[filmscanners] Re: color bit depth and digital cameras
I can't comment on the bit depth of cameras, but scanners need more bits when processing negative film since negative film has it's dynamic range compressed. Eight bits was passable for slide film, well, properly exposed slide film. Film like Astia is slightly compressed, i.e. it doesn't have the full dynamic range after chemical processing. It probably doesn't project well, but it sure scans well. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered > something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality > adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is > only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan > 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners > have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit > depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom > seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for > the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? > ___ > Dr. Paul Patton > Life Sciences Building Rm 538A > work: (419)-372-3858 > home: (419)-352-5523 > Biology Department > Bowling Green State University > Bowling Green, Ohio 43403 > > "The most beautiful thing we can experience is > the mysterious. It is the source of all true art > and science." > -Albert Einstein > ___ > > > > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] Re: color bit depth and digital cameras
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>> I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? << I suspect you've done something wrong. This reference http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/index.html Shows the D200 doing very well indeed at ISO 100. I'm quite sure it uses a 12-bit A/D converter. Note that just because a camera or scanner has X bits in its A/D converter doesn't mean you have X bits of valid data in the output files. 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: color bit depth and digital cameras
Dpreview.com's review indicates that it is a 12-bit raw format. ~Berry On 7/13/07 11:27 PM, "David J. Littleboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered > something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality > adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is > only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan > 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners > have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit > depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom > seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for > the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? > << > > I suspect you've done something wrong. This reference > > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/inde > x.html > > Shows the D200 doing very well indeed at ISO 100. I'm quite sure it uses a > 12-bit A/D converter. > > Note that just because a camera or scanner has X bits in its A/D converter > doesn't mean you have X bits of valid data in the output files. > > 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 Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
[filmscanners] RE: color bit depth and digital cameras
I wonder if the confusion comes from the option for compressed NEF as the raw format. The D200 default is uncompressed & lossless but it's easy to change to the just barely lossy compressed option. Compressed in-camera squeezes the 12 bit, 4096 native analog RAW value scale into 683 values, ~9.4 bits but differently allocated. Nearly all the compression loss is in more highly gradated high values. In uncompressed RAW, the top 4 stops use 3840 (2048+1024+512+256) values of the 4096. The remaining 256 values cover the rest of the 8 bits. Compressed NEF's allocate 251 values to the lower 256 (8 stops) and the remaining 432 to the top 4 stops (3860 raw values). The result is just a little less recoverable highlight data -- on average more values per f-stop than the lower range. The loss seems to empirically provable but hardly ever meaningful in the image. I still shoot uncompressed NEFs just in case. The D80, D70, D50 & D40 bodies only have compressed NEF. http://www.photography-forums.com/t80862-drawbacks-of-compressed-nef-in-d200 .html Bob G -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:05 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] Re: color bit depth and digital cameras Dpreview.com's review indicates that it is a 12-bit raw format. ~Berry On 7/13/07 11:27 PM, "David J. Littleboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>>>> > > I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered > something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality > adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is > only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan > 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners > have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit > depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom > seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for > the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? > <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< > > I suspect you've done something wrong. This reference > > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/in de > x.html > > Shows the D200 doing very well indeed at ISO 100. I'm quite sure it uses a > 12-bit A/D converter. > > Note that just because a camera or scanner has X bits in its A/D converter > doesn't mean you have X bits of valid data in the output files. > > 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 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: color bit depth and digital cameras
I also always shoot raw plus SHQ jpeg. The E-1 raw is 14-bit. Very good insurance, and I always process the raw file for anything I'm going to print. Berry On 7/14/07 9:14 AM, "Bob Geoghegan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I wonder if the confusion comes from the option for compressed NEF as the > raw format. The D200 default is uncompressed & lossless but it's easy to > change to the just barely lossy compressed option. Compressed in-camera > squeezes the 12 bit, 4096 native analog RAW value scale into 683 values, > ~9.4 bits but differently allocated. Nearly all the compression loss is in > more highly gradated high values. In uncompressed RAW, the top 4 stops use > 3840 (2048+1024+512+256) values of the 4096. The remaining 256 values cover > the rest of the 8 bits. Compressed NEF's allocate 251 values to the lower > 256 (8 stops) and the remaining 432 to the top 4 stops (3860 raw values). > The result is just a little less recoverable highlight data -- on average > more values per f-stop than the lower range. The loss seems to empirically > provable but hardly ever meaningful in the image. I still shoot > uncompressed NEFs just in case. The D80, D70, D50 & D40 bodies only have > compressed NEF. > > http://www.photography-forums.com/t80862-drawbacks-of-compressed-nef-in-d200 > .html > > Bob G > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Berry Ives > Sent: Saturday, July 14, 2007 8:05 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] Re: color bit depth and digital cameras > > Dpreview.com's review indicates that it is a 12-bit raw format. > ~Berry > > > On 7/13/07 11:27 PM, "David J. Littleboy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> >> I was just playing with my new Nikon D200 and discovered >> something that surprised me. Unless there is some quality >> adjustment setting I missed, it's color bit depth apparently is >> only 8 bits in NEF Raw. By comparison, my Polaroid SprintScan >> 4000 scanner has a color bit depth of 12 bits, and other scanners >> have much higher color bit depths than this. While color bit >> depth is a commonly cited specification for scanners, I've seldom >> seen it cited for digital cameras. Does the lower bit depth for >> the D200 imply lower quality color rendition than my 12 bit scanner? >> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< >> >> I suspect you've done something wrong. This reference >> >> > http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/digital.sensor.performance.summary/in > de >> x.html >> >> Shows the D200 doing very well indeed at ISO 100. I'm quite sure it uses a >> 12-bit A/D converter. >> >> Note that just because a camera or scanner has X bits in its A/D converter >> doesn't mean you have X bits of valid data in the output files. >> >> 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 > > > > > > 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
