RE: [APML] Picture Window Pro vs. PhotoShop

["Jon Kolb" <jkolb@datawest.net>]

Philip,

You know from previous messages that I greatly respect your work, but
I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with you on this following point.

> And as we know, 8 bits is all that is needed for 
> any image to 
> be viewed by the human eye, by whatever medium.  16 or 32 
> bits is needed 
> only for internal data manipulation of certain images but by 
> the time the 
> image gets to the presentation stage anything greater than 8 
> bits is wasted.

I don't claim to be as adept at image processing as you, or Jerry, or
many others on this list, but I do claim to see easily the difference in
my images when they are displayed as 8-bit vs. 16 bit by the software in
PW Pro.  The degradation of the full-resolution images when converted
from 16-bit to 8-bit is often glaring, and always discernable.  Perhaps
it is only the software deceiving me, but I also notice a difference in
the quality of prints produced from each bit density.  

I won't try to argue the point technically because it's out of my field,
but the ink on the paper, and the pixels on the screen tell me that 16
bit images look better.  It may be that 8-bit is all that is sufficient
for the human eye, but in my experience 16-bit is better, yielding a
more pleasing view.  I stand ready to be corrected from a technical
standpoint, but not from an aesthetic perspective (which is of course
subjective and cannot be readily challenged). It would be interesting to
read other comments on this subject.  Maybe we're looking for common
ground on what defines the "presentation stage," and if that means a
.jpg, then I'd probably agree with you, since all of mine seem to look
terrible compared to the full-res image.

Sincerely,
Jon Kolb
Adventures in Astrophotography
http://home.datawest.net/jkolb/
jkolb@datawest.net




--  APML Archives at <http://astro.umsystem.edu/apml/>  ---
             Unsubscribe at <majordomo@seds.org>