Another bit of almost useless information
Apr 29, 2024 16:02:34 #
Have you ever wondered if 8 bits is enough?
Well, usually (as in 99.99% of the time) it is. After all, a 16-bit TIF can take up an enormous amount of space on your hard drive.
What's more, your monitor probably has an 8-bit display. You won't be able to see the difference between an 8-bit JPEG or TIFF and a 16-bit TIFF because they will all be displayed using 8 bits.
But there is one place you might occasionally notice it, in a large print where a significant part of the image, like a blue sky, has a smooth gradient. It will also show up in a B&W rendition of where there are no colors to confuse the issue.
In the next post I will show a B&W gradient for an 8-bit JPEG that ranges from 0 (black) to 255 (white). I will also show a 16-bit TIFF with the gradient from 0 to 65535. You may be able to see them both but you will have to download the TIFF because it won't open in a new tab.
Well, usually (as in 99.99% of the time) it is. After all, a 16-bit TIF can take up an enormous amount of space on your hard drive.
What's more, your monitor probably has an 8-bit display. You won't be able to see the difference between an 8-bit JPEG or TIFF and a 16-bit TIFF because they will all be displayed using 8 bits.
But there is one place you might occasionally notice it, in a large print where a significant part of the image, like a blue sky, has a smooth gradient. It will also show up in a B&W rendition of where there are no colors to confuse the issue.
In the next post I will show a B&W gradient for an 8-bit JPEG that ranges from 0 (black) to 255 (white). I will also show a 16-bit TIFF with the gradient from 0 to 65535. You may be able to see them both but you will have to download the TIFF because it won't open in a new tab.
Apr 29, 2024 16:09:58 #
Note the banding visible in both images (unless you have a 10-bit display).
But you would not see the banding on a print from the TIFF.
The solution is to export the image for printing as a 16-bit TIFF, make your print(s) and then delete it to save space. You can always export it again if you want to make more prints.
However, this will only work if you create the 16-bit TIFF directly from the raw data, preferably 14- or 16-bit raw. It will not remove banding from a JPEG.
But you would not see the banding on a print from the TIFF.
The solution is to export the image for printing as a 16-bit TIFF, make your print(s) and then delete it to save space. You can always export it again if you want to make more prints.
However, this will only work if you create the 16-bit TIFF directly from the raw data, preferably 14- or 16-bit raw. It will not remove banding from a JPEG.
Apr 29, 2024 23:04:06 #
Apr 30, 2024 11:23:18 #
If I knew I had extensive editing to do I'd want the 16 bit file as my starting point. The reason why editing jpegs frequently produces banding is because the starting point is 8 bit.
If you have a well exposed jpeg file that doesn't need much pushing and pulling it probably won't matter, but under more demanding circumstances the limitations of 8 bits can quickly become obvious. The same thing applies to files that need more than moderate colour cast or WB corrections.
If you have a well exposed jpeg file that doesn't need much pushing and pulling it probably won't matter, but under more demanding circumstances the limitations of 8 bits can quickly become obvious. The same thing applies to files that need more than moderate colour cast or WB corrections.
Apr 30, 2024 11:30:59 #
Useless? yep.
1, Where are you going to find someone online to receive and print your ENORMOUS 16-bit TIFF?
2, Didn't you shoot in RAW and edit in that native RAW format with a qualified digital editor? The sRGB export to JPEG properly mapped all those colors with no color banding; hence, no issue.
1, Where are you going to find someone online to receive and print your ENORMOUS 16-bit TIFF?
2, Didn't you shoot in RAW and edit in that native RAW format with a qualified digital editor? The sRGB export to JPEG properly mapped all those colors with no color banding; hence, no issue.
Apr 30, 2024 11:41:22 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Useless? yep.
1, Where are you going to find someone online to receive and print your ENORMOUS 16-bit TIFF?
2, Didn't you shoot in RAW and edit in that native RAW format with a qualified digital editor? The sRGB export to JPEG properly mapped all those colors with no color banding; hence, no issue.
1, Where are you going to find someone online to receive and print your ENORMOUS 16-bit TIFF?
2, Didn't you shoot in RAW and edit in that native RAW format with a qualified digital editor? The sRGB export to JPEG properly mapped all those colors with no color banding; hence, no issue.
The colors aren't the issue. It's the banding, even when developed from a raw file. It's more noticeable when the image has no colors at all.
As I said in the first post, we very rarely need to export to 16-bit TIFF but it's an option if you are making your own prints and can print them large.
I don't necessarily need an enormous TIFF. If I downsize it to 6000x4000 the file is big but not excessive and 24MP is more than enough to make an image at any size.
Another option is to convert the B&W 48-bit TIFF to a 16-bit TIFF. That reduces the file size to about 1/3 of the original.
Apr 30, 2024 11:44:23 #
selmslie wrote:
As I said in the first post, we very rarely need to export to 16-bit TIFF but it's an option if you are making your own prints and can print them large.
I don't necessarily need an enormous TIFF. If I downsize it to 6000x4000 the file is big but not excessive and 24MP is more than enough to make an image at any size.
I don't necessarily need an enormous TIFF. If I downsize it to 6000x4000 the file is big but not excessive and 24MP is more than enough to make an image at any size.
Alas, mixing pixel resolution and uncompressed data in a 16-bit TIFF format is unproductive (i.e., even less useful to a technical discussion ....)
Apr 30, 2024 11:46:50 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Alas, mixing pixel resolution and uncompressed data in a 16-bit TIFF format is unproductive (i.e., even less useful to a technical discussion ....)
That makes no sense. The export from C1 does it very quickly.
Apr 30, 2024 12:11:09 #
selmslie wrote:
That makes no sense. The export from C1 does it very quickly.
For breakfast I had the final three home-made sourdough pancakes, with real Canadian Maple syrup and Irish butter. These details too have nothing to do with anything related to 16-bit TIFF image files...
A 24MP NEF from a D7100 sits on disk as 23.3MB file. I yanked it into LR6 and exported as a JPEG at 100% quality, giving a file as 20MB. Then, exporting as a 16-bit TIFF (no compression), I get a file at 137MB. 'Time' has nothing to do with any of these three byte-size observations of a 24 megapixel digital file. Or, more exactly, time is as nonsensical as the breakfast menu options today ....
Apr 30, 2024 12:17:00 #
selmslie wrote:
Note the banding visible in both images (unless yo... (show quote)
I don't see any banding in either Download example.
bwa
Apr 30, 2024 12:28:21 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
For breakfast I had the final three home-made sour... (show quote)
It’s not as likely to be an issue with a color image.
I can export a B&W 24MP image at 137mb RGB and convert it from 48-bit to 16-bit TIFF at 46mb.
Apr 30, 2024 12:32:40 #
bwana wrote:
I don't see any banding in either Download example.
bwa
bwa
I can see it on a 2k and 4k monitor because both are calibrated 8-bit displays when I look closely.
Apr 30, 2024 12:53:56 #
Your print server also plays a part. If you’re using windows the drivers only support 8 bits. Mac can do 16, I dunno about Linux.
Apr 30, 2024 12:56:24 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
Your print server also plays a part. If you’re using windows the drivers only support 8 bits. Mac can do 16, I dunno about Linux.
Windows can do 16 also (Epson).
Apr 30, 2024 13:16:45 #
selmslie wrote:
Windows can do 16 also (Epson).
Maybe, with a RIP, but Epson won’t confirm that it actually does 16 bit.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.