoshop plugins and features which will only work in 8 bit and that the application of these features and plugins should come after all tonal manipulation has been done. So both set points and tonal corrections in that case wold need to be done before the application of the plugins and Photoshop features not after. In short, they realize that ultimately the file will wind up as a 24 bit color data file even if they make tonal adjustments in high bit. >> There is also the fact that, while >> one can establish set points and tonal curves that match the optimum >> hardware capabilities of the given scanner and that these can remain >> constant... >But you don't set setpoints and tonal curves to match the scanner, at least >I don't...nor should anyone, really. You set them to match the image. I agree. I thought you were saying that you did set them to match the scanner from your statement: "if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit" The "reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit" is what threw me off. >Setpoints MUST be done to high bit data, With respect to the term and concept of "setpoints," there is some confusion. There is what I will call "native setpoints" which are the two end points of the density range that the hardware is capable of capturing as a physical constraint if you will; then there is what I will call "raw setpoints" which define the practical empirical end points of the density range that characterizes the original subject that is being scanned and limits what the scanner could capture even if its native desity range capablity was great and extended beyond that of the scanned subject significantly. In other words, the raw setpoints define the part of the density range that the scanner as a device can capture occuppied by the density range of the original scanned subject matter. In contrast and conter distinction to the two above, there is also black point and white points along with the gray point which can be set and manipulated in either 16 bit or 8 bit modes, which are often alluded to as setpoints, which I would call the "working setpoints" that one defines in accordance with ones purposes, intent, and preferences to produce a density range or tonal range and mid point for an image file which meets ones tastes and purposes. Given this, I am not sure always what setpoints you are referring to - especially when you say they need to be established in high bit. In the latter sense, setpoints are not more deterministic than tonal or density curves and they are very much part of the discussion. I often find that the scanner captures tonal extremes for many images which are not needed and which if the two set points are located closer to each other results in a manipulated but much better tonal curve and density range for the resulting image. In light of this, it is very possible that you and I could be talking past each other and that others might also be talking past each other and you when references are made to "setpoints." -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, Septembe
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, Pardon me, but as I read this, Austin has said (paraphrasing) "I don't think that 16 bit depths on three channels is ever required and here's why (insert explanation of perceptive abilities of humans and the results of mixing three channels at 8 bit depth)". Then he has said that if you believe different (again paraphrasing), "put up or shut up." If you disagree with someone and you take the affirmative position (e.g. There is a need for more bit depth) then it is up to you, and those who agree with you to show evidence - it is virtually impossible to prove a negative in a situation like this. Instead, I've seen nothing but the assertion that you "sometimes need a greater bit depth." I believe that you believe that you do, but with Austin, I am an empiricist, and the empiricist challenge is "put up or shut up!" Sly comments are the mask of one with no evidence or basis for their position, the place where charlatans, mountebanks and creationists hide from the light of day. Your comments qualify as sly digs. Your cry that Laurie has given Austin license to continue is a continuation of an approach that is based more on smoke and mirrors than on reality. The simple response would be to demonstrate your case. Laurie is much too gentle to point out that your continued failure to do so is all the license that Austin requires. Further, if you find that Laurie's response was anything other than responsible, you have demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of what she so gently said. She didn't agree with him, she suggested only that those who disagree provide evidence to support their case. Laurie tried to pour oil on troubled waters, this is not such an attempt as it is clear that your understanding is well below her level of discourse. This is intended to be a plain statement - "put up or shut up." Austin's point of view is clear and he has asked for evidence to the contrary. Either provide such evidence or SHUT UP. (And yes Henk de Jong, if the product of your kitchen is flawed, I may well expect to be brought into the kitchen - to you too, I suggest that you either provide the evidence or stop making assertions that you are unwilling to support with evidence. It gets very old.) Frank, if you are wondering, this isn't a flame, it is powder spread out and if you wish, we can begin a flame. It will probably get us both thrown off the list (and that would be appropriate). Your choice. Of course, if you want to continue this discussion, why not just present Austin with a file representing the problem you assert exists - how simple can it get? Brad Davis, Ph.D. P.S. To Laurie: If I have misrepresented you in any way, I apologize. I think that you are the apogee of intelligence here and while I've never met you, you are the only reason I stay on this list. The above response is not representative of your style or approach, but the whining is getting me down. When we are all gentle, then those who don't understand are given free reign. Or as an old Inuit proverb states, "Fear most the heedless among you." There is much heedlessness here now. On 17/9/03 22:09, "Frank Paris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON >> Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:27 PM >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 >> >> >> Frank, >> Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept >> to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. > > I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. > Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's > just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it > up!" Don't you see what he does? He has set himself up as some sort of > list cop. Nobody can say the slightest thing without his treating it > like a federal case, asking for proof over the most casual statements. > It drives me nuts! It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, > because he trolls out excruciatingly long and boring threads that go > nowhere, flooding my mailbox with the same old same old for days on end, > and I notice that I'm not the only one who objects to his overbearing > pettiness. He's a master troll, I don't care whether you excuse me for > saying so or not. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or > body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's >just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it >up!" Would that I could have such power and influence over anyone. :-) If I did have such influence and power, my comments would stop or even discourage you from name calling; but as expemplified by the last sentance in your reply, it eveidently did not. :-) I am sure that we all (including you and me) have done exactly what you accuse him of on a number of occassions in our list participation. I am afraid that this is a consitutive characteristic of online list interactions as we know it and despite all kinds of attempts has proven to be unremediable; you just have to grin ands bear those prolonged threads that bore you and fill you mailbox or stop participating in list interactions. It would seem to me that there is a less antagonistic and more civil way of telling someone that they are being overbearing, boring, or selfrighteous without resorting to name calling. Your expressed "I don't care" attitude is an exact mirror image of the attitude that you accuse Austin of having and object to so much. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2003 12:10 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of LAURIE SOLOMON > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:27 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Frank, > Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept > to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. Comments like yours are what are going to add fuel to the fire. It's just going to encourage him. "Oh, Laurie supports me! I can just keep it up!" Don't you see what he does? He has set himself up as some sort of list cop. Nobody can say the slightest thing without his treating it like a federal case, asking for proof over the most casual statements. It drives me nuts! It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, because he trolls out excruciatingly long and boring threads that go nowhere, flooding my mailbox with the same old same old for days on end, and I notice that I'm not the only one who objects to his overbearing pettiness. He's a master troll, I don't care whether you excuse me for saying so or not. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, > > Frank, > > Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept > > to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. > > I was honestly trying to put a stop to it, or at least slow him down. Why, Frank? What ever your agenda, that is no excuse for juvenile behavior, or making the list your battleground for your personal issues. > It drives me nuts!...It makes this an extremely unpleasant place to be, My guess is because you can't take having your beliefs challenged. > He's a master troll... Frank, I'm not trolling one bit. I have better things to do. It's, of course, convenient to simply dismiss me as a troll instead of listening, as your belief is being questioned. I am simply telling you, and some others, that I believe your belief in a particular issue is errant. If you, or anyone else wants to prove me wrong, then simply provide an image that supports your position. More than likely, what's frustrating you, is that you can't... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Laurie, > >But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections > >reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done > using > >high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the > >discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large > >tonal moves post scanning. > > The other shoe? > > First, it assumes that the software being used allows for this; Yes, I understand that...and have been told that some software doesn't have decent tools, like a decent setpoint tool, and a decent curve tool, and a histogram display... > but granting > that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the > discussion > for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to > tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. I think you're mistaken about that. The discussion is about 8 bit vs 16 bit files and tonal manipulations. The ONLY thing I am challenging is the need to do high bit tonal manipulations to color image files, period...nothing more, nothing less. > Among > those is the > fact that since as you say if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections > reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit, you have done > essentially what they say they are doing just they have choose to do the > setpoint correction and tonal adjustments to the high bit data in a third > party editor rather than in the scanner... The only point of my mentioning that the scanner uses high bit data to do that was simply to mention it. But there is another reason that scanner hardware uses more bits, and it has not a single thing to do with tonal manipulation ability. It is density range. When you scan, your image only takes up some "part" of the overall N bits. That "part" is larger for slides, as they have a higher density range, and lower for negatives. > ...even if it is possible with the > scanner software that they are using since they feel more > comfortable with > the third party image editor or it is better than that of the scanner > software. Not something I have any issue with. > I think they all recognize that to apply some Photoshop plugins > and features or even to print they need to convert the file to 24 bit in > order to do so and that that should take place after the tonal corrections > and setpoionts have been established. Setpoints, yes...but tonal corrections can take place in 8 bit color space with no visible degradation over high bit space. At least in the hundreds of images I tried this with...and that's not to say there isn't an image that may benefit from high bit manipulations, but I've yet to see it...and no one's able to produce it ;-) > There is also the fact that, while > one can establish set points and tonal curves that match the optimum > hardware capabilities of the given scanner and that these can remain > constant... But you don't set setpoints and tonal curves to match the scanner, at least I don't...nor should anyone, really. You set them to match the image. The images can vary greatly, depending on the film, exposure etc. > ...for most of us, the subject matter being scanned does not remain > constant and may require modification of the set points and tonal curves > from scan to scan or so and is dependent on the original being scanned > rather than the devices capabilities per se. I've never said any differently, and that is how I scan as well. > Such modifications > may best be > done after the scan in an image editor where one can actually preview the > consequences of proposed adjustments on the fly in real time as they are > being done. Hum...my scanner software does exactly that... But, this is really not the issue at hand. The issue at hand is only tonal curve manipulation in 8 bit vs 16 bit...not setpoints. Setpoints MUST be done to high bit data, and I've never said any differently. > In that case the establishment of setpoints and tonal curves > for the scan should be taken as merely a preliminary raw approximation > rather than the final product with the main tonal moves being done post > scanning. Even if you could get high bit data from a setpointed and tonal curved scan (which in my experience most scanners either give you non-setpointed/non-tonal curved high bit data, or setpointed and tonal curved 8 bit data), I still contend that tonal curve manipulation won't be any better because you do it with high bit data. > Second, it very well can be the case that one does not wish to > replicate the > exact setpoints and tonal curve of the original that was scanned but to > deliberately alter or modify the tonal character of the scanned result for > artistic or other reasons; there would be every reason for doing major > tonal moves post scanning. OK...but again, the contention was only tonal curves, not setpoints. But, setpoints aren't really an issue either. Yes, they must be initially applied to high bit data and MUST be simply be
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, Comments like that are really uncalled for and should be kept to yourself. They add nothing but fuel to the fire. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Frank Paris Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:32 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Austin Franklin > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Henk, > > > If you don't believe me, I am sorry. > > Not only do I not believe you, I know what you're saying is > wrong. Again, if someone here really wanted to shut me up > about this, then provide an image What a troll. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 Laurie, >> At the risk of raising Austin's ire, >Au contraire! You hit the nail on the head ;-) Gee, that is good I hope. :-) >> I think that he is being more of a >> purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and >> the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat >> artwork and prints. >Exactly! Magnificient; but here comes the other shoe. >> While I do see some technical disagreements in >> the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans >> (raw lineal >> or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of >> enhancement >> and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, >But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections >reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done using >high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the >discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large >tonal moves post scanning. The other shoe? First, it assumes that the software being used allows for this; but granting that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the discussion for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. Among those is the fact that since as you say if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit, you have done essentially what they say they are doing just they have choose to do the setpoint correction and tonal adjustments to the high bit data in a third party editor rather than in the scanner even if it is possible with the scanner software that they are using since they feel more compfortable with the third party image editor or it is better than that of the scanner software. I think they all recognize that to apply some Photoshop plugins and features or even to print they need to convert the file to 24 bit in order to do so and that that should take place after the tonal corrections and setpoionts have been established. There is also the fact that, while one can establish set points and tonal curves that match the optimum hardware capabilities of the given scanner and that these can remain constant, for most of us, the subject matter being scanned does not remain constant and may require modification of the set points and tonal curves from scan to scan or so and is dependent on the original being scanned rather than the devices capabilities per se. Such modifications may best be done after the scan in an image editor where one can actually preview the consequences of proposed adjustments on the fly in real time as they are being done. In that case the establishment of setpoints and tonal curves for the scan should be taken as merely a preliminary raw approximation rather than the final product with the main tonal moves being done post scanning. Second, it very well can be the case that one does not wish to replicate the exact setpoints and tonal curve of the original that was scanned but to deliberately alter or modify the tonal character of the scanned result for artisitic or other reasons; there would be every reason for doing major tonal moves post scanning. >> As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems >> are either produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal >> with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is essentially an >> empirical and practical question (even if theoretically and >> analytically a case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete >> examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. >And, interestingly enough, no one can come up with any images that >demonstrate this. >> That they >> have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do >> not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his >> refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not >> wanting to partake in the discussion... >Hey, did I say that? ;-) Maybe not; but it was implied even if you did not think you said or implied it. It is that implication that I think is responsible for raising the hackels of some of those with whom you are locked in this inane debate with. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie, > At the risk of raising Austin's ire, Au contraire! You hit the nail on the head ;-) > I think that he is being more of a > purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and > the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat > artwork and prints. His position is basically that the scanner when used > properly should produce an accurate and proper reproduction of > the subject > matter that it is capturing and that the use of post scanning > image editing > programs (either scanner programs or applications like Photoshop) > should not > be necessary and are only to be used as (a) a last resort, (b) to do > creative manipulations and artsy derivatives generated off the > original, or > (c) to do restorations. Exactly! > While I do see some technical disagreements in > the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans > (raw lineal > or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of > enhancement > and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done using high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large tonal moves post scanning. > As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems > are either > produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal > with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is > essentially an > empirical and practical question (even if theoretically and > analytically a > case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete > examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. And, interestingly enough, no one can come up with any images that demonstrate this. > That they > have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do > not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his > refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not > wanting to partake in the discussion... Hey, did I say that? ;-) Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Austin Franklin > Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 8:56 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Henk, > > > If you don't believe me, I am sorry. > > Not only do I not believe you, I know what you're saying is > wrong. Again, if someone here really wanted to shut me up > about this, then provide an image What a troll. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, At the risk of raising Austin's ire, I think that he is being more of a purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of fillm or flat artwork and prints. His position is basically that the scanner when used properly should produce an accurrate and proper reproduction of the subject matter that it is capturing and that the use of post scanning image editiing programs (either scanner programs or applications like Photoshop) should not be necessary and are only to be used as (a) a last resort, (b) to do creative manipulations and artsy deriviatives generated off the original, or (c) to do restorations. Most users do not follow that work flow nor take that approach to scanning. While I do see some technical disagreements in the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans (raw lineal or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of enhancement and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, I think that much of the fire in the debate does not really appear to revolve around the technical aspects as much as the difference in approaches to scanning and uses for the files being produced. As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems are either produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is essentially an empirical and practical question (even if theroretically and analytically a case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. That they have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not wanting to partake in the discussion ( something which he suggestes is the case but which apparently he is unable to follow up on by just not responding). As for everyone, myself included, if something works for you, why not just continue to do it rather than getting into arguments with those who disagree on these lists so as to turn it into a battle of who is right and who is wrong, which method is the proper way to do things and which is not, or what workflow is better. Once every0one has said what they do ot think should be done, we should all know what the universe of opinions and positions are and be done with it without getting into extended arguments. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Henk de Jong Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 2:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Austin Franklin wrote: > If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you > look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your > image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home from a travel I can not do a second time. The films I bring home is all the material I have. When light conditions at the moment of taking the photo were bad, but the photo is to important to miss, the only way to use the photo is by extreme manipulation. > Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical. So, in the end you admit... :-) -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, > > If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you > > look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your > > image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. > > I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home > from a travel I can not do a second time. The films I bring home > is all the > material I have. When light conditions at the moment of taking the photo > were bad, but the photo is to important to miss, the only way to use the > photo is by extreme manipulation. > > > Of course, there are some instances where this is not > possible/practical. > > So, in the end you admit... I'd suggest re-reading what I wrote...this time carefully ;-) I said I understood that situations exist where the image simply isn't taken "right" in the first place. That is an entirely separate issue from the *need* to use high bit data for tonal curve manipulation, whether the original image is "right" or not. So, in the end, you, nor any one else, are able to provide an image that substantiates these claims. Funny how that is. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote: > If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you > look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your > image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. I am a travel photographer in my spare time. Most of the time I come home from a travel I can not do a second time. The films I bring home is all the material I have. When light conditions at the moment of taking the photo were bad, but the photo is to important to miss, the only way to use the photo is by extreme manipulation. > Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical. So, in the end you admit... :-) -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, > Most images will do with 8 bit manipulation... Simply show me one that doesn't. > but > some with extreme curves or white and/or black point applied have > difficulties. White and/or black points applied? ALL 8 bit images have the setpoints applied, unless you have some weird/old scanner that only provides 8 bit data! > If you don't believe me, I am sorry. Not only do I not believe you, I know what you're saying is wrong. Again, if someone here really wanted to shut me up about this, then provide an image...no one has...or can. > I you never had seen this 8 bit manipulation problem, I assume you always > have simple good snapshots to start with... Yes, simple snapshots with my Hasselblads...the ultimate P&S...or simply that the "problem" doesn't exist ;-) If you require extreme tonal curve manipulation, then I suggest you look at getting the image "right" on film, instead of relying on your image editing program to get it right for you after the fact. Of course, there are some instances where this is not possible/practical. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> Austin Franklin wrote: > > > How do you know the original scanner data is any good? > I can tell from the smooth histogram in VueScan and the > Dropper Tool in PSP. > > >> A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it > >> with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the > >> solution. > > How do you know? > How do you know the earth is round? Do you need extra proof? > > > That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation > > problem with 8 bit color data. > No, I don't show you my kitchen. You have to do with the food > I serve... :-) > > > Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG problem, > It is not a BIG problem. Most images will do with 8 bit > manipulation, but some with extreme curves or white and/or > black point applied have difficulties. > > If you don't believe me, I am sorry. > I you never had seen this 8 bit manipulation problem, I > assume you always have simple good snapshots to start with... > > > -- > Regards, > Henk de Jong Austin Franklin can be dismissed as a troll. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote: > How do you know the original scanner data is any good? I can tell from the smooth histogram in VueScan and the Dropper Tool in PSP. >> A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding >> it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the >> solution. > How do you know? How do you know the earth is round? Do you need extra proof? > That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation > problem with 8 bit color data. No, I don't show you my kitchen. You have to do with the food I serve... :-) > Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG problem, It is not a BIG problem. Most images will do with 8 bit manipulation, but some with extreme curves or white and/or black point applied have difficulties. If you don't believe me, I am sorry. I you never had seen this 8 bit manipulation problem, I assume you always have simple good snapshots to start with... -- Regards, Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Frank, > > Arguing > > for 8bits is just plain silly. > > Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows ignorance. Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your "belief", but actual images... Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> Frank, > > > > Arguing > > > for 8bits is just plain silly. > > > > Silly is one word, sophistry is another. > > Well, in one word, arguing against using 8 bit/channel color shows > ignorance. > > Do you have an image that you can show me that is "lacking" because it had > tonal manipulation done in 8 bits, oh, and plus the original image, before > the tonal manipulation? If so, please provide them. Not theory, not your > "belief", but actual images... > > Austin BTW, that wasn't meant to be as gruff sounding as it probably came across. What I was simply trying to say, was a statement, such as you and whom you were quoting made, can only be based on a lack of experience and/or understanding, which in a word, is ignorance. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> > Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-) > Yup, it does not cost me anything more than working with > 8bits but a bit of storage for those images that I archive > for future editing. So why risk loosing information. Arguing > for 8bits is just plain silly. Silly is one word, sophistry is another. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Henk, > I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a > headache with > posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. How do you know the original scanner data is any good? > > A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding > it with the > maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. How do you know? > I have mentioned many times the following link which proves my statement > when this discussion about 8 bit/16 bit is going on again and again: > http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/7627.html?cprose=I20 That's nice, but show me some images that show a tonal manipulation problem with 8 bit color data. Funny enough...all you people who have this BIG problem, and no one can! This must include a raw scan, the same scan converted to 8 bit, manipulated, that shows visibly noticeable tonal degradation. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Henk, > A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the > maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. > Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8 > bits/channel. VueScan is ideal in bringing all the information which my > scanner can find from film to my digital image, but is not designed to > manipulate the images. Check out Picture Window Pro. Completely 16bit. And for me, a more intuitive user interface than PS. Quite affordable (less than $100). Their new adavanced sharpening tool rivals Neat Image! Dowload a trial version from dl-c.com > Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-) Yup, it does not cost me anything more than working with 8bits but a bit of storage for those images that I archive for future editing. So why risk loosing information. Arguing for 8bits is just plain silly. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
"Henk de Jong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> Simply stated: I think Arthur is wrong! ;-) <<< Me too, but on to happier things... >>> I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8 bits/channel. Picture Window Pro is 16-bits throughout. Everywhere. http://www.dl-c.com/Temp/ There's a new version out with Neat Image like noise reduction/sharpening. The bad news, though, is that 16-bits per channel is not a panacea. If the original data is bad, editing will make it worse. And scanner output is pretty funky. David J. Littleboy [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tokyo, Japan Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Simply stated: I think Arthur is wrong! ;-) I have several images on my web photo galleries who gave me a headache with posterisations in the (monochromatic) blue skies while editing. A photo editing program working with 16 bit/channel and feeding it with the maximum available bit-depth from the scanner would be the solution. Unfortunately PSP (PS is to expensive for me) is working only with 8 bits/channel. VueScan is ideal in bringing all the information which my scanner can find from film to my digital image, but is not designed to manipulate the images. > Frank Paris wrote: >> Bert, I'm with you. Count me also to the 16 bit/channel club :-) I have mentioned many times the following link which proves my statement when this discussion about 8 bit/16 bit is going on again and again: http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/7627.html?cprose=I20 Advise to newbies: don't believe Arthur and don't believe Bert, Frank or me. But if you have posterisation after manipulation of your image, you know the source of your problem! -- Henk de Jong http://www.hsdejong.nl/ Nepal and Burma (Myanmar) - Photo Galleries Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Then again, Frank works binary: I say white, he comes up black, so I'd take most everything he says with a large "dye cloud" of salt. Smoking dope may improve color perception. ;-) You're easily entertained... what have you been smoking? ;-) Art Frank Paris wrote: > Bert, I'm with you. These guys must be smoking dope besides having poor > color discrimination. This exchange is hilarious. > > Frank Paris > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
As Austin made quite clear, (and you will notice no one argued against) there are merits to using higher than 8 bits in B&W (which is pretty obvious to most people, since we are speaking about a MONOCHROME image which has no multiplier effect). An 8 bit B&W image has only 256 steps of gray. However, as I have previously explained, that is not the same as a color image. 24 bit color images (8 bits per color (RGB) have 65,536 hues each with 256 brightness shades or about 16.8 million distinct colors. You are correct about one thing. A completely monochromic image of one hue of green could be improved upon with higher than 8 bit capture during manipulation. However, in real world color images the likelihood of needing more than 8 bits of color depth after manipulation (and in most cases even before) approaches zero. Once again, your desire to do so is in no way of concern to me, since you apparently have the resources and willingness to spend the time doing so. You may also wish to use pi carried out to several hundred decimal places when determining the volume of a sphere, or whatever, but chances are no one will care but you. Luckily, most math teachers explain the relative significance of each decimal place position, so one can avoid such minutia, but, once again, you are welcome to do as you please. However, once again, for anyone still bothering to read this thread who is new to digital capture and manipulation, the value of storing files post-manipulation in 16 bit color depth is so minimal that the waste of resource doesn't justify doing so, even for those with perfect human color perception. Art Robert Logan wrote: > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > >>I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing >>16 bit scans. > > > Good. Thats where I am. > > >>If you have the time to work with that large a file, >>and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. > > > Thanks. > > >>wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available > > > Hopefully not rescanning all my negatives, and moping around > listening to tired old arguments. As ever, I'll be hoping > someone else tests it and finds it flaws. And someone else > decrys 32 bit as too much, and 4 bit as just right. > > >>I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water, >>and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital >>scanning on this list, who are impressionable, > > > God yes, you are right. Lets make sure they get the facts, the > facts and the facts. Not just your view which is pallid. You > are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working > with grayscale there is! And the colour separations on RGB (the > 256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to work on) - yet not on B&W. > P.T. who? > > >>I see my job here is >>simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is >>basically without merit and that they need not follow a path that >>just wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want >>to). > > > Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on > enlightenment. Sigh. Funny how technology and its use makes > people descend into these petty mailing list melees. > > >>Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their >>scanning. ;-) > > > Entrenched .. no bloody way, Im just right ;) > > bert > -- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> > I would hardly call your "position" enlightened. You've got > > clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well > > as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what > > I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn > > something, instead of try to rationalize your position, > > because you can learn something here if you want to. > > ROFLMAO! Mr. Pontification! Hi Frank, Yeah, I know...but I just couldn't let his "enlightened" comment slide by without paying it due discourse ;-) I could have "discoursed" in not near as nice a way. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Austin Franklin > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:37 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Robert, > I would hardly call your "position" enlightened. You've got > clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well > as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what > I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn > something, instead of try to rationalize your position, > because you can learn something here if you want to. ROFLMAO! Mr. Pontification! Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Bert, I'm with you. These guys must be smoking dope besides having poor color discrimination. This exchange is hilarious. Frank Paris [EMAIL PROTECTED] > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Robert Logan > Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 2:14 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Arthur Entlich wrote: > > > I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making > and storing > > 16 bit scans. > > Good. Thats where I am. > > > If you have the time to work with that large a file, > > and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. > > Thanks. > > > wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available > > Hopefully not rescanning all my negatives, and moping around > listening to tired old arguments. As ever, I'll be hoping > someone else tests it and finds it flaws. And someone else > decrys 32 bit as too much, and 4 bit as just right. > > > I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water, > > and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital > > scanning on this list, who are impressionable, > > God yes, you are right. Lets make sure they get the facts, > the facts and the facts. Not just your view which is pallid. > You are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, > yet working with grayscale there is! And the colour > separations on RGB (the 256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to > work on) - yet not on B&W. P.T. who? > > > I see my job here is > > simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is > > basically without merit and that they need not follow a > path that just > > wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want to). > > Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on > enlightenment. Sigh. Funny how technology and its use makes > people descend into these petty mailing list melees. > > > Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their > > scanning. ;-) > > Entrenched .. no bloody way, Im just right ;) > > bert > -- > Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe > filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> > Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits > available is > > only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three > > color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of > bits per pixel > > is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead of simply 8. > > As I said in a post to Robert, if you have sufficient noise (from > either the > CCD or film grain) to dither the finer gradations up into the top eight > bits, then the extra bits buy you nothing. That's equally true of B&W and > color. Hi Paul, I agree with your statement, BUT...I want to emphasize that you really can't do much tonal manipulation on an 8 bit B&W image without posterization, so I would have to qualify your statement to exclude tonal manipulations, except for a very few images. I agree that 8 bits, with all codes used, will give you an awesome B&W output with the right printing system, and there is little, if any, to be gained by higher bit output...but it seems that depends on how you are outputting. The Piezo quad-tone driver purportedly adds intermediate tones to smooth the transitions. That's my only B&W printing system, so I can't say if it actually does that or not, and you can't turn it on/off. I do know that the Piezo driver is FAR better than the Epson driver though (for the 3000), but the Epson driver doesn't use quad tones. But, (yes, another but ;-), some people who use "curves" for quad-tone inks say they get equal to, or near, Piezo output, and some people who have the "high bit" Piezo, I believe it was called PiezoPro, say that the extra bits are noticeable...and that I'm skeptical of, as I haven't seen the same image printed using the Piezo and then Piezo Pro to see if the tonality is any "better". Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is > only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three > color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of bits per pixel > is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead of simply 8. As I said in a post to Robert, if you have sufficient noise (from either the CCD or film grain) to dither the finer gradations up into the top eight bits, then the extra bits buy you nothing. That's equally true of B&W and color. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> From: Robert Logan > > The tools of tomorrow, be they better hardware, > or better software, may allow me to manipulate > the 16 bit data (14 bit in my case), better > to produce a better looking image. > > If I have 256(8bit) greens in my file, and in the > other I have 257(16bit), then I have more to work > with to achieve an end. I haven't read this entire thread, but in what I've read I haven't heard mention of noise. What limits the number of useful bits is the noise level. A good scanner may well have better than an eight-bit S/N ratio, but I doubt anything out there does better than twelve, except perhaps a high-end drum scanner. Small CCD cameras often provide raw files with more than eight bits, but the extra bits are complete rubbish. The larger CCD cameras have nine bits of useful data, maybe ten under optimum conditions. If you scan a slide (or negative) with some clear blue sky, that's a good test of the noise level of the scanner, since sky is completely textureless, and virtually noise-free. If you blow up the image and examine the pixels, and it looks like blue confetti on your eight-bit display, then you really don't need any more than eight bits, because the noise will take any finer gradations and dither them up into the top eight bits. This is pretty easy to prove in practice, by taking a 16-bit scan, copying it and truncating the copy to eight bits, and then seeing if a strong contrast enhancement curve gives you noticeable banding in the latter but not the former. With enough noise (whether from the CCD or the film grain), the extra bits won't matter. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Oh Robert, > Austin Franklin wrote: > > I believe you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you > have a color > > file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually > capable (because > > you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color > > file. It has nothing to do with the "tools [of] tomorrow". > > Ahem, I'll clarify, as youve missed the point. Oh no, I got what you are trying to claim, and I am telling you that what you are claiming has no merit. I understand you believe it does, but from what I can tell, your belief is based on a lack of understanding. > I AM NOT looking at 16 bit files and saying, ", > thats lovely, far nicer than that 8 bit one" - I am > saying that if I scan it at 16 bit and store it thus, > then I will be able to go back and get more out of it > than if I scan it at 8 bit. But that's a misunderstanding. A 14 bit scanner does NOT scan at 8 bits if you ask for 8 bit data. It ALWAYS scans at 14 bits, period. It then applies the setpoints and tonal curves on the 14 bit data and THEN converts to 8 bits. Most scanners either return setpointed/tonal curved 8 bit data, or raw 16 bit data (which can really be either 10/12/14 bits actually used). So, anyway, my point being that what you are getting from the scanner when you get 8 bit data IS high bit data that has had the setpoints and tonal curves already applied. This 8 bit data should NOT require any major tonal curve corrections in PS, if it does, you haven't done a good job at scanning. The other method is to scan raw and simply do the setpoints and tonal curves in PS. Again, once you've gotten these done using high bit data, you should not need to do any major tonal manipulations, and therefore saving only the 8 bit file is, with little exception, going to give you as high a fidelity as you can get. > I need convincing completely in this > case. That's not my job, nor will I make it my job, but the issue is, you don't want to listen to people who have many years of experience in this field/subject. > You think you are right, I think Im right and were not > talking of the same things. Actually, I know I am right (having been in this field for over 25 years), and would bet you on it, and I know you have some misunderstandings as to how things work...and as I suggested in another post, you might try to simply learn something here. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Robert, > You > are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working > with grayscale there is! Grayscale only has one channel, and the TOTAL number of bits available is only 8 bits per pixel, for 8 bit grayscale. For color, there are three color channels available, and therefore the TOTAL number of bits per pixel is actually TWENTY-FOUR using 8 bit/color pixels, instead of simply 8. 24 bits is 2**24 or 16,777,216. 8 bits is only 256. Hum, we have a few orders of magnitude in available tones to work with here... > And the colour separations on RGB (the > 256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to work on) - yet not on B&W. > P.T. who? This statement is nonsensical, as it clearly shows you have misconception of the concepts involved here. > Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on > enlightenment. I would hardly call your "position" enlightened. You've got clear misunderstanding of some of the concepts here, as well as apparent lack of experience. If I were you, given what I've read here, I'd strongly suggest you either try to learn something, instead of try to rationalize your position, because you can learn something here if you want to. Instead of fussing, you ought to post a raw image, and then an image manipulated using only 8 bits and one using 16 bits, that shows this problem you are citing. If you can't then what you claim is simply myth. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Arthur Entlich wrote: > I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing > 16 bit scans. Good. Thats where I am. > If you have the time to work with that large a file, > and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. Thanks. > wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available Hopefully not rescanning all my negatives, and moping around listening to tired old arguments. As ever, I'll be hoping someone else tests it and finds it flaws. And someone else decrys 32 bit as too much, and 4 bit as just right. > I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water, > and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital > scanning on this list, who are impressionable, God yes, you are right. Lets make sure they get the facts, the facts and the facts. Not just your view which is pallid. You are telling me that there is no point in using 16 bit, yet working with grayscale there is! And the colour separations on RGB (the 256 colour 8 bit ones, are fine to work on) - yet not on B&W. P.T. who? > I see my job here is > simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is > basically without merit and that they need not follow a path that > just wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want > to). Or they might want to follow youre religion, and miss out on enlightenment. Sigh. Funny how technology and its use makes people descend into these petty mailing list melees. > Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their > scanning. ;-) Entrenched .. no bloody way, Im just right ;) bert -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote: > I believe you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a color > file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually capable (because > you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color > file. It has nothing to do with the "tools [of] tomorrow". Ahem, I'll clarify, as youve missed the point. The tools of tomorrow, be they better hardware, or better software, may allow me to manipulate the 16 bit data (14 bit in my case), better to produce a better looking image. If I have 256(8bit) greens in my file, and in the other I have 257(16bit), then I have more to work with to achieve an end. I may not be able to make any noticeable changes using the tools now, and produce noticeable results, (although I think they do, and I can, hell, I can, I can, Im still young, my eyes havent began to lose colour acuity so much yet) but Im optimistic that something better will come along to help get more from the image than I already have. I AM NOT looking at 16 bit files and saying, ", thats lovely, far nicer than that 8 bit one" - I am saying that if I scan it at 16 bit and store it thus, then I will be able to go back and get more out of it than if I scan it at 8 bit. You can now make a reasoned argument out of why 8 bit is enought to archive files, and why we pay for better hardware anyway. I need convincing completely in this case. But this is dull beyond compare. Good god its dull. You think you are right, I think Im right and were not talking of the same things. bert -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin, With mixed feelings so far! My unit had something loose inside the case when I unwrapped it, and eventually I got the offending object out - a very small black screw. Not knowing what damage this might have done to the optics whilst rattling around during transit, or what part it might play in holding something together, I am returning it for a replacement. However, before repacking it, I did two or three scans of a slide on Provia 100F of a country garden full of different coloured flowers and shrubs with some people in the far distance. Side-by-side comparison of the Minolta 5400 scan with the Nikon 4000 scan were like chalk and cheese as far as resolution is concerned. Even my wife could see that the Minolta scan had far higher resolution of the fine detail, and the colors were more natural. But, when I sharpened the scan, I noticed some very fine vertical striations appearing in contrasty areas of the image. On enlarging these areas to 200-400% it was clear that there was a problem. The whole image consisted of vertical bands 4 pixels wide. Across each band the image seemed to move upwards one or two pixels in each pixel column. So if you looked at a white horizontal line, it sloped upwards within each band, and then dropped back down again in the first column of the next band, giving a zig-zag appearance. Sharpening emphasized the difference between the fourth and first columns. You might have a better idea than me as to what might be causing this, although I hope it has something to do with the missing screw throwing the innards out of alignment? I'll report back when I get the replacement. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400! Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>Just because the tools today cant make my >gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. While I agree if one is talking about producing archive masters but not with respect to working files, this agreement is tempered by an understanding that Austin may be right that the visability and usefulness in terms of practical manifestations of the image are restricted by constraints such as the limitation of the human eye ( a constraint which is not relevent with respect to creating archive masters where one is attempting to capture as much raw data about the image as one can so as to have a large enough universe of data to handle future improvements in applications and hardware devices that might be able to make use of the additional data in performing their functions) and by the fact that current scans and the files derived from them ( archival or working files) may be rendered non-usable by future advances in technology which renders the reading of said files obsolete, resulting in their production being an experiment in futility. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Logan Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 4:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Money quote ... Yes, here we go again. You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular favourite, preferred or religious route. I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that I couldve done better on the scan .. well: 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality scanning I did ... Of course, "The 8 Bitters" are right, 8 bit is fine. But I dont think so. See above. bert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> From: Bob Frost > > I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and > stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce > Fraser seems > to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta > 5400, and > the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and > reduce the > size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. You might also consider a JPEG2000 plug-in, because it can do 16-bit compression. I get 5X-10X with no visible artifacts. LuraWave's is very good. -- Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco Paulmailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Bob, I, for one, would love to hear how you like the Minolta 5400! Regards, Austin > Austin, > > I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and > stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce > Fraser seems > to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta > 5400, and > the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and > reduce the > size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. > > Bob Frost. > > - Original Message - > From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Exactly, but to claim that you "need" to use 16 bit data (for color) is > simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. > People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows > otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to > understand what the > impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit > data *MAY* > be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may > be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin, I've tended to use the 16bit (14?) output from my Nikon 4000 scanner and stay in 16bit (because the maths argument sounds OK, and Bruce Fraser seems to be in favour of 16bit). However, I'm just trying out a Minolta 5400, and the 16bit files are 233 MB! I might just accept your argument and reduce the size of my files back to about 100MB by converting to 8bit. Bob Frost. - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Exactly, but to claim that you "need" to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Robert, > Just because the tools today cant make my > gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. I believe you're missing the point. It doesn't matter if you have a color file that has 100 bits/color, you simply aren't visually capable (because you are a human) of seeing a difference between that and an 8 bits/color file. It has nothing to do with the "tools [of] tomorrow". Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
I don't think anyone is trying to talk you out of making and storing 16 bit scans. If you have the time to work with that large a file, and the disk space or other storage to do so, then go and do it. I wonder what you'll be doing when 32 bit ability becomes available (not that I can see any manufacturer wasting their time, but it seems there will allows be a buyer somewhere out there (insert appropriate P.T. Barnum quote). I think the problem is your theory doesn't actually hold any water, and since there are a lot of neophytes and newcomers to digital scanning on this list, who are impressionable, I see my job here is simply to warn them that the information you are suggesting is basically without merit and that they need not follow a path that just wastes their time and resources (unless of course, they want to). Far be it from me to tell someone so entrenched how to do their scanning. ;-) "Don't confuse me with the facts, when I'm trying to win an argument..." Art PS: If your negs are that fragile you'd be much better off finding better film stock and labs than worrying about 16 bit captures. Robert Logan wrote: > Money quote ... > Yes, here we go again. > > You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. > And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular > favourite, preferred or religious route. > > I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive > at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my > gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. > > Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump > of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images > that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that > I couldve done better on the scan .. well: > > 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. > 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with > a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. > 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality > scanning I did ... > > Of course, "The 8 Bitters" are right, 8 bit is fine. > But I dont think so. See above. > > bert > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Money quote ... Yes, here we go again. You CAN bombard me with facts about 8 bit being fine. And people can 'talk up'/ 'talk down' their particular favourite, preferred or religious route. I will ALWAYS scan at 16 bit, and will always archive at 16 bit. Just because the tools today cant make my gold 100% pure, doesnt mean the tools tomorrow wont. Of course, I take everything I believe with a lump of reality, as, by the time I decide to review images that were scanned a long time ago, and realise that I couldve done better on the scan .. well: 1. The negs will have degraded ... colour lost. 2. The scanner I used will be a dusty relic with a wierd connector and wierder manual interface. 3. My new scanner will laugh at the low quality scanning I did ... Of course, "The 8 Bitters" are right, 8 bit is fine. But I dont think so. See above. bert Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
> ...It doesn't apply to computer-generated > images with gradients, tints, etc., either. > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] Can you scan those with a film scanner? ;-) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
"Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> noted: "I MUST stress, that Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT B&W, and that distinction is VERY important." Yes, color *photographic* images. It doesn't apply to computer-generated images with gradients, tints, etc., either. Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
>Preston wrote >When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise >to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have >expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner >8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be >just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a >function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is >doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the >8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." This is an interesting point. I too think Adobe may do better job of converting to 8bit than Vuescan. I will follow it. Thanks Ramesh Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Preston, Great post, thanks...but again, I MUST stress, that Margulis is specifically talking about COLOR images, NOT B&W, and that distinction is VERY important. Regards, Austin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Preston Earle > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:58 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Of interest in this discussion: > http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-b > it-16-bit.htm > and > http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16- > bit-2002.htm > > Money quote from Dan Margulis: "The bottom line of all my tests was, > with one important caveat that I'll get to in a moment, there is no > 16-bit advantage. I blasted these files with a series of corrections far > beyond anything real-world; I worked at gammas ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 > and in all four of the standard RGBs, I worked with negs, positives, > LAB, CMYK, RGB, Hue/Saturation, what have you. While the results weren't > identical there were scarcely any cases where there would be detectable > differences and in those one would be as likely to prefer the 8-bit > version as the 16. So, I have no reservation in saying that there's no > particular point in retaining files in 16-bit, although it doesn't hurt > either. > > I'll show all these results later, but the surprise was in the files > that Ric [Cohn] sent, which appeared to show just the sort of damage > that 8-bit editing is supposed to cause, in an image with a dark rich > blue gradient, a worst-case scenario in conjunction with the very dark > original scan, which in itself was an attempt to give an advantage to > 16-bit editing. > > Ric provided both original 8-bit and 16-bit versions of these files. > Granted that the necessary corrections were very severe, they still > showed that what he said was true: the 8-bit version banded rather badly > and the 16-bit did not. I tried several different ways of trying to get > around the disadvantage and could not do so without excessive effort. > > Ric's 8-bit original, however, was generated from the 16-bit scan not by > Photoshop but rather within his own scanner software. Therefore, I tried > further tests where I applied the same extreme corrections to the image, > but this time not to Ric's 8-bit image but rather a direct Photoshop > conversion of Ric's 16- bit image to 8-bit. Shockingly, this completely > eliminated the problem. There was no reason to prefer the version > corrected entirely in 16-bit. > > When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise > to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have > expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner > 8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be > just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a > function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is > doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the > 8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." > > Preston Earle > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > (Still in Group 3.) > > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
I couldn't resist throwing in my two bits (or eight bits, as the case may be). I tried using my SS4000 at 14 bits, or maybe it was 12 bits (it's not capable of true 16 bits) because I had read that you lose less information when making color corrections on high-bit files. However, I found that my carefully developed scanner-specific ICC profile didn't work on the high-bit file, and so I had to go through a lot of agonizing effort just to get it back to what it would have been after an 8-bit scan. And I didn't entirely succeed. So for me, at least, _profiled_ 8-bit scans beat 16-bit scans every time. Alan - Original Message - From: "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 10:30 PM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16 Hi Art, > ...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really > capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever range is available, anyway. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Of interest in this discussion: http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-8-bit-16-bit.htm and http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-16-bit-2002.htm Money quote from Dan Margulis: "The bottom line of all my tests was, with one important caveat that I'll get to in a moment, there is no 16-bit advantage. I blasted these files with a series of corrections far beyond anything real-world; I worked at gammas ranging from 1.0 to 2.5 and in all four of the standard RGBs, I worked with negs, positives, LAB, CMYK, RGB, Hue/Saturation, what have you. While the results weren't identical there were scarcely any cases where there would be detectable differences and in those one would be as likely to prefer the 8-bit version as the 16. So, I have no reservation in saying that there's no particular point in retaining files in 16-bit, although it doesn't hurt either. I'll show all these results later, but the surprise was in the files that Ric [Cohn] sent, which appeared to show just the sort of damage that 8-bit editing is supposed to cause, in an image with a dark rich blue gradient, a worst-case scenario in conjunction with the very dark original scan, which in itself was an attempt to give an advantage to 16-bit editing. Ric provided both original 8-bit and 16-bit versions of these files. Granted that the necessary corrections were very severe, they still showed that what he said was true: the 8-bit version banded rather badly and the 16-bit did not. I tried several different ways of trying to get around the disadvantage and could not do so without excessive effort. Ric's 8-bit original, however, was generated from the 16-bit scan not by Photoshop but rather within his own scanner software. Therefore, I tried further tests where I applied the same extreme corrections to the image, but this time not to Ric's 8-bit image but rather a direct Photoshop conversion of Ric's 16- bit image to 8-bit. Shockingly, this completely eliminated the problem. There was no reason to prefer the version corrected entirely in 16-bit. When Photoshop converts from 16-bit to 8-bit it applies very fine noise to try to control subsequent problems. Most scanners don't. I would have expected this to make a difference but not to the point that the scanner 8-bit file would completely suck and the Photoshop 8-bit file would be just as good as the 16- bit version. I don't know whether this is all a function of Photoshop's superior algorithm or whether the scanner is doing something bad. Furthermore, I don't care. One way or another, the 8-bit scanner file is bad and the 8-bit Photoshop file is good." Preston Earle [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Still in Group 3.) Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Art, I concur with everything you have said except the last paragraph which concerns something I have no knowledge about and no concern with, given that I am not into gaming. As I have noted in several of my posts, I see as a potential positive for hi-bit scanning the fact that it furnishes more raw data than a low bit scan and therefore provides for potential future flexibility when creating archive master raw image files as ones final output, which are to be used at a later date to generate working files for specific purposes and output devices and products( which in the future may support high-bit files but not currently). Otherwise, for general purposes, high-bit scans as working files typically offer little added value overf an 8-bit file - except in a few rare (if not extreme) cases. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Arthur Entlich Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 9:01 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Hi Laurie, This isn't about minutia, this is about belief systems and religion ;-) The only real solution to deal with the zealotry would be a carefully controlled double blind experiment. Otherwise, we are indeed the blind leading the blind, because simply, we shall see what we expect to see. I am willing at accept that just like people's ability to hear musical tones (AKA being "tone deaf" or not) some people are gifted with greater color perception, and abilities to distinguish between them. I happen to have quite good color perception and color memory (i wish my event memory was as good!), however, I "believe" tests would tend to show that the vast majority within the bell curve cannot see the difference. I do believe there is a small advantage to 16 bit files due to data getting fractionated and pushed around slightly (although there really isn't a very large step for it to go in either direction). But, if a great deal of multiple manipulation is going to be accomplished a color could get pushed a fraction of a 1/256th step in error. However, in terms of printing, viewing on screen, etc, I think 16 bit files are of little to no value, and that's even concluding that the scanner is really capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. Regarding the matter of banding in 3D rendering, the as was mentioned by another poster, that problem is due to use of unnatural restricted pallets, and limited or no use of dithering, because random dithering in a moving 3d object shows up as moving noise and it slows the rendering process down, also. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > On the face of it, this does seem to be another silly debate. In his > responses Austin covered his ass bymaking of point of sayin 16-bit is not > necessary in most color scans as contrasted to all, which means that nay > exception you bring up will be considered by his as an exception and not the > rule. You on the other hand seem to have focused in on the needs of your > own personal work flow and needs and not a general workflow or needs and > come off as having an agenda of convincing others that your workflow is the > only good and acceptible one for everyone. > > If your work flow works for you and is something that requires you to employ > 16-bit scans as you perceive it, then you have to satisfy yourself and > should stick to 16-bit scans. If others think that 8-bit suffices for their > work than they should use that. Neither has any need to convince the other > that what they are doing is justified much less the best and only proper way > to accomplish the goals at hand for each. > > Sometimes we become fanatical over trivial minutia which is not significant > to most and can not be dscerned by most even when they perform the empirical > experiments suggested. Thus, for them this discussion becomes of as much > practical relevance to their needs and work as knowing the number of angles > that can fit on the head of a pin. If there is a key practical significance > to doing 16-bit color scans, it is to generate as complete a quasi-raw data > file as is currently possible from a scan for purposes of archiving as a > master file off of which specific working files will be generated both now > and in the future. By doing a 16-bit scan of a color image, you capture as > much data as is now possible which may be of potential use in the future as > the software and hardware changes and approves to accomodate the use of the > additional data in a 16-bit file. However, in many cases, the need and > usefulness of a refined and tonally enhanced, extended 16-bit image file as > a working file that one is going to produce finished products from is of > little practical use given today's software and hardware. > > If you or anyone thinks they see a difference in the final product
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Art-I'm actually partially on your side--I agree that 8 bits is mostly the limit of what humans can discern. There are rare cases of large, "shallow" (not much tonal range) gradients that haven't been dithered, either artificially or by film grain, that can show banding. But again, that's rare. And in any event, there are NO output solutions I know of that actually support 16-bit, so whether or not we can discern 16-bit is pretty much a moot point. The only time I'm saying 16-bit matters is when you make tonal adjustments, either gamma/levels/curves or dodging and burning. These throw away data. To have 8 bits of significant data when you're done you have to start with more than 8 bits. And if you're adjusting things in the scanner, the scanner's bit depth matters. One of the reasons 1990-and-earlier drumscanners do such a horrid job on color neg is that they're only 8 bits internally, spread over a 4.0 dynamic range. The much smaller range of color neg leaves you only 5-6 bits data--generally an ugly mess. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
OK, I was covering my butt, in case "someone" (a-hmmm) knew of some I didn't... I don't deal in the $150,000 scanner market so maybe there are some scanners that can accurately capture a full 16 bit depth. Several scanner companies will throw around dMax numbers based upon the mathematical "possibilities" rather than anything approaching reality. What is the new Minolta 5400 claiming? Art Austin Franklin wrote: > Hi Art, > > >>...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really >>capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. > > > I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 > bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what > I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can > deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard > that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but > even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. > > Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always > used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a > density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever > range is available, anyway. > > Regards, > > Austin > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Art, > ...and that's even concluding that the scanner is really > capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. I'm not sure ANY do. Do you know of a scanner that really has a usable 16 bits of data for each color? I know a few (and only a very few from what I've seen) *claim* 16 bits, but that doesn't mean that they actually can deliver 16 bits. If they could, their dMax would be 4.8, and I've not heard that claim. I believe the best I've seen is 14 bits, or a dMax of 4.2...but even at that, I'm skeptical that they actually meet that. Even if they were capable of that, that doesn't mean the bits are always used, especially for negative film. Color negative film, say, with a density range of 3.0, would only be able to use 10 bits our of what ever range is available, anyway. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Laurie, This isn't about minutia, this is about belief systems and religion ;-) The only real solution to deal with the zealotry would be a carefully controlled double blind experiment. Otherwise, we are indeed the blind leading the blind, because simply, we shall see what we expect to see. I am willing at accept that just like people's ability to hear musical tones (AKA being "tone deaf" or not) some people are gifted with greater color perception, and abilities to distinguish between them. I happen to have quite good color perception and color memory (i wish my event memory was as good!), however, I "believe" tests would tend to show that the vast majority within the bell curve cannot see the difference. I do believe there is a small advantage to 16 bit files due to data getting fractionated and pushed around slightly (although there really isn't a very large step for it to go in either direction). But, if a great deal of multiple manipulation is going to be accomplished a color could get pushed a fraction of a 1/256th step in error. However, in terms of printing, viewing on screen, etc, I think 16 bit files are of little to no value, and that's even concluding that the scanner is really capturing the full 16 bit depth, which many do not. Regarding the matter of banding in 3D rendering, the as was mentioned by another poster, that problem is due to use of unnatural restricted pallets, and limited or no use of dithering, because random dithering in a moving 3d object shows up as moving noise and it slows the rendering process down, also. Art LAURIE SOLOMON wrote: > On the face of it, this does seem to be another silly debate. In his > responses Austin covered his ass bymaking of point of sayin 16-bit is not > necessary in most color scans as contrasted to all, which means that nay > exception you bring up will be considered by his as an exception and not the > rule. You on the other hand seem to have focused in on the needs of your > own personal work flow and needs and not a general workflow or needs and > come off as having an agenda of convincing others that your workflow is the > only good and acceptible one for everyone. > > If your work flow works for you and is something that requires you to employ > 16-bit scans as you perceive it, then you have to satisfy yourself and > should stick to 16-bit scans. If others think that 8-bit suffices for their > work than they should use that. Neither has any need to convince the other > that what they are doing is justified much less the best and only proper way > to accomplish the goals at hand for each. > > Sometimes we become fanatical over trivial minutia which is not significant > to most and can not be dscerned by most even when they perform the empirical > experiments suggested. Thus, for them this discussion becomes of as much > practical relevance to their needs and work as knowing the number of angles > that can fit on the head of a pin. If there is a key practical significance > to doing 16-bit color scans, it is to generate as complete a quasi-raw data > file as is currently possible from a scan for purposes of archiving as a > master file off of which specific working files will be generated both now > and in the future. By doing a 16-bit scan of a color image, you capture as > much data as is now possible which may be of potential use in the future as > the software and hardware changes and approves to accomodate the use of the > additional data in a 16-bit file. However, in many cases, the need and > usefulness of a refined and tonally enhanced, extended 16-bit image file as > a working file that one is going to produce finished products from is of > little practical use given today's software and hardware. > > If you or anyone thinks they see a difference in the final product when > producing their work by using 16-bit as opposed to 8-bit scans, then by all > means they should use 16-bit scans and not worry about what anyone else > thinks or says should be done. If 8-bit is good enough for them, then they > should follow theirown light and disregard the opinions of those that push > for 16-bit scans as the gospel. > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Robert Logan wrote: > >>For most images, there will be >>no visible degradation in the image using only 8 >>bits/color. If you haven't tried an experiment, and >>are only speaking of "theory" > > > Ive noticed it in practice severally. Notably in > shots with some very variable lighting across > landscapes which contain numerous greens. Playing > with the curves often results in problems when all > 256 of the greens in 8 bit are used up. And as > you point out - with grayscale - luminance can > get blown out with too few bits, so why not chrominance. > > It's not quite as "black and white" as this implies. There are 256 brightness values of any one green hue. That means there are actually many hundreds of thousands of greens (well millions in fact), some with differing levels of red and blue in them (keep in mind that when working with light, green and red make for a more yellowish color. So every pixel not only has one brightness level of green from 256 (including a zero level or no green), but also potentially one brightness level of red and blue. The likelihood of a green field being made up of only one hue of green (let's say all with zero red zero blue), is pretty much nil (it would probably be unesthetic to look at). The real pallet in the 8 bit image is 256 paint buckets of different brightnesses of red, 256 of green and 256 buckets of blue, and each color on the screen is made up of equal quantities of paint from any mix of any one red bucket, any one green bucket and any one blue bucket, (including, one bucket that is basically empty in each color (value 0)). So, let's say you have a green brightness level 186. That could have no red and no blue, or it could have no red, and 1 brightness level blue, or 1 brightness level red and no blue, or 1 brightness level of red and blue... and on and on. Obviously, at some point the color would no longer be considered green. 186 green, 185 red and 185 blue would be a a very nearly neutral gray, but it would be very slightly green. If it was 186 green, 186 red, and 186 blue would indeed be a neutral gray. So, stating there are "only" 256 levels of green is not accurate. There are only 256 brightness levels of any one hue of green, but many hundreds of thousands, in fact, millions of what most people would refer to as greens. The vast majority of human eyes out there cannot actually accurately make the distinctions offered in a 16 million color pallet. I question that you are actually able to see the difference, especially on a computer screen. I suggest a "double blind" test and try to choose. Art Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Andreas, > Austin Franklin wrote: > >>Its well documented in the 3D community that having > >>24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines > >>can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats > >>why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, > >>and more. > > > > That's an entirely different issue. > > I don't think so. This is exactly the same problem. I disagree, but that really doesn't matter to this discussion. > When editing an image colorwise, then depending on the algoriths used, > an 8bit value per channel can easily lead to banding on some operations. It depends on what the source of the banding is. Many sources can cause banding, but we are specifically talking about posterization here that is caused by tonal manipulation of the data, where the tonal transitions are not smooth, and this is caused by missing intermediate values. Banding *CAN* be something completely different than this, and may not have a thing to do with this specific issue. > It will show up pretty clear in histograms, but might not be visible to > the viewer, depending on where it happens and the visual sensibility of > the viewer (and the monitor or whatever the outout device is). What's important, is whether it's visible or not. > If there is more room to work in, this banding does not happen or is > less visible. That is the advantage of working with 16bits. > Just plain old math. If you work in a small integer space some > operations will produce losses. Some operations *CAN* produce losses, and it depends on the visual significance of those losses. For 8 bit color images, as I've stated, those losses are not visible for MOST images. That's just plain fact. If you *WANT* to use 16 bits (which, as I've said, isn't really 16 bits anyway...the N bits is expanded to occupy a 16 bit space, but fact is, there are LOTS of holes in the 16 bit data. On the histogram, you ONLY see the upper 8 bits, so the holes aren't apparent). > The bigger the space the less > loss you have. True, but again, there may be NO visual impact caused by the loss, as has been readily and frequently proven by many an experiment. > If the effects of working in the wider space affect your images visibly > is something that only can be judged by looking at them and comparing > the results of working in both ranges. For some it does so drastically > for others not. Exactly, but to claim that you "need" to use 16 bit data (for color) is simply wrong, and was my point, and why I was very careful in what I said. People can tout this, and espouse theory, all they want, but reality shows otherwise. If you want to argue this, it's important to understand what the impact of theory has on reality. As I've stated clearly, 16 bit data *MAY* be beneficial for *SOME* images, but not for all. For some people, it may be more significant than others, depending on what it is they photograph. What would be "nice" is if someone would post two snips of the same image, showing this problem. If it was such an issue, you'd think there would be tons of web pages with this on it...but alas, I haven't seen any, and you'd believe people would be ready to share their images...but I haven't seen that either... I do find that interesting. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote: >>Its well documented in the 3D community that having >>24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines >>can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats >>why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, >>and more. > > That's an entirely different issue. I don't think so. This is exactly the same problem. When editing an image colorwise, then depending on the algoriths used, an 8bit value per channel can easily lead to banding on some operations. It will show up pretty clear in histograms, but might not be visible to the viewer, depending on where it happens and the visual sensibility of the viewer (and the monitor or whatever the outout device is). If there is more room to work in, this banding does not happen or is less visible. That is the advantage of working with 16bits. Just plain old math. If you work in a small integer space some operations will produce losses. The bigger the space the less loss you have. If the effects of working in the wider space affect your images visibly is something that only can be judged by looking at them and comparing the results of working in both ranges. For some it does so drastically for others not. cheers afx -- Andreas Siegert [EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Robert, > Yes - 8 bit does work fine for most images, but if > you really want to throw an image into some editing, > then relying on 8 bits is foolhardy if you can get > more to work with. BUT...you really don't GET 16 bits. You get 10, 12 or 13, and even if you *think* you get 14, you really don't. It also depends on if you are scanning slides, which will use more bits, or negatives, which will end up occupying less bits. It's just how scanners work. Scanners read relative density, and that's it. > Remember - filmscanners work with an analogue medium > that contains far more information than 16/8 bits > can capture Than 8 bits yes, but it's no where near more than 16 bits. You are lucky to get 10 if even 11 bits out of negative film. 10 bits is a density range of 3.0, 11 bits is a density range of 3.3 and 12 bits is a density range of 3.6. Have you ever measured the density range of color negative film? Provia has a stated dMax (in the Kodak data sheet) of 3.0, and a dMin of .2, which gives a density range of 2.8. A density range of 2.8 requires only 10 bits. And, keep in mind that because you have a density range of N, does not mean that you actually have a FILM color resolution that will allow discernability of all those bits! This is particularly true of slide film. > - now why not only use 4 bits? or 6/7? > 8 Bits is no magic number... Well, for grayscale, it's more than they human eye can discern (which is around 100+), so that's why not 4 or 6. Though, 7 would do fine for printing an image. But, because we can't discern tones, doesn't mean that they aren't useful...because you want the tonal transitions (if they are that way in the original scene that is) to appear smooth, and you can only do that by using indiscernible tones...if they were discernable, you'd see them ;-) > - just as the 16 Million > colours is a myth >- in the sense that no digital > image contains all 256*256*256 possibilities. I don't see the "myth" you believe...no one ever said that ALL possibilities are in any image. You're missing the point. What is important is what they eye can discern, and that you can represent all the variants that an eye can discern for any image (within the limits of the color space chosen that is). It's the gradient that is important, not the overall number of colors. There are also two different issues. One is tonal curves, which is a different issue than printability/viewability. The second is based solely on our ability to discern colors, and that is very well scientifically documented what the limits of human vision are. The first is based on how much of a tonal movement can you do and it not be discernable in the output, and that is entirely image, and amount of tonal movement, dependant. > Heyy - it might contain 3400*120*44 ... > > Its well documented in the 3D community that having > 24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines > can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats > why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, > and more. That's an entirely different issue. > I think that scanning to capture all the nuances > and working from there is the sensible way. I understand you (and some others) believe that, but that doesn't mean it's true, as a general rule, or that there is any benefit from it, as a general rule. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
On the face of it, this does seem to be another silly debate. In his responses Austin covered his ass bymaking of point of sayin 16-bit is not necessary in most color scans as contrasted to all, which means that nay exception you bring up will be considered by his as an exception and not the rule. You on the other hand seem to have focused in on the needs of your own personal work flow and needs and not a general workflow or needs and come off as having an agenda of convincing others that your workflow is the only good and acceptible one for everyone. If your work flow works for you and is something that requires you to employ 16-bit scans as you perceive it, then you have to satisfy yourself and should stick to 16-bit scans. If others think that 8-bit suffices for their work than they should use that. Neither has any need to convince the other that what they are doing is justified much less the best and only proper way to accomplish the goals at hand for each. Sometimes we become fanatical over trivial minutia which is not significant to most and can not be dscerned by most even when they perform the empirical experiments suggested. Thus, for them this discussion becomes of as much practical relevance to their needs and work as knowing the number of angles that can fit on the head of a pin. If there is a key practical significance to doing 16-bit color scans, it is to generate as complete a quasi-raw data file as is currently possible from a scan for purposes of archiving as a master file off of which specific working files will be generated both now and in the future. By doing a 16-bit scan of a color image, you capture as much data as is now possible which may be of potential use in the future as the software and hardware changes and approves to accomodate the use of the additional data in a 16-bit file. However, in many cases, the need and usefulness of a refined and tonally enhanced, extended 16-bit image file as a working file that one is going to produce finished products from is of little practical use given today's software and hardware. If you or anyone thinks they see a difference in the final product when producing their work by using 16-bit as opposed to 8-bit scans, then by all means they should use 16-bit scans and not worry about what anyone else thinks or says should be done. If 8-bit is good enough for them, then they should follow theirown light and disregard the opinions of those that push for 16-bit scans as the gospel. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Robert Logan Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 3:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 Austin Franklin wrote: > It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W, there is no > question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve > adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any > difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. Have to agree on the B&W front - 16 bit is essential - after scanning in a roll of old FP from some years ago and I forgot to set to 16 bit - I got a shock when doing curves - boom - highlights would just explode :) As for 16 bit, I cant agree. If you take a picture of a heavily red scene - autumnal sunsets and leaves etc are coming up for example, then your film is going to be using a much larger range of 'reds' than 8 bits can accomodate. Dithering with other colours will occur with the 8 bit scan to make up the difference in the digital scan vs the analogue film. Once you start messing with the curves on this, it will make matters worse. Having 16 bits of red to work with will leave much broader scope for manouvering in curves. Its analogous to the black and white issue above. 8 bits is only 256 possible reds/greens/blues. Theres no way I would rely on this for editing, although the final destination (print) might make no use of all that info. -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
> of each individual color, true, and it's also 16M > colors. Also, you're not likely to get only one > color out of three. Yes, but the 16M is just that, a mythical number that never appears in most images, the range of colours is typically more far restricted. > For most images, there will be > no visible degradation in the image using only 8 > bits/color. If you haven't tried an experiment, and > are only speaking of "theory" Ive noticed it in practice severally. Notably in shots with some very variable lighting across landscapes which contain numerous greens. Playing with the curves often results in problems when all 256 of the greens in 8 bit are used up. And as you point out - with grayscale - luminance can get blown out with too few bits, so why not chrominance. > you really need to > try an experiment for your self. Many people have > done this experiment, and that's why they say that 8 > bits/color works perfectly for most images. Yes - 8 bit does work fine for most images, but if you really want to throw an image into some editing, then relying on 8 bits is foolhardy if you can get more to work with. Remember - filmscanners work with an analogue medium that contains far more information than 16/8 bits can capture - now why not only use 4 bits? or 6/7? 8 Bits is no magic number - just as the 16 Million colours is a myth - in the sense that no digital image contains all 256*256*256 possibilities. Heyy - it might contain 3400*120*44 ... Its well documented in the 3D community that having 24 bit colour internally in 3D processing engines can result in banding in certain scenes, and thats why Nvidia and ATI have developed 32 bit engines, and more. I think that scanning to capture all the nuances and working from there is the sensible way. bert -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Hi Robert, > Austin Franklin wrote: > > It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W, > there is no > > question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum > tonal curve > > adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any > > difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. > > Have to agree on the B&W front - 16 bit is essential - > after scanning in a roll of old FP from some years ago > and I forgot to set to 16 bit - I got a shock when > doing curves - boom - highlights would just explode :) > > As for 16 bit, I cant agree. If you take a picture of > a heavily red scene... I agree, and that's why I said "for *most* applications"... > 8 bits is only 256 possible reds/greens/blues. of each individual color, true, and it's also 16M colors. Also, you're not likely to get only one color out of three. For most images, there will be no visible degradation in the image using only 8 bits/color. If you haven't tried an experiment, and are only speaking of "theory", you really need to try an experiment for your self. Many people have done this experiment, and that's why they say that 8 bits/color works perfectly for most images. Regards, Austin Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Austin Franklin wrote: > It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W, there is no > question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve > adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any > difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. Have to agree on the B&W front - 16 bit is essential - after scanning in a roll of old FP from some years ago and I forgot to set to 16 bit - I got a shock when doing curves - boom - highlights would just explode :) As for 16 bit, I cant agree. If you take a picture of a heavily red scene - autumnal sunsets and leaves etc are coming up for example, then your film is going to be using a much larger range of 'reds' than 8 bits can accomodate. Dithering with other colours will occur with the 8 bit scan to make up the difference in the digital scan vs the analogue film. Once you start messing with the curves on this, it will make matters worse. Having 16 bits of red to work with will leave much broader scope for manouvering in curves. Its analogous to the black and white issue above. 8 bits is only 256 possible reds/greens/blues. Theres no way I would rely on this for editing, although the final destination (print) might make no use of all that info. -- Linux - reaches the parts that other beers fail to reach. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
It really depends on if you are talking color or B&W. For B&W, there is no question, you need to use 16 bits for doing all but a minimum tonal curve adjustment, but for color, for most applications you won't see any difference using 8 bit data or 16 bit data. Austin > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2003 6:02 PM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16 > > > Yup, I'm in "category 1" too. If you're going to work on the > image, 16-bit makes a huge > difference--many operations, especially big curve or gamma > adjustments, throw away bits. > The goal is to still have 8 bits of information left when you're > done. Starting at 8 bits > that's pretty tough. But if you're not going to "work" the image, > if you're going to make > all your adjustments in the scanning program, then yes, 8 bits is plenty. > > -- > -- > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with > 'unsubscribe filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the > message title or body Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: 8 bit versus 16
Yup, I'm in "category 1" too. If you're going to work on the image, 16-bit makes a huge difference--many operations, especially big curve or gamma adjustments, throw away bits. The goal is to still have 8 bits of information left when you're done. Starting at 8 bits that's pretty tough. But if you're not going to "work" the image, if you're going to make all your adjustments in the scanning program, then yes, 8 bits is plenty. Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
