| |||||||||||||
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequateSobotka: Why GIMP is inadequatePosted Jan 11, 2011 17:32 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576)In reply to: Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate by gowen Parent article: Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate
>If you want to convince me, show, don't tell.
Given that 8 bits per channel is the most that can be displayed by the average monitor, how exactly do you propose to demonstrate the problem?
(Log in to post comments)
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 11, 2011 17:51 UTC (Tue) by prokoudine (guest, #41788) [Link]
> Given that 8 bits per channel is the most that can be displayed by the
> average monitor, how exactly do you propose to demonstrate the problem?
Just check histogram after editing. You get hair-comb after levels and curves in 8bpc.
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 11, 2011 18:11 UTC (Tue) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Yes.
People hating the 8-bit limit has little to do with displaying colors on your monitor, unless they are just parroting. The 8-bit limit comes into play when it comes to _processing_ your images.
You can see it any time you want with Gimp if you play around with multiple layers and run a few filters. Before long you'll start seeing visual artifacts start showing up. Colors that are wrong, weird L-shaped artifacts, lots of graininess, and errors that look like the sort of things you get from highly compressed jpeg images.
One of the nice things about digital art is the ability to twist and deconstruct images to make new images. Like how you can take audio samples of every day things, manipulate them, and make music out of things.
With just 8-bits then this makes the process a lot more time consuming, depending on what your aiming for.
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 12, 2011 11:21 UTC (Wed) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]
>People hating the 8-bit limit has little to do with displaying colors on your monitor, unless they are just parroting. The 8-bit limit comes into play when it comes to _processing_ your images.
Indeed. To be clear, I was addressing the complaint that the article should have more convincingly shown the problem, which struck me as unfair.
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 11, 2011 18:36 UTC (Tue) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
Good monitors support 8 bits/color output. Average ones only support 6 bits. Bad ones only support 6 bits, and don't do dithering. And there's a whole lot of bad ones out there. Surprisingly, you can even find them in Macs, which makes Apple's excessive use of gradient effects in OSX's UI look really crappy.
You can tell if you have a bad screen just by pulling down a menu, and look at the gradient shadow effect on the edge. You will see horrible banding. If you look at the screen from an angle, it's even more obvious (vertically usually works better). On an "average" display, you can see the dithering effect if you really look, but it isn't nearly so bad.
Oops, sorry for the diversion/rant. :)
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 11, 2011 21:51 UTC (Tue) by boudewijn (subscriber, #14185) [Link]
And some utterly drool-worthy monitors and graphics cards support 12 or even 16 bits... And I so wish someone with one of those monitors could check Krita to see whether the support I hacked in for those cards and monitors actually works correctly...
Sobotka: Why GIMP is inadequate Posted Jan 12, 2011 12:40 UTC (Wed) by romanfi (guest, #72329) [Link]
nye wrote:
> Given that 8 bits per channel is the most that can be
You can always look at the histogram.
And probably you want to do that after converting between color profiles, esp. wide gamut profiles like ROMM (Kodak ProPhotoRGB), esp. when you need such color spaces when you do a lot of transformations.
Of course, the average image can easily be handled fine with 8 bits. And the average digitial camera writing JPEGs also delivers no more than that, but who wants to be average?
|
|||||||||||||