Digital BW, The Print

John,

Didn't the 8-bit version show the same steps?  It ought to do pretty well.
8-bit doesn't mean only 256 steps because of averaging multiple pixels.
But it is important that you convert to 8 bits with something like Photoshop
that does an "intelligent" mapping rather than simple truncation.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody" 
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> Roy,
> It was a 1024 step wedge, and read with an i1.  Exactly the same file
> printed.
> Admittedly somewhat esoteric, but it satisfied my curiosity that gradient
> differences beyond 8-bit are real, and achievable with 1440 printers.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Roy
> Harrington
> Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 4:19 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Archiving images on DVD?
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
> <moodymz3@> wrote:
> >
> > Ginny,
> > I guess you just made an argument for saving in 16 bit; so that you can do
> > the test without rescanning.  :-)
> >
> > I can tell you that I see smoother gradations from OPM with 16 bit files
> on
> > my old 2200.  I can also tell you that I throw out nearly all my BW prints
> > every couple months because I'm struggling with the creative side, going
> > back to the original files with new hope.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > John Moody
> >
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I'm curious what your test was to show difference in 16-bit vs 8-bit
> printing.
> Was it a real image or a test image?  Exactly the same file to start with?
> I.e. the only difference is to take the 16 bit file and convert  to 8 bit in
> PS
> before printing.
> 
> My gut feel is very skeptical that a print could show any difference but I'm
> interested in any real evidence.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>