henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (09/30/90)
In article <51552@brunix.UUCP> rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: >|> Apart from the points that other people have raised -- animation and color >|> correction -- it is worth noting that 8 bits per color is not enough for >|> some fussy applications like remote-sensing work. > >... As 24-bit color >can produce more different colors than the human eye is able to differentiate, >I think it does not make sense to use more colors for data repesentation >of any kind, you won't see the difference... Sorry, it is not hard to see the difference if you work at it. Try a very light-colored scene (sky?) with a small gradual change, in just one of the three colors, across it. You can see the steps with 8-bits-per-color systems. Actually, not only can you see them, but they are quite obtrusive if your objective is a realistic image. The human eye is very good at seeing *changes* in color in such situations. Agreed that 8 bits per color is enough for a lot of purposes. It's not good enough for worst cases. Also, don't confuse what shows up on the screen with internal representation. There is every reason to keep higher precision for representations that are being used for purposes other than slide shows. -- Imagine life with OS/360 the standard | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology operating system. Now think about X. | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry