On 2002.12.31 21:20 Russell Coker wrote:
On Tue, 31 Dec 2002 02:27, Hamish Moffatt wrote: > > Note: Although this is more colours than can be displayed at once on > > a conventional 24-bit monitor (8-bit per component), 16-bit makes a > > difference when working with the higher dynamic range of film. > > Ranting aside, I think you mean a 24-bit display or 24-bit video card. A > "24-bit monitor" doesn't make sense to me. Perhaps it does for LCDs etc > but for CRTs the colours are completely analogue I believe ie > continuous. Perhaps it is a reference to the professional monitors that have separate coax cables for R, G, and B signals.
I doubt it. They are also analogue... no different to standard VGA in fact.
I've heard it claimed that a standard VGA cable can't transport a clear enough signal to allow as many shades of one color as the eye can distinguish.
One day someone will be claiming we must have infinite colour monitors, I can just see...
Apparently you need 48 bit color in the graphics card and separate coax cables for the monitor to display things properly.
Separate Coax cables certainly reduce colour shadowing in older monitors.
But as I've never had a problem with 16-bit color mode when playing DVDs I guess I'm not qualified to test this theory...
16-bit it _is_ possible to tell apart, but the dithering on XFree86, at least, is very well done and you can hardly see the difference unles dithering is off.
Anyway, Back up the thread, it's actually a reference to 24-bit displays; Theoretically you can tell the difference between a lot of colours on a Cinema screen or something that you can't on a computer monitor (I personally believe this is an excuse someone made up in some hardware lab so that people would buy their 48-bit standard for movie making). And backing out of lengthy discussion, read as: Film Gimp supports up to 48-bit colour. People who know, know, and people who don't care, don't have to.