Eric, to add to what you said:- most cameras and scanners do work like your first table of levels per "zone" at the image capture stage : > > zone levels > 1 2048 > 2 1024 > 3 512 > 4 256 > 5 128 > 6 64 > 7 32 > 8 16 > 9 8 > 10 4 > 11 2 > However it would be wrong to think that a device which saves in jpeg cannot (in principle) record below your "zone" 8 (I'll stick with your definition). Perhaps you were not saying it did, but someone new to the subject could be confused. > and for an 8 bit image > > zone levels > 1 128 > 2 64 > 3 32 > 4 16 > 5 8 > 6 4 > 7 2 > 8 1 > ... Between the capture stage (CCD etc.) and the file save (or RAW convert, or wherever the 8 bit file is created) there is a "characteristic curve" applied (to use the old term which I like). This breaks the linear relationship between the binary numbers and the light-level recorded on the CCD. For example, in many point-and-shoot cameras the contrast is set so high that they cannot even record 8 zones, only 5 or so. While on the other hand RAW conversion (or the few cameras with really good low contrast settings) allows the range to be increased beyond 8 zones (you'll find discussions about exactly how much over the previous month or so, but no need to go there now). Your main point is exactly correct: after the image is converted to 8 bits, any significant re-expansion of shadow contrast, or indeed any sufficiently steep curve applied for whatever purpose, is going to produce posterisation. (Subtle posterisation can be visible in the mid-tones of black and white images.) Ken > > Obviously, with the 8 bit image, if you try to open up your shadows > at all, they'll posterize. Whereas the 16 bit image will have a > greater latitude for manipulation. > > Well that is about the extent of my knowledge regarding this topic. > An additional note however, is that this is the reason that you want > to expose for your highlights and "develop" for the shadows with > digital, the exact opposite of how one approaches exposure with film. > > Hope that helps. > > Eric > www.ericashworth.net
Message
Re: 8 bit vs 16 bit conversions
2005-08-19 by kenstrain2000
Attachments
- No local attachments were found for this message.