Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
Thread started 22 Jun 2015 (Monday) 19:13
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Is it better to have 4x 8MB RaM cards or 2 x 16 MB ?

 
mkkaczy
Senior Member
Avatar
321 posts
Gallery: 43 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 1326
Joined Mar 2012
Location: Poland/Ireland
     
Jul 13, 2015 09:16 |  #31

Few years ago only Quadro and I think Firepro were able to provide the 10 bit output required in order to get close to Adobe RGB on a quality graphic monitor. Does new GTX cards can also provide 10 bit output now?


http://500px.com/mkkac​zy (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
RileyNZL
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 165
Joined Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand - Dunedin
     
Jul 13, 2015 15:16 as a reply to  @ mkkaczy's post |  #32

I think via displayport on certain ones yes, however I saw advertised the new Quattro cards support 30bit output, which seems stupidly high.


Canon 1Dx |Canon 6D|Canon 24-70 F2.8 L MkII|Canon 16-35 F4 L|Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX OS|Canon 400mm f5.6 L|Sigma 50mm F1.4|Canon 600EX's|Gitzo Explorer Tripod|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
Post edited over 3 years ago by Kolor-Pikker. (4 edits in all)
     
Jul 14, 2015 07:57 |  #33

mkkaczy wrote in post #17629925 (external link)
Few years ago only Quadro and I think Firepro were able to provide the 10 bit output required in order to get close to Adobe RGB on a quality graphic monitor. Does new GTX cards can also provide 10 bit output now?

I can't say for certain, without doing some research beforehand, but I would err on the side of saying "no". There are very few things left still separating the expensive Quadro/Firepro lines from the consumer cards, so I think Nvidia and AMD would like you to buy their pro cards to use 10-bit output. Considering that just a few years ago a true 10-bit display cost $5000 at the least, this really didn't bother anyone.

RileyNZL wrote in post #17630291 (external link)
I think via displayport on certain ones yes, however I saw advertised the new Quattro cards support 30bit output, which seems stupidly high.

30-bit implies 10-bits per channel. When my NEC display boots up it displays that it's receiving a 30-bit signal via DP. However, it's not sending over that much data, just a compatibility check regarding the interface. I want to point out that OS X does not support 10-bit on a system level, if you're using a Mac with an ATI/AMD card, the only way to get 10-bit is via Bootcamp and force-installing the driver software.

We only say 10-bit for simplicities sake, but from an engineer's standpoint, you have to multiply bits over the number of color channels to get the total amount. Scanners still use this system, so to scan an 8-bit Jpeg you have to select 24-bit RGB, or 48bit for 16-bit Tiffs.

I don't know why Photoshop adopted the bits per channel numeration rather than total bits, since it has existed long since before digital cameras have, but it's probably just easier to comprehend smaller numbers. Unlike scanners, displays and printers, digital cameras are the only device incapable of reproducing true RGB data for each discrete point in the image*, so the bit depth is both the total and per-channel value, since all sensors only have one channel (luminance/intensity), not counting Sigma's Foveon. This means that a camera that shoots 14-bit Raw, really does store 14-bits of data, rather than 14-bits per channel; this should put into perspective just how much more interpolated data a converted "48-bit" Tiff file can store than the original image.**

*technically this is not true - magnify a print or display large enough and you can make out the ink droplets and RGB crystals, but the microscopic scale makes this fact irrelevant for all practical purposes.
**to be even more technical, there is no such thing as a true 16-bit image, the author of Photoshop has said himself that data is only processed at 15-bits and the rest is header data... not that it matters since nothing practical would come of being able to use that last bit.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
RileyNZL
Senior Member
Avatar
612 posts
Gallery: 121 photos
Likes: 165
Joined Apr 2013
Location: New Zealand - Dunedin
     
Jul 14, 2015 14:57 |  #34

Well that makes sense, sneaky bit of marketing. I think per color bit depth is more accurate, as there is a lot of bandwidth going on to do thing other then rendering in color. Total bit depth also doesn't give you the whole picture as it could be an 12 bit interface that gives 12bits black and white info, or could be 3 4bit color channels etc.


Canon 1Dx |Canon 6D|Canon 24-70 F2.8 L MkII|Canon 16-35 F4 L|Sigma 70-200 F2.8 EX OS|Canon 400mm f5.6 L|Sigma 50mm F1.4|Canon 600EX's|Gitzo Explorer Tripod|

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited over 3 years ago by davesrose. (3 edits in all)
     
Jul 14, 2015 18:39 |  #35

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17631069 (external link)
I don't know why Photoshop adopted the bits per channel numeration rather than total bits, since it has existed long since before digital cameras have, but it's probably just easier to comprehend smaller numbers. Unlike scanners, displays and printers, digital cameras are the only device incapable of reproducing true RGB data for each discrete point in the image*, so the bit depth is both the total and per-channel value, since all sensors only have one channel (luminance/intensity), not counting Sigma's Foveon. This means that a camera that shoots 14-bit Raw, really does store 14-bits of data, rather than 14-bits per channel; this should put into perspective just how much more interpolated data a converted "48-bit" Tiff file can store than the original image.**

Well I think it makes sense: Photoshop was first developed as a side project at ILM. It's not just used for RGB photo applications: print applications have different numbers of channels...OSes now usually have a RGBA format (and are 32bit color space: 4 8bit channels). 3D rendering apps support unlimited number of channels for other info (for example, normal maps, Z-depth, subsurface textures, etc). Since there isn't a set number of channels with an image format, I think it's better to think of bpc.

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17631069 (external link)
**to be even more technical, there is no such thing as a true 16-bit image, the author of Photoshop has said himself that data is only processed at 15-bits and the rest is header data... not that it matters since nothing practical would come of being able to use that last bit.

Technically, there are image formats that are 16bpc or 32bpc: they're used for ray-traced rendering: where renderers are needing more precise simulations of light intensity. I've found they can take up quite a bit more disk space, but they can be better optimized and render faster then 8bpc images for certain 3D animation tasks. Photoshop and Lightroom seem to be getting better about editing 16bpc or 32bpc images...but it's going to be true for quite some time, those image formats can only be derived from merging several exposures and expanding the bpc (and then previewing and editing becomes limited).

OpenEXR:example of HDR format with unlimited channels (external link)

As for real distinctions of Quadro vs GeForce: I really do think it depends on what your intended applications are. If you're not running 3D animation or visualization apps, and certain video editing apps that are more heavily OpenGL dependent, then you're not going to see any difference with the more expensive Quadros. In fact, they probably are slower with DirectX games and such. Time and time again, though, when I try the latest and greatest GeForce on an app like Maya, I encounter even basic display problems. Apart from cherry picking the processor, Nvidia is also developing drivers that offer stable and full OpenGL support. It's not that they're disabling certain features with GeForce cards: Quadro cards are a very specialized market so Nvidia is charging for the development and certification of its driver support.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Kolor-Pikker
Goldmember
2,790 posts
Likes: 59
Joined Aug 2009
Location: Moscow
     
Jul 16, 2015 10:25 |  #36

davesrose wrote in post #17631764 (external link)
Technically, there are image formats that are 16bpc or 32bpc: they're used for ray-traced rendering: where renderers are needing more precise simulations of light intensity. I've found they can take up quite a bit more disk space, but they can be better optimized and render faster then 8bpc images for certain 3D animation tasks. Photoshop and Lightroom seem to be getting better about editing 16bpc or 32bpc images...but it's going to be true for quite some time, those image formats can only be derived from merging several exposures and expanding the bpc (and then previewing and editing becomes limited).

I know, but it doesn't work that way as far as Photoshop is concerned when it comes to 16-bit, 16-bit is calculated internally as 15-bit as said by Thomas Knoll himself.


5DmkII | 24-70 f/2.8L II | Pentax 645Z | 55/2.8 SDM | 120/4 Macro | 150/2.8 IF
I acquired an expensive camera so I can hang out in forums, annoy wedding photographers during formals and look down on P&S users... all the while telling people it's the photographer, not the camera.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited over 3 years ago by davesrose.
     
Jul 16, 2015 16:45 |  #37

Kolor-Pikker wrote in post #17633473 (external link)
I know, but it doesn't work that way as far as Photoshop is concerned when it comes to 16-bit, 16-bit is calculated internally as 15-bit as said by Thomas Knoll himself.

Do you have an article explaining or citing that? Photoshop has claimed 32bpc and 16bpc compatibility for several versions. Photoshop may internally only handle 15bits with a 16 bit mode, but what about 32bpc mode (let alone the myriad of other applications that utilize and handle HDR formats differently)?? My response was your claim that "there's no such thing as a 16bit image". Technically that's untrue: universally, HDR image formats are either 16bits or 32bits.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
davesrose
Title Fairy still hasn't visited me!
3,614 posts
Likes: 489
Joined Apr 2007
Location: Atlanta, GA
Post edited over 3 years ago by davesrose. (2 edits in all)
     
Jul 16, 2015 16:58 |  #38

I just googled a bit about 16bit Photoshop. So with 32bit or 16bit images, they can either be saved as integer based or floating point. Photoshop internally processes 16bit images as 15bit integer because there's no rounding errors (as there would be with 16bit integer). From what I'm reading, Photoshop in 32bit mode is processing in floating point (and so maintains the full 32bits). Still seems to me that universally, image formats are 16bit or 32bit. If I'm merging photos for HDR work, I'm merging them for 32bit anyways.


Canon 5D mk IV
EF 135mm 2.0L, EF 70-200mm 2.8L IS II, EF 24-70 2.8L II, EF 50mm 1.4, EF 100mm 2.8L Macro, EF 16-35mm 4L IS, Sigma 150-600mm C, 580EX, 600EX-RT, MeFoto Globetrotter tripod, grips, Black Rapid RS-7, CAMS plate and strap system, Lowepro Flipside 500 AW, and a few other things...
smugmug (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

6,262 views & 4 likes for this thread
Is it better to have 4x 8MB RaM cards or 2 x 16 MB ?
FORUMS General Gear Talk Computers 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is icandide47
835 guests, 405 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.