If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
In message ,
Chris Cox wrote: Without your original data to test, I can't even guess what went wrong. You don't need my original data. Any image in "16 bit greyscale" mode has all kinds of numbers between 0 and 32768 missing, and not possible no matter hown much you blur or interpolate. "16 bit greyscale" is about 13.5 bit greyscale. -- John P Sheehy |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Cox wrote: In article , Dave Martindale wrote: (Toby Thain) writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. When your source data was probably from a 12-bit ADC, or maybe 14-bit, working with 15 significant bits may indeed be completely adequate. And there *are* advantages to using a representation that has some headroom for "whiter than white" without overflow, and where the representation for "1.0" is a power of 2. But the couple of most recent comments in this thread are about the fact that Photoshop's greyscale doesn't even seem to have 15 significant bits, unlike the RGB representation. The color mode doesn't matter - it's still 16 bit data (0..32768). Hi Chris... 0..32767 or 1..32768 You just can't have it both ways Ken Chris |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Cox wrote: In article , Dave Martindale wrote: (Toby Thain) writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. When your source data was probably from a 12-bit ADC, or maybe 14-bit, working with 15 significant bits may indeed be completely adequate. And there *are* advantages to using a representation that has some headroom for "whiter than white" without overflow, and where the representation for "1.0" is a power of 2. But the couple of most recent comments in this thread are about the fact that Photoshop's greyscale doesn't even seem to have 15 significant bits, unlike the RGB representation. The color mode doesn't matter - it's still 16 bit data (0..32768). Hi Chris... 0..32767 or 1..32768 You just can't have it both ways Ken Chris |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Cox writes:
I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Chris Cox writes:
I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Austern wrote: Chris Cox writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. Hi Matt... Nor can I see even the slightest difference. None at all. So - I suspect that we're looking at it from the wrong end. Suspect it's the a/d converter that could be the bottleneck? 8 bits are common; 15 bit's are common. 18 bit are available but seldom used. Never heard of 16. Maybe that's it? Ken |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Austern wrote: Chris Cox writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. Hi Matt... Nor can I see even the slightest difference. None at all. So - I suspect that we're looking at it from the wrong end. Suspect it's the a/d converter that could be the bottleneck? 8 bits are common; 15 bit's are common. 18 bit are available but seldom used. Never heard of 16. Maybe that's it? Ken |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Weitzel writes:
Matt Austern wrote: Chris Cox writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. Hi Matt... Nor can I see even the slightest difference. None at all. So - I suspect that we're looking at it from the wrong end. Suspect it's the a/d converter that could be the bottleneck? Nope. If Chris says 16-bit image processing in Photoshop would be much slower than 15, I have no doubt that he's right. I just don't know why. I can easily believe there's some subtle algorithmic issue that I haven't thought of. For that matter, I can easily believe there's some glaringly obvious algorithmic issue I haven't thought of. I'm just curious what it might be. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Ken Weitzel writes:
Matt Austern wrote: Chris Cox writes: I've tried. Their engineer insists that it's 30x faster to work with 15 bit quantities than 16 bit ones. Which is correct (for 0..32768 representation versus 0..65535 representation). Perhaps this is offtopic, and perhaps you can't answer it without revealing proprietary information, but can you explain why 15-bit computation should be so much faster than 16-bit? (If there's a publication somewhere you could point me to, that would be great.) I've thought about this for a few minutes, I haven't been able to think of an obvious reason, and now I'm curious. Feel free to email me if you think this wouldn't be interesting to anyone else. Hi Matt... Nor can I see even the slightest difference. None at all. So - I suspect that we're looking at it from the wrong end. Suspect it's the a/d converter that could be the bottleneck? Nope. If Chris says 16-bit image processing in Photoshop would be much slower than 15, I have no doubt that he's right. I just don't know why. I can easily believe there's some subtle algorithmic issue that I haven't thought of. For that matter, I can easily believe there's some glaringly obvious algorithmic issue I haven't thought of. I'm just curious what it might be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Sony Cybershot P100 VX '640x480' movie mode is fake | Mark Elkington | Digital Photography | 17 | November 2nd 04 01:24 AM |
What's the D300's "Close-up mode" for? | Darryl | Digital Photography | 10 | September 23rd 04 05:11 PM |
Q-Confused about which picture record mode to use in a digital camera. | Mr. Rather B. Beachen | Digital Photography | 1 | July 13th 04 01:50 AM |
What image quality mode to use? | Mr. Rather B. Beachen | Digital Photography | 2 | July 13th 04 01:21 AM |
wireless 550EX in manual mode with 420EX | danny | Other Photographic Equipment | 1 | February 15th 04 03:35 PM |