Again, not sure either way. This has been debated for some time by any
number of heavy hitters (the arguments last year and the year before that
if I recall on the filmscanners list come to mind) and the jury never seems
to come back in. That is, in theory everyone agrees it's a good thing, but
for real-world use does it represent any appreciable gain? For instance,
for net display could anyone actually tell the difference?
Now if I had to vote I'd undoubtedly go with max information but so far
none of the software companies have bothered to poll me. <g>
Tris
At 08:44 PM 2/5/2004 -0800, you wrote:
>tristanjohn@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> >................
> >As for the enhanced editing abilities: not sure about that. I doubt with my
> >failing eyesight it would be much of an issue either way, though the anal
> >side of me is attracted to "more detail" in theory. <g>
> >
>Seems to me the big advantage of 16 bit is to get things that stretch or
>compress color detail, histogram, curve, etc., right before converting
>to 8 bit. That way any loss in brightness detail is at the stage where
>there is 'excess' data, so the final image is largely unaffected.
>
>Moose
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|