I've written on this subject before, but I've not done a piece that deals with the common counterarguments. Here is one.
The Fujifilm GFX 100-series and Hasselblad X2D cameras support 16-bit RAW files. At first glance, this seems like an obvious win: more bits should mean more data, more dynamic range, and more flexibility in post-processing. But in practice, the benefits of 16-bit precision over 14-bit are negligible for photographic applications. Here are the arguments often made in favor of 16-bit capture and why they don't hold up under scrutiny.
1. Myth: 16-Bit Provides More Dynamic Range A 16-bit file can, in theory, encode 96 dB of dynamic range versus 84 dB for 14-bit. However, the real-world dynamic range of medium format sensors is limited by photon shot noise and read noise, typically capping at around 14 stops (about 84 dB). Once quantization noise is well below the sensor's analog noise floor, increasing bit depth adds no practical dynamic range.
2. Myth: 16-Bit Prevents Banding in Edits It is often claimed that more bits reduce banding in gradients during aggressive post-processing. But in RAW files, the tonal resolution of a 14-bit file already exceeds the eye's ability to detect steps, especially once converted to a working color space and edited in a 16-bit pipeline. Any banding in real workflows is usually due to limitations in output color space or lossy compression, not insufficient bit depth in the original capture. In addition, shot noise smears over the quantization noise.
3. Myth: 16-Bit is Better for Color Grading While more bits may benefit extreme color grading in video or scientific imagery, photographic sensors do not generate color information with 16-bit fidelity. The signal is already quantized, and color differences at the bottom 2 bits of a 16-bit file are buried in noise. Color precision is far more influenced by lens transmission, sensor design, and spectral response than bit depth.
4. Myth: 16-Bit is Needed for Future-Proofing Some argue that 16-bit data ensures longevity in the face of evolving editing software or display technologies. But if the source data carries no meaningful information in the bottom bits, storing them is like preserving empty decimal places. 14-bit files already provide more granularity than is practically usable for current sensors.
5. Myth: Scientific or Industrial Applications Justify 16-Bit While true for specialized imaging tasks like fluorescence microscopy or machine vision, these use cases have little in common with handheld photography. In those domains, exposure, temperature, and electronic noise are tightly controlled. In photography, the environment is uncontrolled and analog noise dominates.
Conclusion The 16-bit RAW format in cameras like the GFX 100 series and Hasselblad X2D is more about marketing than measurable photographic benefit. While there is no harm in storing images in 16-bit format, it offers little to no advantage over 14-bit for dynamic range, tonal smoothness, or color accuracy. Photographers should base their expectations on physics and perceptual limits—not on file format headlines.
The Fujifilm GFX 100-series and Hasselblad X2D cameras support 16-bit RAW files. At first glance, this seems like an obvious win: more bits should mean more data, more dynamic range, and more flexibility in post-processing. But in practice, the benefits of 16-bit precision over 14-bit are negligible for photographic applications. Here are the arguments often made in favor of 16-bit capture and why they don't hold up under scrutiny.
1. Myth: 16-Bit Provides More Dynamic Range A 16-bit file can, in theory, encode 96 dB of dynamic range versus 84 dB for 14-bit. However, the real-world dynamic range of medium format sensors is limited by photon shot noise and read noise, typically capping at around 14 stops (about 84 dB). Once quantization noise is well below the sensor's analog noise floor, increasing bit depth adds no practical dynamic range.
2. Myth: 16-Bit Prevents Banding in Edits It is often claimed that more bits reduce banding in gradients during aggressive post-processing. But in RAW files, the tonal resolution of a 14-bit file already exceeds the eye's ability to detect steps, especially once converted to a working color space and edited in a 16-bit pipeline. Any banding in real workflows is usually due to limitations in output color space or lossy compression, not insufficient bit depth in the original capture. In addition, shot noise smears over the quantization noise.
3. Myth: 16-Bit is Better for Color Grading While more bits may benefit extreme color grading in video or scientific imagery, photographic sensors do not generate color information with 16-bit fidelity. The signal is already quantized, and color differences at the bottom 2 bits of a 16-bit file are buried in noise. Color precision is far more influenced by lens transmission, sensor design, and spectral response than bit depth.
4. Myth: 16-Bit is Needed for Future-Proofing Some argue that 16-bit data ensures longevity in the face of evolving editing software or display technologies. But if the source data carries no meaningful information in the bottom bits, storing them is like preserving empty decimal places. 14-bit files already provide more granularity than is practically usable for current sensors.
5. Myth: Scientific or Industrial Applications Justify 16-Bit While true for specialized imaging tasks like fluorescence microscopy or machine vision, these use cases have little in common with handheld photography. In those domains, exposure, temperature, and electronic noise are tightly controlled. In photography, the environment is uncontrolled and analog noise dominates.
Conclusion The 16-bit RAW format in cameras like the GFX 100 series and Hasselblad X2D is more about marketing than measurable photographic benefit. While there is no harm in storing images in 16-bit format, it offers little to no advantage over 14-bit for dynamic range, tonal smoothness, or color accuracy. Photographers should base their expectations on physics and perceptual limits—not on file format headlines.
.
