On May 27, 2004, at 10:37 PM, Andrew Gullen wrote:
>
> That means you lost one bit out of eight. Which you didn't actually
> have in
> the first place.
>
> Signed,
> The Midnight Stickler
>
> (However, I agree with you that 16 bit is better, and for the reason
> you
> give.)
Yes, I should have stated that better. I never had any colour data in
that range so I didn't really throw anything out. The problem occurs
when you map the 125 values that I had in the scan across a range of
0-255 you end up with a lot of gaps. With 16 bit scans, you have more
than enough colour data left to provide a smooth mapping.
Andrew "Frugal" Dacey
frugal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.tildefrugal.net/
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|