Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
8-bit vs 16-bit Precision, and Indexing
#1
Just a couple questions that I can't seem to find the answer for online, so I figured I would ask here.

Online, it says that editing a photo with 8-bit precision is easier on a computer's RAM, and reduces file size. I have no trouble with RAM usage, and I shoot a lot of my photos in 16-bit RAW format, so I edit photos with that. However, I'm VERY interested in the reduced file size.

It seems to me that if I edit a photo in 16-bit and then convert it to 8-bit precision after I'm done, it still makes it may smaller in size...and flipping between 16-bit and 8-bit via the history tab, I can't see an actual difference. Does anyone know what actually happens to the photo if I switch to the 8-bit precision after I'm done editing? And what's the difference between just using 8-bit precision and using indexed colors, since I can see a VERY visible difference if I index the colors as well.

I'd really like to know how much information I'm losing if I switch to 8-bit precision, without indexing, after I'm already done editing the original 16-bit photo.

Thanks!

Edit: Looking at the colorcube analysis, both the original 16-bit and converted 8-bit PNGs have the same amount of unique colors. Obviously, the indexed version only has 256. Does this mean that if I don't index, no actual visible information is lost by converting it to 8-bit?
Reply


Messages In This Thread
8-bit vs 16-bit Precision, and Indexing - by Mango Turtl - 08-22-2021, 07:25 AM

Forum Jump: