Reading mode: Light Dark

Should 12bit colour with the "New" E-5 bother me?

Go to last post
Let me answer for all the fanboys:
-The e5 is perfect, never doubt it, you whiner.

-14-bit files would eat up valuable R&D time that could be spent making better still photos. I don't want 14 bit processing, if I wanted it, I would buy and carry around a dedicated 14-bit processing camera for my 14 bit photos.
-If you want 14 bit processing, go buy a 14 bit system now and leave us alone.
-No, Zuiko Glass is the best glass ever and no 14-bit system has any good glass.

-Even though hundreds of sources and test show 16-bit is better, they are all flawed because they tested one way instead of another.
-14 bit is really 12 bit as far as light is concerned, and
-Just wait for the modular e7 that will support 12,14,16 and 24 bit processing.

Let me answer as someone that knows a thing or two about bit depth.

It does make a difference in tonal gradation. I edit all my photos at higher bit depths. Even if my source files come in lower, changes I make in PP can add tonal detail to the file. I can easily down-convert if i want to (and I do every time I make a JPG), and I have a lot of control over that process.
Files size is a non-issue this day and age.

Even my monitor is a high gamut monitor to support more colors and more tone. It sits right next to a normal LCD and the difference is glaring. I have it set up so i can drag files form one to another to preview what they would look at in the lower bit depth...
12 bit is perfectly fine.
14 bit is certainly better
Topher5 said:
Should worry about 12bit colour with the "New" E-5 versus other systems with 14bit.
Are tonal gradation aberrations really noticeable?
Will my colour be visibly better with a Pro Rig from another camp?
Or is this just marketing ploy with the numbers, with no real value.

--
Christopher. Ashworth
http://www.limelightdesign.com
http://www.flickr.com/topher5
Click to expand...
--
Upstate NY Waterfalls and Photography
My Galleries: http://www.nyfalls.com
My Niagara Falls Gallery: http://www.nyfalls.com/niagara/niagara-main.html
 
PerL said:
I have yet to see a real image (not 300 percents crops of lab images which people usually refers to) where the difference is visible.

I have a 12 bit Nikon D90 and a 14 bit D300S. I am told that the only camera in the Nikon system where it makes a difference is the D3X.

Of all the factors that influence IQ this is probably one of the least important.
Topher5 said:
Should worry about 12bit colour with the "New" E-5 versus other systems with 14bit.
Are tonal gradation aberrations really noticeable?
Will my colour be visibly better with a Pro Rig from another camp?
Or is this just marketing ploy with the numbers, with no real value.

--
Christopher. Ashworth
http://www.limelightdesign.com
http://www.flickr.com/topher5
Click to expand...
--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/
Click to expand...
As a Nikon user including the D3x I think that the only advantage is in the shadows where there may be a slight gain, the D3x is probably the best camera around at low ISO for this, here is a test shot showing the shadow recovery.





 
You know I thought it might make a difference at first. When I went through the mathematics I found that in the case of high peformance large sensors it quite probably will (although it would not be a great deal). Think D3 or 1DsMkIII or something of that ilk. I went through the mathematics on the 300S and at best any performance gain is really marginal. I agreed with Gordon.

For the E5 I wouldn't think it would make a difference at all - 12 bits would be all you'd need.
 
getting the WB even close to right might have helped

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
 
Rriley said:
getting the WB even close to right might have helped
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have changed it... The snow in the background is white, which means he hit the whitebalance just fine.

regarding the 14bit thing, I've noticed some difference on my D700, but only when pushing my files, I find highlight detail when pulling down exposure also has some increased detail.

However, I'd even go as far as to ask if the E3/E5 are making the most of the 12 bits :) I think 12bits is not a limiting factor really for the E3/5's. As others have said about the other APS-C cameras that have 14 bits.

Don't worry about it.

Oh, and I'd say all those talking about output formats, monitors/prints/etc.. don't listen to them, they obviously don't post process at all, since it's the in-between capture and output that the extra bits matter. If you really only cared about the output to 8bit, then we might as well have 8bit RAWS, or just shoot jpg all day long and not touch the files. Fact is, pushing shadows and pulling highlights is very easy to do very quickly, even automatically on RAW processing, and going from 8bit to 10bit/12bit makes a huge difference!

--
Cloverdale, B.C., Canada
Nikon D700, Panasonic L1, Olympus e-510
http://www.joesiv.com
 
Rriley said:
getting the WB even close to right might have helped

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Click to expand...
Gee thanks for the suggestion

 
Joesiv said:
Rriley said:
getting the WB even close to right might have helped
Click to expand...
I wouldn't have changed it... The snow in the background is white, which means he hit the whitebalance just fine.
Click to expand...
Joesiv said:
regarding the 14bit thing, I've noticed some difference on my D700, but only when pushing my files, I find highlight detail when pulling down exposure also has some increased detail.

However, I'd even go as far as to ask if the E3/E5 are making the most of the 12 bits :) I think 12bits is not a limiting factor really for the E3/5's. As others have said about the other APS-C cameras that have 14 bits.

Don't worry about it.

Oh, and I'd say all those talking about output formats, monitors/prints/etc.. don't listen to them, they obviously don't post process at all, since it's the in-between capture and output that the extra bits matter. If you really only cared about the output to 8bit, then we might as well have 8bit RAWS, or just shoot jpg all day long and not touch the files. Fact is, pushing shadows and pulling highlights is very easy to do very quickly, even automatically on RAW processing, and going from 8bit to 10bit/12bit makes a huge difference!
Click to expand...
Hi Joesiv

every little bit helps when you are adjusting for difficult lighting conditions though I do think it just a little bit better
Jim
 
Back to arguing about the viability of 4/3rds please.
Rriley said:
jim stirling said:
Rriley said:
getting the WB even close to right might have helped

--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Click to expand...
Gee thanks for the suggestion
Click to expand...
well your PP skills really are pretty low
a visit to software retouching would show you where that image should go
Rriley said:
Click to expand...
--
Riley

any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
Click to expand...
 
This shows the difference between snow in full light and snow in shadow.





And this is the other shot with the blue toned down





--

 
Yes, we all know it's companded...
simpy said:
FrankyM said:
Remember that your monitor and/or printer work with 8 bit depth so whether the camera works at 12 or 14 bits it's going to get converted to 8 bits anyway. Actually the more bits you have the less quantising error you have at the ADC but you aren't going to see the difference.
Click to expand...
You should not compare the 12 or 14 bits in a linear space to the 8 bits in a non-linear (gamma) space, especially after tone curve manipulations. You'll have extra bits in the highlights, but 14 bits can make a difference in the shadows, also on an 8-bit display.

Simon
Click to expand...
 
I have the full frame Nikon D700, and even with its high dynamic range and (for full frame) low resolution I can hardly spot the difference between 12 and 14 bits.
I doubt there is any crop camera out there that benefits from 14 bit RAW.
Topher5 said:
Should worry about 12bit colour with the "New" E-5 versus other systems with 14bit.
Are tonal gradation aberrations really noticeable?
Will my colour be visibly better with a Pro Rig from another camp?
Or is this just marketing ploy with the numbers, with no real value.

--
Christopher. Ashworth
http://www.limelightdesign.com
http://www.flickr.com/topher5
Click to expand...
 
nyfalls said:
Let me answer for all the fanboys:
-The e5 is perfect, never doubt it, you whiner.

-14-bit files would eat up valuable R&D time that could be spent making better still photos. I don't want 14 bit processing, if I wanted it, I would buy and carry around a dedicated 14-bit processing camera for my 14 bit photos.
-If you want 14 bit processing, go buy a 14 bit system now and leave us alone.
-No, Zuiko Glass is the best glass ever and no 14-bit system has any good glass.

-Even though hundreds of sources and test show 16-bit is better, they are all flawed because they tested one way instead of another.
-14 bit is really 12 bit as far as light is concerned, and
-Just wait for the modular e7 that will support 12,14,16 and 24 bit processing.

Let me answer as someone that knows a thing or two about bit depth.

It does make a difference in tonal gradation. I edit all my photos at higher bit depths. Even if my source files come in lower, changes I make in PP can add tonal detail to the file. I can easily down-convert if i want to (and I do every time I make a JPG), and I have a lot of control over that process.
Files size is a non-issue this day and age.

Even my monitor is a high gamut monitor to support more colors and more tone. It sits right next to a normal LCD and the difference is glaring. I have it set up so i can drag files form one to another to preview what they would look at in the lower bit depth...
12 bit is perfectly fine.
14 bit is certainly better
Click to expand...
Everyone knows that more bits is better, but if you record an image in 14 bits vs 12 from a sensor that can only deliver 11 bits worth of DR, then there is going to be absolutely no difference in image quality, only file size.

16-bit editing over 8-bit editing is a must for optimal quality, but it is the boost from 8 to 12 bits that matter. 12 to 14 is a small difference on paper, and no difference at all on pretty much any camera with a sensor smaller than medium format.
 
simpy said:
FrankyM said:
Remember that your monitor and/or printer work with 8 bit depth so whether the camera works at 12 or 14 bits it's going to get converted to 8 bits anyway. Actually the more bits you have the less quantising error you have at the ADC but you aren't going to see the difference.
Click to expand...
You should not compare the 12 or 14 bits in a linear space to the 8 bits in a non-linear (gamma) space, especially after tone curve manipulations. You'll have extra bits in the highlights, but 14 bits can make a difference in the shadows, also on an 8-bit display.
Click to expand...
True, assuming your sensor/ADC/processing chain can actually make us of it. Even on my full frame D700 I have yet been able to spot a difference, and I have tried (with some pretty extreme shadow recovery)! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top