Well. I don't oppose using 16-bit as your/part of your workflow. I just oppose using it as a default option everywhere and every time in insane way. 16-bit is an advanced option that can be used efficiently by professionals (and will be used nevertheless we set it as default or not). But for many new-comers it can create problems like doubled storage and a slowdown without any considerable profit.<div>
<br></div><div>After all, let the user choose! Let's just save last user's choice in the custom document dialog. And the very default values will be recommended by CIE sRGB and 8bit. We can even ask the user what colorspace does he want, like PS does running the first time. If the user knows what "16-bit" and "scRGB" is and knows how to utilize them, he will surely choose them.</div>
<div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jan 22, 2010 at 10:21 AM, Kai-Uwe Behrmann <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:ku.b@gmx.de">ku.b@gmx.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
> Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:16:56 +0300<br>
> From: Dmitry Kazakov <<a href="mailto:dimula73@gmail.com">dimula73@gmail.com</a>><br>
<div class="im">> 1) I don't know how about painting, but in photography 16bit makes<br>
> absolutely nothing. Well, yes, you can invent a couple of testcases with<br>
<br>
</div>Most professionals and many interessted hobbyists in the west shoot raw<br>
since some time now. That can be seen how much RAW workflows are prefered.<br>
Keeping fidelity as long as possible is a main goal for people. Cost for<br>
storage is dropping for many people shooting in RAW. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>Well, as for me i shoot in RAW. Sometimes i do first application of the curve in 16-bit, but then i convert all the images to 8-bit and keep on working in this space.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">So what is the advantage of a conversion to 8-bit for those?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I'd say there is no advantage of keeping them in 16-bit =). The only area, where 16-bit is useful (i mean after raw) - lightening deep shadows, though the difference is really-really subtle. I do this step in 16bit more to be on the safe side, than to get real difference =)</div>
<div><br></div><div>Sometimes If the photo has good exposition i don't even bother with 16bit.</div><div><br></div><div>After this is done i see no reason in keeping 16-bit.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> "just-converted-from-raw" files, but the result will be extremely subtle. It<br>
> surely does not worth doubled memory/cpu consumption.<br>
> There are HDR's but:<br>
> a) they are not default choice for Krita<br>
> b) after temporary merge in 16bit done, nevertheless they should be<br>
> converted to 8bit<br>
<br>
</div>Conversion to 8-bit makes sense for low bandwidth media like internet and<br>
possibly office documents.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Hmm.. photo labs? the typography? What media does support this?</div><div><br></div><div>Well, again, i don't oppose using it. I'm just saying that this is an advanced option.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
But for source material rules: Once quality is lost its lost.<br>
Of course that does not necessarily hold true for familiy albums.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>And why do we want to set it to default then?</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> 2) What are you speaking about, guys!? That is a completely theoretical<br>
> colorspace! It has nothing common with real life! There is hardly present a<br>
> monitor covering AdobeRGB, not speaking about this stuff.<br>
<br>
</div>Look at the according email lists. Some special applications started to<br>
use those kind of monitors often for printing. Now while they are becoming<br>
affortable many smaller studios can buy them too. In the near<br>
future they will mix in the basic computer stores and be virtually<br>
everywhere.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>More than the half of people still use (and will continue to use) TN-film monitors. Those who buy "affordable" ;) monitors for studios will surely be able to do one click to choose scRGB, if they really know what is it.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
> Yes, this is really funny to scale a dalai lama picture, but it'll create<br>
> an enormous amount of problems to our users working with real-world images.<br>
<br>
</div>The real world has more colours to provide that sRGB. That people look at<br>
the world through their often enough far from sRGB monitors is not a<br>
problem of the worlds colours.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The real world has no way to represent those colors out of AdobeRGB in print and on modern monitors.</div><div>Most of the people use monitors hardly covering sRGB, so why do we want to set scRGB as a default option for them?</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><div class="im">> PS:<br>
> I'm not even speak about the problems our users face, when they decide to<br>
> print their masterpiece in the lab..<br>
<br>
</div>Krita can save to 8-bit sRGB and embedd ICC profiles for most formats.<br>
Thats kind of choices IMO are all fine.<br></blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>What about non-gamut colors? Krita doesn't have color-proofing functions. The conversion is not exact and needs additional knowledge from the user to be done well. So why default?</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div><br>-- <br>Dmitry Kazakov<br>
</div>