 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <3bf8f49c@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tag povrayorg> 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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Kevin Riggle wrote:
>
> It's a small program with very nice batch-processing capabilities.
> (Disclaimer: I am not in any way involved with IrfanView -- I just find it
> handy.)
Additionnal off-topic ad: Irfanview is *my* image viewer
under Windows. Small, fast, intelligent memory usage.
And free.
--
Adrien Beau adr### [at] freefr http://adrien.beau.free.fr/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Andrew" <ast### [at] hotmailcom> wrote in message
news:3bf945e7@news.povray.org...
> 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.
>
Heh - when I first started playing with graphics, I always used JPG, not
realising the cost. I thought my eyesight was just deteriorating really
quickly...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19 Nov 2001 07:01:32 -0500, 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).
Can you name a typical desktop machine (Windows, Mac, Linux) which can
work with 16 bits per channel? I know of none. However, graphics
workstations like SGI can, and do, use 48bpp color (or 64, with
alpha). So it all comes down to the definition of "professional" :)
Peter Popov ICQ : 15002700
Personal e-mail : pet### [at] vipbg
TAG e-mail : pet### [at] tagpovrayorg
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Peter Popov wrote:
>
> Can you name a typical desktop machine (Windows, Mac, Linux) which can
> work with 16 bits per channel?
I have processed succesfully 16bpc images in Win98SE Photostop.
You are mixing presentation with processing. 8bpc is enough
for visual presentation of images with contrast ratios of less
than 200.
_____________
Kari Kivisalo
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Peter Popov" <pet### [at] vipbg> wrote in message
news:1gjkvt0pd69gobkgmpphifcbpjc6uqtodo@4ax.com...
> So it all comes down to the definition of "professional" :)
And now there's going to be a lot of quibbling over that, too.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
