The math is easy. There are as you say 2^4 more values available to describe each tone in a channel, and hence the information recorded at each pixel is mapped to a larger span of potential values. And that's even before the actual colour is computed through the Bayer-thingy.
The main reason for my appreciation of RAW-files over JPG or 8-bit TIFF is the difference between 8 and 12-bit colour depth. It gives more latitude, just like print film did over slide film. I still feel more comfortable about using f-stops to describe latitude, and it would just be nice to know what to expect in a more real-world terms of reference... :-) Jostein On 9/6/06, Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jostein, > > I think it is easy. With 16 bits vs 12 bits per pixel you have 2^4 - > 16 times more information recorded. What use does it make - it would > greatly depend on RAW processing software and matching of camera > electronics with RAW converter number crunching. > > > -- > Boris > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > [email protected] > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
