On the topic of bit depth, and in particular 16 bits, I don't have much to add technically, except that my sense is that if a product is a native 16 bit product, then at the least, that spec is required to deliver the quality of image that the product is capable of. Whether 14 bits or 16 bits, etc, - by itself - is superior, necessary, noticeable, is not something that IMO particularly matters or is even easy to specifically identify. I will say that I have not mentioned 16 bit depth as a feature in quite some time, though I have discussed 16 bit output on many occasions, most often in the context of a minimal Capture One to Photoshop or Lightroom workflow for those who have an affinity for Adobe products (raw converting in Capture One, then outputting a robust 16 bit tiff into either Adobe program).
In any event, it is not, nor should it be, a dominant part of any discussion that we would have with a client. There are far too many elements that are of much greater importance that determine whether a Leaf Aptus 22, for example, is an appropriate fit for a client of ours.
From that standpoint, I would have to say I agree that the term "True 16 Bit Depth" is of questionable merit or value when limited to stating just 3 features on the banner for our $4,990 Leaf Aptus 22 special. But, not an easy spot to come up with something that is designed to grab, given the limitations. And that banner is just that, a grabber. From its intent of provoking a phone call, email inquiry, mentioning 16 bit depth may indeed provide an end to that means, but let's say one does make a call (as many have). I can say not a single call on that product has asked about True 16 Bit Depth, nor has there been a discussion on it. However, if there was, the relevance of True 16 Bit Depth would gradate into the actual tonality of the image quality itself, rather than a simple "Well look fella, 16 bits means better tonality". The fact is that the original Leaf Aptus 22 did indeed have a very nice transition in tonal range when used appropriately, even compared to other 22 megapixel digital backs. But it is not a straight path, as Doug said, and how and why is a combination of many elements. The 16 bit part of the equation is highly likely a necessary part of that equation, but not solely responsible for the smoothness of those transitions.
With more time and thought, I agree, we could probably find a more relevant stated feature that would be a reason to purchase that product. That said, it is difficult to find "16 Bit Depth" trumpeted anywhere on our site, and even on Leaf's site. So, I think to be fair, it's pretty clear we do not as a company make broad use of the term to sell product or mislead clients. And compared to just about any other website that sell digital backs (manufacturer or dealer) I think we have by comparison an abundance of real world information vs manufacturer-driven marketing data.
Now, one more thing, getting back to the use of the word "True". If anything, I feel like that was the one word that had the most legitimate reason for being there. Many, many products advertise themselves as "16 bit", but in almost all cases, they are referring to up-sampling the output. So, True 16 Bit, is relevant from the standpoint of 16 bit on the input side. Further, I will also say that I am not clear on whether the Dalsa 22MP sensor is a "true native 16 bit sensor". It has always been claimed and/or assumed, while it was clear that the Kodak Sensors used in digital backs (Sinar, Imacon/Hasselblad, Phase One (pre-P65+, post H10), have always been 14 bit native, even though data sheets for all of these products trumpet 16 bit. So, stating True 16 Bit, has also been a differentiator between Kodak and Dalsa sensors. However, at some point - for me - even the assumption that Dalsa sensors were native 16 bit came into question, and to this day remains unclear. As a result, the importance of the 16 bit spec is rarely even mentioned, much less discussed. The question of how the real world tonality and handling of shadow and highlight gradations differ between one digital back and another is a more relevant and much more frequently discussed topic that may be related to bit depth, but for the user, much more pertinent than a discussion of 14 bits or 16 bits etc.
We spend an enormous amount of time going over what we put on our website, I have discussed this with Doug, and it is a bit late now, but on the next 3 word banner we have, one of the stated features absolutely, has to be "Fabulous".
Steve Hendrix
