[rescue] Re: SGI Onyx4 - uses ATI graphics chips (sigh)

[Aaron Finley]

24-bit vs. 32-bit is highly visible when doing compositing. In terms of 
calculations, many film applications use 64-bit (!) color.

-- Aaron

At 01:02 PM 8/22/2003 -0400, you wrote:
>All this is logical... however, once processed, the difference in
>display on a 24 bit display vs a 32 bit color dispaly is probably
>imperceptable.... and didn't this whole thread start on what the
>display was displaying... not what amount of significant bits were
>used in processing ??? or is my memory dropping bits ?
>
>-- Curt
>
> >Date: Fri, 22 Aug 2003 12:25:05 -0400
> >From: Phil Stracchino <alaric at caerllewys.net>
> >To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> >Subject: Re: [rescue] Re: SGI Onyx4 - uses ATI graphics chips (sigh)
> >Mail-Followup-To: The Rescue List <rescue at sunhelp.org>
> >X-ICBM: 35.6880N 77.4375W
> >X-PGP-Fingerprint: 2105 C6FC 945D 2A7A 0738  9BB8 D037 CE8E EFA1 3249
> >X-PGP-Key-FTP-URL: ftp://ftp.babcom.com/pub/pgpkeys/alaric.asc
> >X-PGP-Key-HTTP-URL: http://www.babcom.com/alaric/pgp.html
> >X-UCE-Policy: No unsolicited commercial email is accepted at this 
> site.  All
>senders of UCE will be immediately and permanently blocked.
> >User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i
> >
> >On Fri, Aug 22, 2003 at 05:59:53AM -0700, Lionel Peterson wrote:
> >> Well, I believe I conceded the point about storing the detail for
> >> off-line processing, but my statement still stands, what is the point
> >> of producing a system to (display) greater detail than the human eye
> >> can resolve? Are you entertaining aliens with higher resolution optical
> >> sesnses? ;^)
> >
> >
> >There's another point at issue here.
> >
> >Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, that the human eye can resolve
> >24 bits of color.  (I know I can tell the difference between 24-bit and
> >16-bit color.) Suppose also that whatever processing you do on your raw
> >data to generate your final image introduces sufficient rounding errors
> >and interpolation artifacts that you lose the integrity of the least
> >significant 4 bits per color channel.  If you started out with, say, 48
> >bits of color information (16 bits per channel), you now have 36 bits of
> >good data (12 bits per channel).  If you started out with 24 bits (8
> >bits per channel), you now have 12 bits (4 bits per channel) of good
> >color data in your final image, and it probably looks like hell.
> >
> >Any signal processing introduces noise into the data, because you're not
> >working with infinite precision.  The secret of getting good results out
> >of imperfect data processing is to start out with sufficient precision
> >that the final noise level ends up below your perceptible noise floor.
> >If you need an answer to six significant digits, and expect to lose
> >two digits of precision during the calculation, start out with *at
> >least* eight significant digits of data.
> >
> >
> >--
> > .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
> > : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
> > :  alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net  :
> > :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
> > :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :
> >_______________________________________________
> >rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue
>
>
>Curtis Wilbar
>Hawk Mountain Networks
>rescue at hawkmountain.net
>
>My e-mail is protected against viruses and spam by MailGuardian
>                   http://www.mailguardian.net
>           Top notch protection at unbelievable prices
>_______________________________________________
>rescue list - http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/rescue