>> Yep. There's only so much that human senses can perceive. ;-)
> 
> True, and it's a shed load more than 256 levels.  The attached photo 
> demonstrates nicely, see how with only 8bits/channel there is almost no 
> detail in the clouds at the top, nor in the dark wall and radiator at 
> the bottom? I can assure you in real life I can see a lot more detail.  

There's a good reason for that: every time you point your eyes somewhere 
else, all the exposure settings automatically change! ;-)

That's why it's so damned hard to find a good exposure setting on a 
camera - one that reveals as much detail as the human eye. The human eye 
doesn't use just *one* exposure setting, but a constantly changing level.

> Once we get display devices with higher contrast then higher bpp will 
> surely follow to better replicate what we see with our eyes.  IIRC 
> cinema projectors use 16 bit/channel already.

Well, we'll see.

>> (Similarly, "CD-quality audio" was invented, what, 20 years ago? And 
>> it still hasn't changed to this day...)
> 
> That's because not many people can hear higher than 20 kHz.

Indeed. No real point going higher.

> There isn't much incentive to go higher, although DVD uses 48 kHz.

Now there's interesting. Do you have a reference for that? Last I heard, 
DVD audio typically has lossy compression applied to it...

> 16-bit per sample is also probably 
> ok, because that correpsonds (IIRC) to a roughly 100 dB range of sounds, 
> which is about what the ear is sensitive to while listening to music.

Heh. It sounds OK to me! ;-)

[I gather there is a thing called "Super Audio CD", but it hasn't really 
taken off because nobody can hear the difference.]

> (OK if you wanted to reproduce a pin dropping and then a jet engine in 
> your living room, you might need more than 16 bits to get it sounding 
> good...)

Hope - because you'll be *deaf* after the jet! :-D

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message