Hi

Is there any chance of Gimp supporting 16 bit color in the near future? or is it doomed to be limited to 8 bit which is not really suitable for manipulating high quality digital images?

David Southwell

Then it seems like it will come some day. ;)

http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/UserFaq#head-455dd92a98eee71c3c35de7fd48065e75d3c92ca

2007/7/8, Patrick Shanahan :

* David Southwell [07-08-07 10:33]:

Is there any chance of Gimp supporting 16 bit color in the near future? or is it doomed to be limited to 8 bit which is not really suitable for manipulating high quality digital images?

Answered in the wiki.
--
Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://counter.li.org

On Sunday 08 July 2007 08:05:45 Kim Johansson wrote:

Then it seems like it will come some day. ;)

http://wiki.gimp.org/gimp/UserFaq#head-455dd92a98eee71c3c35de7fd48065e75d3c 92ca

2007/7/8, Patrick Shanahan :

* David Southwell [07-08-07 10:33]:

Is there any chance of Gimp supporting 16 bit color in the near future? or is it doomed to be limited to 8 bit which is not really suitable for manipulating high quality digital images?

Answered in the wiki.
--

Patrick
Thanks -- actually before posting I had tried a search on the wiki for 16 bit but got the search engine gave me no results - however- before I had a chance to ask you where on earth I could find it Kim pointed me in the right direction. Thanks anyway.

Kim
Thanks very much being so helpful and pointing me precisely in the right direction.. it is appreciated.

Anyone... Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??

David

Y

David Southwell wrote:

Anyone...
Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??

Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.

Incidentally, unless you've got a pro camera and lens, a high quality, properly calibrated monitor and a very good printer, I really don't think you're going to benefit from the extra bit depth. Probably you know this already but I suspect many people out there are under the mistaken impression that they're losing quality if they use Gimp when really they're not.

For a while I've been using Gimp in preference to Cinepaint because I felt that 8bpc was good enough and well worth the tiny sacrifice in quality for the massive gains in usability. But I was surprised to learn from a pro photographer friend recently that he forces his Photoshop down to 8-bits because, even with his set-up, he couldn't see the difference in quality. And he makes the reasonable point that he doesn't want to be manipulating bits he can't see.

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

I frequently use the GIMP for patterns/fractals that are to be used as height fields. For this, it would be nice if 16bit gray scale was available. I figure GIMP will eventually have 16bit support.

B. Vanderburg II

David Marrs wrote:

David Southwell wrote:

Anyone...
Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??

Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.

Incidentally, unless you've got a pro camera and lens, a high quality, properly calibrated monitor and a very good printer, I really don't think you're going to benefit from the extra bit depth. Probably you know this already but I suspect many people out there are under the mistaken impression that they're losing quality if they use Gimp when really they're not.

For a while I've been using Gimp in preference to Cinepaint because I felt that 8bpc was good enough and well worth the tiny sacrifice in quality for the massive gains in usability. But I was surprised to learn from a pro photographer friend recently that he forces his Photoshop down to 8-bits because, even with his set-up, he couldn't see the difference in quality. And he makes the reasonable point that he doesn't want to be manipulating bits he can't see.

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

Brian Vanderburg II wrote:

I frequently use the GIMP for patterns/fractals that are to be used as height fields. For this, it would be nice if 16bit gray scale was available. I figure GIMP will eventually have 16bit support.

Same here. there are instances when it would be nice to use graphics tools on 16 bit height fields.

scott s. .

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:52:58 +0100 schrieb David Marrs:

David Southwell wrote:

Anyone...
Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??

Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.

Incidentally, unless you've got a pro camera and lens, a high quality, properly calibrated monitor and a very good printer, I really don't think you're going to benefit from the extra bit depth. Probably you know this already but I suspect many people out there are under the mistaken impression that they're losing quality if they use Gimp when really they're not.

David,

this is not quite true. Even without calibrated equipment you can benefit a lot from 16bit color depth. Simply because the picture contains more information. If you want to brighten a dark area of a picture for example. The 8 bit picture does not reveal details in that area and it remains dark resp. grey. But the 16bit picture will reveal details in that area which do not even exist in the 8bit picture.. This is simply a matter of information density and has nothing to do with color calibration.

Matthias

For a while I've been using Gimp in preference to Cinepaint because I felt that 8bpc was good enough and well worth the tiny sacrifice in quality for the massive gains in usability. But I was surprised to learn from a pro photographer friend recently that he forces his Photoshop down to 8-bits because, even with his set-up, he couldn't see the difference in quality. And he makes the reasonable point that he doesn't want to be manipulating bits he can't see.

--- Scanned by M+ Guardian Messaging Firewall ---

On Friday 20 July 2007 00:26:00 Matthias Bodenbinder wrote:

Am Wed, 11 Jul 2007 20:52:58 +0100 schrieb David Marrs:

David Southwell wrote:

Anyone...
Finally does anyone have a handle on the timeframe for 2.4??

Not really. I think you'll just have to be patient.

Incidentally, unless you've got a pro camera and lens, a high quality, properly calibrated monitor and a very good printer, I really don't think you're going to benefit from the extra bit depth. Probably you know this already but I suspect many people out there are under the mistaken impression that they're losing quality if they use Gimp when really they're not.

David,

this is not quite true. Even without calibrated equipment you can benefit a lot from 16bit color depth. Simply because the picture contains more information. If you want to brighten a dark area of a picture for example. The 8 bit picture does not reveal details in that area and it remains dark resp. grey. But the 16bit picture will reveal details in that area which do not even exist in the 8bit picture.. This is simply a matter of information density and has nothing to do with color calibration.

Matthias

Hi Matthias
I agree with you - David Marrs has missed the point. 16 bit color depth provides far more detail and noone who is producing high quality professional photographic images for their clients would consider working with 8 bit rather than 16bit depth. The work produced at 8bit would be laughed at by discriminating clients. While this is a major draw back with gimp I understand the need is recognised and will hopefully be remedied in the near future. When that happens gimp will be laying the foundation for an entry into the professional arena. Until that happens it is a very useful piece that does not compete at the professional level with the default industry standard (photoshop).
david

Hi,

On 7/21/07, gimp-user-request@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu wrote:

............................................... While this is a major draw back with gimp I understand the need is recognised and will hopefully be remedied in the near future. When that happens gimp will be laying the foundation for an entry into the professional arena.

Though I haven't followed this thread from the start and don't know who said what on which issue but I do want to suggest you to try Cinepaint (16-bit Gimp) for 16-bit - it's here:

http://www.cinepaint.org/

-- HTH,

Asif

On Saturday 21 July 2007, Asif Lodhi wrote:

Hi,

On 7/21/07, gimp-user-request@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu

wrote:

............................................... While this is a major draw back with gimp I understand the need is recognised and will hopefully be remedied in the near future. When that happens gimp will be laying the foundation for an entry into the professional arena.

Though I haven't followed this thread from the start and don't know who said what on which issue but I do want to suggest you to try Cinepaint (16-bit Gimp) for 16-bit - it's here:

http://www.cinepaint.org/

-- HTH,

Asif

IMO it is already a professional level product for web images. But it still lags other free products with repect to color model, color profiles and conformance to printing standards like X3. So it is not a fully satisfactory replacement to commercial products for publishers. Work is proceeding in this area but the color model problem is a difficult nut to crack apparently.