>   In the same way one could argue that why use 96kHz 24-bit sound when
the
> final media will be a CD?
>   The answer is that while you work with the sound/image, you lose
less
> details because you have much more resolution to work with. In audio
this
> means that making everything at 96/24 (recording, mixing, adding
effects, etc)
> makes the final CD better than if you had used 44/16 from the very
beginning.
>   In image editing it's the same: When you apply all kinds of filters
and
> transforms, you lose less details if you have a higher resolution and
color
> depth. This makes the final product better, even if it has a lower
resolution
> and/or color depth.


I guess a further analogy would be creating a JPEG image for the web.
Sure, you could save your work as a JPEG, open it later, do some more
work, and save it again, but you lose quality each time.  Obviously it
is better to work with a lossless format during the creation, and only
create the JPEG at the end.

And anyway, there's nothing wrong with being a perfectionist :-)

Post a reply to this message