 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kari Kivisalo <ray### [at] engineer com> wrote:
: Yes, for advanced users 24-bits isn't enough :)
That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
(including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
most filters don't work in that mode).
In the audio world the situation is completely different.
In hifi editing, CD-quality is laughably poor. 48kHz is the absolute
minimum, and the most common standard for high-quality sound editing is
96kHz, 24 bits per sample (either stereo or 5.1 channels, depending on what
you are doing).
A professional hifi person will NEVER use a 44.1kHz device for what he
wants to do. It just isn't enough.
I have the feeling that we can do these approximate relations with respect
to quality:
Audio Image
----- -----
44kHz, 16bps <-> 8 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
96kHz, 24bps <-> 16 bits per color channel (3-4 channels)
I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
Just editing b/w images with 8 bits per channel is awful (you have only
256 shades of gray, which is completely insufficient for professional work).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f49c@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> I'm just amazed that professionals don't demand the higher quality.
>
They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
: They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
: Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing. I was wrong
(and for some reason happy about it...).
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
in news:3bf8f77f@news.povray.org Warp wrote:
> Oh, I thought that photoshop was kind of #1 in image editing.
Kind of like MsWord versus (La)TeX.
The saddest is that many "who should be professionals" don't know the
difference, measured by the technical quality of the artwork I get on
my desk from top design bureaus :(
Ingo
--
Photography: http://members.home.nl/ingoogni/
Pov-Ray : http://members.home.nl/seed7/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
3bf8f77f@news.povray.org...
> ingo <ing### [at] homenl> wrote:
> : They do and thus don't use Photoshop but dedicated software by Barco,
> : Nastassia, Dr.Wirth and many others.
It really depends on what is considered a "professional". Every professional
printshop/studio I've worked with uses photoshop as its main tool. I don't
know about Photoshop's shortcomings, but it looks that these people are
pretty happy with it. After all, 100% of their work involves making
brochures and business cards where apparently the sort of quality obtained
with more sophisticated software would just be a waste of money. For these
people, who represent probably the largest market share for Photoshop, I
guess that 24-bit editing is more than enough as it's unlikely that the
readers of a mail-order lingerie/powertools/stationery/whatever catalogues
will complain about the colours being a little flat.
Off-topic rant : it seems that lots of people consider that a "professional"
tool is some sort of supertool and that using it makes you a (condescending)
superhuman. I'd say that's marketing-enhanced snobbery in 90% of the cases
(the remaining 10% beging those few with an actual profesional need for the
extra bells and whistles). A professional tool is just the right one for the
job, period. If someone makes a good business using a particular tool, then
this tool is professional, but nobody needs a sledgehammer to swat flies...
G.
--
**********************
http://www.oyonale.com
**********************
- Graphic experiments
- POV-Ray and Poser computer images
- Posters
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf8f49c@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> That's exactly why I'm amazed that most image manipulation softwares
> (including the top-of-the-line ones, like photoshop) do not have good
> support for color depths higher than 24 bits. Most don't have any support,
> some of them (eg. photoshop) have some support, but it's very limited (eg.
> most filters don't work in that mode).
Probably because printers won't deliver any better quality than that
resulting of four (or a few more) colors. And given that PhotoShop and Co
have been design with the "real" world in mind, they don't bother with
different quality. Keep in mind that when printing you usually get a better
quality if you have a high-resolution image with 'less' colors than a
low-resolution image with 'more' colors. Or try it this way: take any b&w
laser printer. No matter what you do and even with the best setup a
grayscale image will not look better if you provide more than a 300dpi and
and more than about a 50 shades of gray. Thus, why bother with the
additional information if it will be lost after output (the primary
application of these programs) in the first place?
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
: Off-topic rant : it seems that lots of people consider that a "professional"
: tool is some sort of supertool
I didn't say "professional tool". I just said that I wonder why professionals
don't demand more quality, as happens in the audio side.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
: Probably because printers won't deliver any better quality than that
: resulting of four (or a few more) colors. And given that PhotoShop and Co
: have been design with the "real" world in mind, they don't bother with
: different quality.
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.
--
#macro N(D,I)#if(I<6)cylinder{M()#local D[I]=div(D[I],104);M().5,2pigment{
rgb M()}}N(D,(D[I]>99?I:I+1))#end#end#macro M()<mod(D[I],13)-6,mod(div(D[I
],13),8)-3,10>#end blob{N(array[6]{11117333955,
7382340,3358,3900569407,970,4254934330},0)}// - Warp -
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf9101f@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg> wrote:
> 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.
No, even in a 8 bpcc image there is far more detail than you need. Even
with just 4 bpcc you still get good output images - try it in grayscale,
that is less expensive than color. And with color you actually need less
information if you only have the same density in case of those printing
methods where you cannot really mix colors.
Thorsten
____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde
Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
