-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Austin Franklin Sent: Wednesday, September 17, 2003 9:12 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: 8 bit versus 16
Laurie, >> At the risk of raising Austin's ire, >Au contraire! You hit the nail on the head ;-) Gee, that is good I hope. :-) >> I think that he is being more of a >> purist than most people in both what he regards as the proper workflow and >> the correct way to use scanners to capture images off of film or flat >> artwork and prints. .... >Exactly! Magnificient; but here comes the other shoe. >> While I do see some technical disagreements in >> the discussion as to possible benefits and uses of 16-bit scans >> (raw lineal >> or raw non-lineal scans) and the potential benefits and uses of >> enhancement >> and adjustment tools the support working with 16-bit files, >But...here's the rub. If you get the setpoints and tonal corrections >reasonably close in the scanner driver, keep in mind, this is all done using >high bit data... it's just how scanners work...it completely moots the >discussion of 16 vs 8 bit files...as there would be no need to do large >tonal moves post scanning. The other shoe? First, it assumes that the software being used allows for this; but granting that it does for purposes of argument, it may completely moot the discussion for you but not for others for a number of reasons that they are trying to tell you but while you are listening you are not hearing. Among those is the fact that since as you say if you get the setpoints and tonal corrections reasonably close to the scanner driver using high bit, you have done essentially what they say they are doing just they have choose to do the setpoint correction and tonal adjustments to the high bit data in a third party editor rather than in the scanner even if it is possible with the scanner software that they are using since they feel more compfortable with the third party image editor or it is better than that of the scanner software. I think they all recognize that to apply some Photoshop plugins and features or even to print they need to convert the file to 24 bit in order to do so and that that should take place after the tonal corrections and setpoionts have been established. There is also the fact that, while one can establish set points and tonal curves that match the optimum hardware capabilities of the given scanner and that these can remain constant, for most of us, the subject matter being scanned does not remain constant and may require modification of the set points and tonal curves from scan to scan or so and is dependent on the original being scanned rather than the devices capabilities per se. Such modifications may best be done after the scan in an image editor where one can actually preview the consequences of proposed adjustments on the fly in real time as they are being done. In that case the establishment of setpoints and tonal curves for the scan should be taken as merely a preliminary raw approximation rather than the final product with the main tonal moves being done post scanning. Second, it very well can be the case that one does not wish to replicate the exact setpoints and tonal curve of the original that was scanned but to deliberately alter or modify the tonal character of the scanned result for artisitic or other reasons; there would be every reason for doing major tonal moves post scanning. >> As for persons claiming that certain technical scanning problems >> are either produced because scans were 8 bit rather than 16 bit or can best be deal >> with if the file is 16 bit versus 8 bit, I think that this is essentially an >> empirical and practical question (even if theoretically and >> analytically a case could be made for said claims). Thus, Austin's request for concrete >> examples is legitimate and justified with respect to such claims. >And, interestingly enough, no one can come up with any images that >demonstrate this. >> That they >> have not been produced does not indicate as he would have it that they do >> not exist or are not significant; but it does serves as grounds for his >> refusal to accept said claims as well as legitimate grounds for his not >> wanting to partake in the discussion... >Hey, did I say that? ;-) Maybe not; but it was implied even if you did not think you said or implied it. It is that implication that I think is responsible for raising the hackels of some of those with whom you are locked in this inane debate with. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body
