[Class A]

However in practice, there are limitations on the color range (gamut) your monitor or printer can display.

That's a completely separate discussion.
FYI, many monitor panels only display 6-bit per channel and achieve 8-bit by dithering only. The vast majority of graphic card and monitor connection combinations in application support 8-bit only. On that basis even 12-bit RAW files would be complete overkill. Of course, that's nonsense.

So while there's a definite difference between a 12 bit and 14 bit file RAW image that the camera captures, most here will probably never have equipment that will be able to display the difference, nor use software that can handle 14 bit files or post process extensively to be able to exploit the difference.

The point of representing image data with 14-bit per channel is absolutely not related to whether or not your display hardware can "show the difference".

And there is no need to use special software that can "handle 14 bit files". Any plain RAW converter will use at least 16 bit per channel internally.

You are confusing the ability to capture high dynamic range with a range of aspects regarding output fidelity.

Maybe you should not be sitting on such a high horse when you are spreading half-truths yourself.

[creampuff]

That's a completely separate discussion.
FYI, many monitor panels only display 6-bit per channel and achieve 8-bit by dithering only. The vast majority of graphic card and monitor connection combinations in application support 8-bit only. On that basis even 12-bit RAW files would be complete overkill. Of course, that's nonsense.


The point of representing image data with 14-bit per channel is absolutely not related to whether or not your display hardware can "show the difference".

And there is no need to use special software that can "handle 14 bit files". Any plain RAW converter will use at least 16 bit per channel internally.

You are confusing the ability to capture high dynamic range with a range of aspects regarding output fidelity.

Maybe you should not be sitting on such a high horse when you are spreading half-truths yourself.

Ah... an armchair expert lurks...
I did mention there is definitely a difference between 12 bit and 14 bit output but given the current limitations of displays and print equipment, it would be difficult to distinguish between them in practice. Nobody is saying there isn't a difference but apparently you want to pick a argument and choose to misread what I've written.

It's easy to try be a know it all on a forum but it is laughable when you profess to be an expert when you're still shooting with the long obsolete K100D... Buy a K-5 first before you talk about 14 bit images... it'll help your credibility a lot.

[Welfl]

There could still be other differences in the cameras, and not just the 2 extra bits.

Yes, I've written about this in other threads. Based on many comparisons at Flickr, I know the K-5 has other hardware and/or software elements that really enhance/improve the quality of the images that are produced by that Sony sensor. For the most part, the K-5's images definitely beat those of other cameras with the very same sensor. It's just that those other cameras are manufactured by other companies who either don't know Pentax's "secret," or they don't care.

My main point is that you still cannot see the extra color bits on your display. Most monitors and video cards still only display 8 bits per channel (R, G, B), ie. 24 bit colors total. It doesn't matter if your files have 12 or 14 bits per channel, they have to be rendered as 8 bits in the end. ... If you think about it, 12 bits per RGB channel is already 36 bits. That is 64 billion individual colors. Even if there was a display that could display that many, I am not really sure that your eyes could differentiate them. If you have 14 bits per channel, then that's 42 bits total or 4.3 trillion different colors. Again, I am very doubtful your eyes could tell that many colors apart.

Until I did some research last night at SnapSort.com, I thought that the primary benefit of shooting in 14-bit RAW is that it allows the photographer to bring out much greater details in the shadows and highlights during post processing. Even actual reviewers led me to believe this. I didn't realize that it has (mostly) to do with colors. But! I think those extra "bits" of color (billions of additional colors) do make a huge difference in what you can pull out of the shadows and highlights, even if you cannot see or distinguish all those colors themselves; and this is what matters to me the most.

This may not be the perfect example, but I think there is still a bit of a relationship: When I am scanning B&W negatives (or prints), especially really dark ones (due to photographer error or darkroom error), I will get, by far, the best results when I scan them in 24-bit color and dramatically adjust the Red, Green and Blue sliders and the Saturation slider in the scanning software, with further "color" editing in Photoshop. Not only does it bring out massive amounts of additional details in the shadows (depending on the quality of the negative), it also gives certain images an almost 3D look. Here are some examples (be sure to look at the last three or four sets first). I am also able to bring out great amounts of detail in the shadows and highlights in color images using the "Selective Colors" menu in Photoshop. There are lots of interlocking variables with all those different color-adjustment sliders. It takes practice to learn how to balance them "just so," but it is well worth the trouble. I, therefore, think that even though a computer screen cannot show all of the colors in a 14-bit RAW image, and the human eye cannot see them either, their presence still allows one to pull out all those amazing details, including from images that are so underexposed that they are nearly black. There are a number of excellent examples of almost black K-5 RAW images here on PentaxForums and other sites that have been restored so that you could never tell that they had been severely underexposed. From what I've seen of some K-01 images, 12-bit RAW images may be sufficiently manipulable too. But the question is, are they as manipulable as 14-bit RAW images? And will I, an enthusiast, really ever be in a situation in which I wish my camera had 14-bit RAW capabilities? Possibly not, but it sure would be nice to have that option if I ever do want it.

If you don't do post-processing, I don't think anything beyond 8 bits matter.

I will definitely do post processing. I'm looking forward to it.

I have shot in JPEG the past 4 years with my K200D and now K-r. I checked my hard drive and there wasn't a single PEF or DNG file that I kept long-term.

This is going to be a huge problem for me. I can hardly bear to throw away anything that I've created (with some exceptions). I can throw away other stuff, but not stuff I've created. My hard drives are going to get pretty full. However, I have scanned several thousand negatives in TIFF format at 3200 dpi, and another several thousand prints in TIFF format at 1200 dpi, and I still have plenty of free hard drive space.

BTW, I use several large displays on my home PC, two HP 30" with 2560x1600 resolution, and a third at 1920x1200 in portrait mode.

All right now, don't try to make me envious.

I have a 27" iMac. It's default screen resolution is 2560 x 1440.

Oh, and I'm a software engineer if any of this matters.

Yes, it does matter. I will know to be very careful when I am talking about software around you from now on. Thanks for the heads up.

I probably have over 20 TB worth of hard drives worth just for backup purposes for 6 different computers...

You have me beat all to heck; but I don't need that much drive space (yet), so that's why you have me beat. I wish I had been able to buy a Mac Pro tower instead of this iMac. That way I could have had four internal hard drives. As Fate always loves to taunt me, a Mac Pro went on sale at one retail outlet at a significant discount for the first time in four years about a week after I bought this iMac. It was the first real discount since the Mac Pro was introduced. Argh...

I must also thank you, madbrain, for writing such a helpful and well written explanation for me. I appreciate it.

[madbrain]

Welfi,

Until I did some research last night at SnapSort.com, I thought that the primary benefit of shooting in 14-bit RAW is that it allows the photographer to bring out much greater details in the shadows and highlights during post processing. Even actual reviewers led me to believe this. I didn't realize that it has (mostly) to do with colors. But! I think those extra "bits" of color (billions of additional colors) do make a huge difference in what you can pull out of the shadows and highlights, even if you cannot see or distinguish all those the colors themselves; and this is what matters to me the most.

Right, the reason the extra bits that you cannot distinguish help is because when you do PP, things will not be completely blown out when you make adjustments of contrast, brightness, etc.

This may not be the perfect example, but I think there is still a bit of a relationship: When I am scanning B&W negatives (or prints), especially really dark ones (due to photographer error or darkroom error), I will get, by far, the best results when I scan them in 24-bit color and dramatically adjust the Red, Green and Blue sliders and the Saturation slider in the scanning software, with further "color" editing in Photoshop. Not only does it bring out massive amounts of additional details in the shadows (depending on the quality of the negative), it also gives certain images an almost 3D look.

It's interesting that the software lets you do these adjustments before scan. I wonder if it actually affects the A/D conversion or if it's just really a PP in the scanning software. Sounds like it's the former.
There are now many scanners that have more than 8 bits per channel, ie. more than 24 bits total, which might serve you well.
For example this one which has been out for years and is still sold. I My father scanned many slides with an Epson scanner before he passed 2 years ago. I think this was the model. I believe my sister has it now.

EPSON Perfection V500 Photo Scanner - Product Information - Epson America, Inc.

It does 48 bit internal/external.
I now have one of these at home too . My partner is using it, I did not try it myself. But it claims to support 48 bit color, internal/external. It is under $150 on Amazon
I don't have many negatives, and no slides. I have never done much film .

Here are some examples. I am also able to bring out great amounts of detail in the shadows and highlights in color images using the "Selective Colors" menu in Photoshop. There are lots of interlocking variables with all those different color-adjustment sliders. It takes practice to learn how to balance them "just so," but it is well worth the trouble. I, therefore, think that even though a computer screen cannot show all of the colors in a 14-bit RAW image, and the human eye cannot see them either, their presence still allows one to pull out all those amazing details, including from images that are so underexposed that they are nearly black. There are a number of excellent examples of almost black K-5 RAW images here on PentaxForums and other sites that have been restored so that you could never tell that they had been severely underexposed. From what I've seen of some K-01 images, 12-bit RAW images may be sufficiently manipulable too. But the question is, are they as manipulable as 14-bit RAW images? And will I, an enthusiast, really ever be in a situation in which I wish my camera had 14-bit RAW capabilities? Possibly not, but it sure would be nice to have that option if I ever do want it.

Not being a professional, I don't own Photoshop. The software is way too expensive for an enthusiast, IMO. I did acquire a lot of consumer level Photo software over the years, mostly in "free after rebate" deals at Fry's. I have never really cared to do PP much . But recently that's changing a little now that I got Paintshot Pro x4 and Aftershot Pro.

I will definitely do post processing. I'm looking forward to it.

IMO it takes way too much time still. I don't enjoy it at all. Which is why I have always shot JPEG. It's much easier to take another shot and delete the bad shots than to spend time trying to fix bad shots. But some shots cannot be taken away.
With the K-r at 6fps continuous, I find that I can handhold a 1600mm lens and get good shots. Just throw away all the blurry shots ... Much much better than PP !

This is going to be a huge problem for me. I can hardly bear to throw away anything that I've created (with some exceptions). I can throw away other stuff, but not stuff I've created. My hard drives are going to get pretty full. However, I have scanned several thousand negatives in TIFF format at 3200 dpi, and another several thousand prints in TIFF format at 1200 dpi, and I still have plenty of free hard drive space.

Yeah, I don't like to throw away my creations either. But I am going over old pics with a critical eye.
The PP might be helpful for the shots I took with my first digital camera, a 3MP olympus compact about 11 years ago.
Or with some cell phone pictures

I have a 27" iMac. It's default screen resolution is 2560 x 1440.

That's already pretty good. I dislike Macs and apple products in general because they are so closed and cannot really be extended. I always end up filling all the drive bays and PCI slots in my computers ...

I must also thank you, madbrain, for writing such a helpful and well written explanation for me. I appreciate it.

You are welcome. Please feel free to "like" my post . Apparently no one on this site likes me so far.

[Class A]

Ah... an armchair expert lurks...

I did mention there is definitely a difference between 12 bit and 14 bit output but given the current limitations of displays and print equipment, it would be difficult to distinguish between them in practice.

You still don't understand. The limitations of output media have nothing to do with the bit depth of a capture medium. If your assumption had any merit, the vast majority of people wouldn't need more than 8-bit RAW files. Don't you see the absurdity of your argument?

Buy a K-5 first before you talk about 14 bit images... it'll help your credibility a lot.

Not with reasonable people.
Reasonable people know that what you own does not define what you know about an area.

I'll stop that discussion with you now because it is not productive. I hesitated to even comment on your incorrect statements, but I found the combination of arrogant tone ("armchair critics") and partial ignorance rather annoying.

[Welfl]

Right, the reason the extra bits that you cannot distinguish help is because when you do PP, things will not be completely blown out when you make adjustments of contrast, brightness, etc.

That's definitely a large part of it, or maybe all of it. Personally, I think there may be a bit more to it than just that, but that's just intuition on my part.

It's interesting that the software lets you do these adjustments before scan. I wonder if it actually affects the A/D conversion or if it's just really a PP in the scanning software. Sounds like it's the former.

I assume "A/D" means "Analog/Digital." I don't know how to answer your guess, but I know that even more can be done with the same images after importing them into Photoshop. In fact, I can turn images scanned in grayscale into color images in Photoshop, and after that I am able to pull a bit more detail out of formerly nondescript parts of the image. It's not a lot, but it's better than nothing.

For example this one which has been out for years and is still sold. I My father scanned many slides with an Epson scanner before he passed 2 years ago. I think this was the model. I believe my sister has it now. EPSON Perfection V500 Photo Scanner - Product Information - Epson America, Inc. It does 48 bit internal/external.

I have an Epson Perfection 4990 Photo, which, I think, is the precursor to the Epson V700. I got it at a great discount in 2007 (before that I had the Epson 4180). The 4990 also does 48-bit color, but those files are just too gigantic, and, if I remember correctly, it takes the scanner a lot longer to scan them (even using a firewire connection, which I do). As far as I know, there is no way to downgrade them to 24-bit after editing them, and I do not want to reduce their pixel size or "area" size in order to reduce their megabyte size, so I just use the 24-bit setting.

Not being a professional, I don't own Photoshop. The software is way too expensive for an enthusiast, IMO

I'm not a pro either, just extensively self-taught. Mine is a really ancient version from 2003, which I got while working at a school a number of years ago. I can assure you that I would never be able to afford to buy it now, and I would never even dream of paying the outrageous, non-educational prices that Adobe charges (even the educational rates are disgustingly high).

Which is why I have always shot JPEG. It's much easier to take another shot and delete the bad shots than to spend time trying to fix bad shots. But some shots cannot be taken away.

I have shot JPEG since I got my Nikon CoolPix E4300 in 2003. I shot a few in TIFF format, but it takes the camera much too long to process each one before I can shoot again. I am very good at tilting it just right to get the ideal lighting, but I used to shoot a lot of sunrise/sunset pictures that look nice, but the foreground is always darker than it was in real life. I would enjoy being able to fix those images so that they more accurately match what I saw with my own eyes. Actually, the 4300's JPEGs are much more manipulable than I thought they would be when using iPhoto's shadows/highlights adjustments; but I have uploaded only a few of the improvements to my Flickr account.

I dislike Macs and apple products in general because they are so closed and cannot really be extended.

I've been a Mac user and advocate since April 1988. I despise the Windows OS. I've had to use it too many times, and it is a nightmare by comparison to OS X (sort of like trying to play football while wearing a straight jacket). As for extending Macs, the Mac Pro is one of the most upgradable towers on the market. It is a dream to open, and almost everything in it is in module form now. Please watch AT LEAST the first 60 seconds of this video and you will see what I mean:

You Tube

You Tube

Apparently no one on this site likes me so far.

LOL! I'm pretty darned certain I've gotten a bad reputation on this site for always beating dead horses and writing novelette-length comments.

[lammie200]

...You still don't understand. The limitations of output media have nothing to do with the bit depth of a capture medium. If your assumption had any merit, the vast majority of people wouldn't need more than 8-bit RAW files...

I understand. In part of another post I started discussing why a consumer might be persuaded to buy a camera with a 24mp sensor. One reason might be because they may own a large flat screen tv and expect their images to shine when viewed on it. Then someone brought up that a 1080 display is only about 2mp. Although even higher def tv's are on the horizon, I believe the point is irrelevant. There are still issues about pixel size and noise with the 24mp vs the 16mp sensor, but I agree that the output media is somewhat irrespective of the capture media as you say. Simple example: Think about a cropped image from a 24mp or 16mp sensor versus an image from a 2mp sensor when displayed on a 65" high def tv monitor. Which one will be sharper?

[eddie1960]

Rather than quote multiple people I'll just drop in my 2 cents. the best print and monitors are not capable of displaying the full gamut of colours of 12 or 14 bit. this is agree with
the fact that some think this means they are not useful is off base though. Colour range is not the only thing affected. so is grey scale. this impacts your ability to resolve shadows for instance. anyone who has looked at what can be pulled from a failed exposure on a k5 can see this effect.
Add in the fact that monitor and graphic cards improve with time (they always do) so there is some future proofing. 4k and 8k displays are on the horizon for instance (sill low res but far more demanding than our current crop)
the 12 bit on K30 K-01 pretty much smells of lower end model crippling. will it make a huge difference to most users? nope not a chance. But their are users who will demand it.

[Rondec]

There are two questions with 12 bit versus 14 bit images in my opinion. (1) Will your ouput medium take advantage of the improvement between the two files? The answer seems to be pretty clearly no. I can't honestly say that at normal sizes, either printing or viewing on a monitor, I can see a significant difference between the K5's output and my K10. There just isn't anything obvious at low iso (high iso is a different story, but that isn't related to the 14 bit output). (2) Are you likely to go back and rework files down the road if software/output media improves? The answer again for me is no. I do compulsively keep RAW files, but once they are done, I am very unlikely to go back in and reprocess them. It just doesn't happen.

If I had the choice between increased fps with 12 bit processing and slower fps with 14 bit processing, I would choose 12 bit any day of the week.

As to the K-01, it is clear that it's hardware is just not up to high processing speeds. Is it crippled? Well, sort of. I would just describe it as slow. How many frames per second does it do? My understanding is that it does about 1 frame per second RAW and has only 10 frame buffer even for jpeg. K30 just will have a lot better hardware.

[Welfl]

Colour range is not the only thing affected. so is grey scale. this impacts your ability to resolve shadows for instance.

Exactly! I'm glad you wrote that. That's the point I have been trying to make (albeit not as succinctly). But I didn't have proof, only my personal, anecdotal experiences, so I did not want to state it as fact. I don't care if someone else says you are wrong or not. If they try, they had better be good at proving it.

Still, I think (meaning this is a semi-educated guess based on my anecdotal experiences) that the billions of extra colors that one gets in those additional "bits" may help one to pull out, see and work with many additional levels of gray in the overall grayscale. That has certainly been my experience when using "exaggerated" color settings to scan B&W images.

Also, we all know how infrared, allows us to see in the dark.

so there is some future proofing.

Very good point.

12 bit on K30 K-01 pretty much smells of lower end model crippling.

Exactly. Maybe, as some have stated (and by "maybe" I mean I'm making a semi-educated layperson's guess), it requires a more powerful "imaging engine" to handle 14-bit RAW -- or maybe it doesn't --, but, from what I've read, the K-30's "Prime M" imagining engine is more powerful than the one in the K-5; therefore, theoretically, it should be better at handling 14-bit RAW images than the K-5, and the K-5 handles them just fine.

On the other hand, If the K-01 is any indication of what the "Prime M" is all about, as far as power goes, then I am not impressed at all.

Now I shall patiently wait for someone to tell me that the "imaging engine" is not the part of the camera that provides the "power" that is required to process RAW images.

[Welfl]

Are you likely to go back and rework files down the road if software/output media improves?

Yes, because, in a sense, it gives me a nice excuse to look once again at all of the pictures I've taken. Besides, compared to most DSLR photographers (at least judging by what I've read here at PF), I have taken next to no pictures at all during the past nine years. Since 2003, I have taken "only" 3100 pictures with my P&S camera. I am very selective, although not even one one-hundredth as selective as I was back in the days of film.

If I had the choice between increased fps with 12 bit processing and slower fps with 14 bit processing, I would choose 12 bit any day of the week.

I need to try to pass myself off as a professional reviewer (ha) and ask Pentax to let me borrow a K-5, a K-30 and a "K-3," so I can, once and for all, see WITH MY OWN EYES the differences, or lack thereof. between 12-bit and 14-bit. By this, I mean the differences in how they would affect me personally, not in their actual, technical differences.

As to the K-01, it is clear that it's hardware is just not up to high processing speeds. Is it crippled? Well, sort of. I would just describe it as slow. How many frames per second does it do? My understanding is that it does about 1 frame per second RAW and has only 10 frame buffer even for jpeg. K30 just will have a lot better hardware.

I was half-heartedly considering the K-01, in spite of its looks, until Adam's review came out. His review reveals that the K-01 is pathetic as far as power goes. That took all the remaining wind out of my sales as far as buying a K-01. I also figured the K-r's replacement would be as good or better, so I waited.

[Aristophanes]

That's nice, but I'll only be interested if there's a quick and easy method for changing from hand strap to neck strap and back. Any idea on that?

Careful on that request. Quick release can be analogous to "less secure". There's a reason why camera straps are lug-locked to the frame.

[Pentaxor]

with regards to future-proofing, how long would one is going to use the K-5? I'm sure that every year, a new camera with better sensor would come out and possibly with higher bit range. personally, I think the K-5 will do well still in the next 5 years, but it won't be as competitive with the newer cameras since some of the improvisation would occur with regards to performance and better implementation of the bit data. the K-5 is about 2 years old and surely there are newer sensor development that would deemed the K-5 a grand dad in 2 more years. people will still use the K-5 because it's a great camera, but it is no longer the creme de la creme.

[lammie200]

with regards to future-proofing, how long would one is going to use the K-5? I'm sure that every year, a new camera with better sensor would come out and possibly with higher bit range. personally, I think the K-5 will do well still in the next 5 years, but it won't be as competitive with the newer cameras since some of the improvisation would occur with regards to performance and better implementation of the bit data. the K-5 is about 2 years old and surely there are newer sensor development that would deemed the K-5 a grand dad in 2 more years. people will still use the K-5 because it's a great camera, but it is no longer the creme de la creme.

Just my 2 cents: I would imagine that processing speed, convenient features, and, perhaps, compression will be the major improvements in the next few years. Megapixels and bit data may have reached their apex with this next generation of high end APS-c cameras.

[monochrome]

As to the K-01, it is clear that it's hardware is just not up to high processing speeds. Is it crippled? Well, sort of. I would just describe it as slow. How many frames per second does it do? My understanding is that it does about 1 frame per second RAW and has only 10 frame buffer even for jpeg. K30 just will have a lot better hardware.

I really don't think the K-01 was intended for shooters who would even consider the limitations of 12-bit RAW files. It is a sophisticated snapshot camera that can do some very high quality shots in the right hands. It isn't, wasn't intended to be and shouldn't be mistaken for a mid-level or high-level dSLR.

These questions are like asking why a four-banger Impreza doesn't have a turbocharger. Clearly Subaru has disabled some of the HP potential on the basic model when they could just as easily have put a turbo on all of them.

Get my drift? Different cars for different buyers. Wait for the turbocharged K-02 (and expect it to be in the Newson body).