Re: OT: 16 bit editing myth or reality?
Seems to me that analog (a negative, a light source, and a lens) would solve the problem hands down - no fuss, no muss. "Old school" analog solutions do blow away (in terms of data density) 8-bit, 16-bit, or for that matter just about any quantity of bits available at present. With analog, None of this would be necessary, we could argue about grain size. Just my .02; for now. Ludites unite now! If it's the final image that counts - kill your computer ;) Best --greg P.S. Just started reading Oliver's book on Woodburytype (one of my favorite processes). Would you care to work out the pressure requirements for my new stamping press? On Wed, 19 Dec 2007, Yves Gauvreau wrote: Mark Mark, A simple question, did you try the test I suggested in an HONEST way? No! You said it yourself below. By the way, your correction below is still, lets say inexact: "Editing a 16 bit file will leave a rich file that when converted to 8 bit mode for printing has no gaps in THE HISTOGRAM...." Editing a 16 bit file will leave a rich file that when converted to 8 bit mode for printing has no VISIBLE gaps in THE HISTOGRAM.... It is not because you don't see something it is not there. Human nature surprises me almost every day, must be in our genes. We are so conservative that it makes us almost blind and deaf to all new ideas. Look at history it's full of example and it's still goes on even today. The test you propose below proves nothing new, it is design to fail from the start and it as nothing, absolutely nothing to do with real world image and real world editing. This is what I mean with what I said above, people listen to you (more or less) because you wrote a book and you say what everyone expect you to say, they could even have respect for you I don't know. When you propose things like below people say He! He! he got him now, come on, it may surprise you but I have respect for you, you worked a lot and you broth something usefull to the community and that as merits. But I know some people here wont take the time to verify if what you said is meaningful or not and they'll think what you said is as good as money in the bank. I even said it myself, with the test I proposed it is EASY to make it fail, just do what you suggest at #3 below and it wont work. I was septic as well untill I did the test HONESTLY not to make it fail, this is to easy, but out of curiosity, this is also in our genes. You can even write to me offlist, I promise I wont tell anyone how surprised you where. Happy Holidays to you and your family and to all. Yves
|