karl shah-jenner <shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
: Karl, I'm afraid you've got the whole thing a nit garbled. It's the
gradation steps that become smaller. Not the total luminance levels.
I know that, it's just that I find *many* web pages saying that the
'dynamic range' of a jpeg is 256 steps (true) that this equates to 2.4, and
*thus* 8 stops (!) of luminance values, then they conclude that raw or
tiff has a greater range of luminance values because it has a greater bit
depth (eek!)
: One bit records from pitch black to gleaming white. The same with 2
bit. But the difference is the number of grey tones in between.
I know that too..
the problem seems to be that film 'dynamic range' and sensor dynamic range
is totally different to the concept of dynamic range equating to bit
depth - which is false :)
..as I showed with that little test shoot
k
Herschel Mair
Head of the Department of Photography,
Head of the Department of Photography,
Higher College of Technology
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Muscat
Sultanate of Oman
Adobe Certified instructor
+ (986) 99899 673
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
