At 05:51 PM 9/17/2002, Dan wrote:
> Yeah, 16bpp -vs- 8bpp would add enough resolution to make all this stuff
>pretty academic and low-contrast films win out. I'm basing the original idea
>on having done scans of low-contrast prints, and wishing there was more
>range in the image, because when I do expand it to get the contrast I want,
>it just ends up looking pretty iffy because the lack of different levels in
>the original means that mid-tone gradients end up being all stripy-looking.
Only if the film grain will support the increased resolution. Most good
scanners can output at 16 bits, yes, (choice is either 16 or 8) but
internally may only be 12 or 14 bits, few have 16 bit A/D's. It's a
digital format thing. But when did anyone's video card + monitor
support 16 bits? Higher bits only helps if the film density range is
very narrow, that is, has a narrow histogram, which allows you to
expand in Photoshop before converting to 8 bits. I doubt most people
can distinguish 8 bit outputs that have an optimized full range
histograms vs. a higher resolution.
In the end what matters (for high tonal resolution) is matching film
choice to scene brightness range using good low grain film. It's good
we have film choices to make that tradeoff.
Wayne
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|