10 bit RAW converters and editors

[Lundberg02]

Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC?

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Are there any besides Photoshop CS6 and CC?

Hi,

Could you explain what you mean with 10 bit Raw converter?

Cheers,
Bart

[Lundberg02]

10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.

[Simon Garrett]

10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.6 billion colors.

I think all raw convertors I've used have offered 16 bits or more per channel. 

Given that raw files are generally 12 or 14 bits per channel, why would anyone design a raw convertor that operated on 10 bits?  In ACR you can ask it to truncate down to 8 bits, but it offers 16 bits also. 

[Lundberg02]

No no no no. Output to monitor.  Please read up on this before commenting.

[Simon Garrett]

No no no no. Output to monitor.  Please read up on this before commenting.

You asked about 10-bit raw convertors and editors.

Oh, and thank you for your advice on my reading.      

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.

Hi,

The Raw-converter / Image editor options are limited. It is also a functionality of the Graphics card you use, and obviously the display must support it as well.

http://www.imagescience.com.au/kb/questions/152/10+Bit+Output+Support

So the entire chain must be enabled to use full 10-bit support.

Cheers,
Bart

[Lundberg02]

Yes , of course it must, and this is just another example of the total confusion in the image rendering universe.  What is the point of a wide gamut monitor if the gamut never arrives? Same for printing.

[afx]

What is the point of a wide gamut monitor if the gamut never arrives?

You are confusing gamut with gamut resolution.
The same gamut can be shown with 8 or 10 bits. But the gradations within will be finer with 10 bits than with 8 bits.

cheers
afx

[digitaldog]

10 bits each of R G B for monitors with 1.06 billion colors.

You realize that:
A. You can't see anything close to those numbers of colors, or for that matter 16.7 million (from 8-bits per color).
B. The numbers are simply math used to come up with a value of colors you can't see and probably don't have captured.
C. These number of colors have nothing to do with color gamut. A device that can "handle" 1.06 billions of colors can have a significantly smaller gamut than one having a 'mere' 16.7 million colors.
D. All these big color numbers are the new hype in marketing. Due to A-C above.

[xpatUSA]

You asked about 10-bit raw convertors and editors.

Oh, and thank you for your advice on my reading.      

A pity LL doesn't let us put 'likes' on peoples posts - so here's mine:  

Some friendly advice for @Lundberg02: best become a shark before swimming with them  

cheers,

[Lundberg02]

People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million. My point is that cameras and processing are far ahead of display and print. I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.
If you had a five primary color space and each primary was 16 bit could you see the result?

[digitaldog]

People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million.

If you can't see it, it's not a color.

I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.

Good because number of colors used for encoding has little to do with dynamic range and gamut.

[Lundberg02]

Here's how to do it in Windows, for any of you who still don't know what I was asking about.
 http://www.tedlansingphotography.com/blog/?p=287
On a Mac, not yet all the way through the chain, it appears.
Linux is struggling with it, you could probably make it work with Krita.
It turns out you can set PSCS5 and maybe 4 to output 10 bits per R,G,and B.
When you google this subject, you don't get much, and some of it is just as confused as this thread.
I'll probably get a wide gamut monitor anyway, since I've got a pretty big discount sitting in my account.
The gamut will be there even if the bits aren't.

[digitaldog]

Here's how to do it in Windows, for any of you who still don't know what I was asking about.
 http://www.tedlansingphotography.com/blog/?p=287
On a Mac, not yet all the way through the chain, it appears.

So now we're talking about the high bit path of the dipslay system? Not possible on Mac, the OS doesn't support it unless Apple snuck it in with 10.9.3. Use a display with high bit internal LUTs and it's kind of moot anyway. And no, you still can't see billions of colors when the entire path is high bit, you might see less banding of some imagery depending on the display system, file bit depth etc.

[Lundberg02]

Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.

[bjanes]

People can only see 800,000 to maybe six million colors depending on what research you read and whether luminosity is a color so of course these could possibly fit within 1.06 billion or 16.7 million. My point is that cameras and processing are far ahead of display and print. I am not confusing gamut and dynamic range.
If you had a five primary color space and each primary was 16 bit could you see the result?

If you can't see it, it's not a color. Good because number of colors used for encoding has little to do with dynamic range and gamut.

Perhaps Lundberg should have stated, "People can perceive xx discrete colors..." rather than see xxx colors. With 10 or 16 bit color depths, many of those possible gradations would be too fine to be perceived as different colors with a delta E of less than unity even though they could be seen but not differentiated.

Bill

[eliedinur]

Yes, that's what I was always talking about. Some responders had no clue.

Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently.

[digitaldog]

Some askers had difficulty asking their questions coherently.

Considering the topic title and other text below, I couldn't agree more.

[Lundberg02]

I see I'm swimming in snark infested waters.  I posed the same title as a question in Google and got my answer, so what does that say about Lula.