Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game - Professional Photography -
Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game

 By David Saffir

One of the most under-appreciated features of newer-model DSLRs is their ability to capture images with greater bit depth.  Bit depth is a way of quantifying the amount of color information in each recorded pixel. It is also a key component of high-level image quality. In this post, we’ll look first at the numbers. Then, we’ll talk about what these numbers mean in terms of dynamic range, color fidelity, and highlight/shadow detail. These are key attributes that influence the quality of the final print.

Not long ago, most cameras functioned in 8-bit mode. Then the higher-end DSLRs became capable of using 12-bit capture. Now they are up to 14-bit, which is a huge benefit to photographers. If you don’t understand bit depth, these may sound like incremental improvements.  But they are actually exponential improvements.

To see what I mean, let’s start with a brief review of the numbers. It is simple but non-intuitive:

·         There are three primary colors (or color channels) in each captured digital image: red, green, and blue.

·         Bit depth describes the number of tone gradations (or intensities of color) provided in each pixel. Most digital images are captured and/or stored in 8-bit, 12-bit, 14-bit, or 16-bit mode.

§  An 8-bit image has 256 tone gradations in each of the three color channels;

§  A 12-bit image has 4,096 tone gradations in each color channel;

§  A 14-bit image has 16,384 tone gradations in each color channel; and

§  A 16-bit image has 65,536 tone gradation in each color channel.

 Another way to look at the depth of an image file: A 16-bit image file is twice as big as an 8-bit file.

The major benefit of working with high-bit images is increased dynamic range— the range of tones and detail that the camera can record from the darkest dark to lightest light.

One software company, DXO, now provides public access to its database on camera performance. Here are some examples of the differences between 12-bit, 14-bit, and 16-bit capture:

·         The Nikon D2X captures images in 12-bit mode when shooting in RAW format; its dynamic range is rated at 10.9.

·         The Nikon D3 captures in 14-bit mode; its dynamic range is rated at 12.2.

Dynamic range is measured like f/stops: an increase of one step is a doubling of dynamic range. That’s a big, big difference.

There is also a noticeable upside in image editing, and in the appearance of the final print.


 












Figure 1
above is a screen shot of a 16-bit image being edited. Note that the histogram is smooth and even, and shows no breaks or lines.

 

Figure 2 above shows a screen shot of an 8-bit version of the same image. Note the white lines running vertically in this histogram. These are sometimes called drop-outs, and they show information that is lost when the image is edited . These losses can result in color distortions, posterization, color aliasing, and more.

We lose information every time we edit or manipulate an image. So, the more image information we have to start with, the more information that is available to us as we progress in our workflow.

It pays to set up your workflow to protect as much image information as you can for as long in the process as possible. Most printer drivers can handle high-bit images without difficulty. In my own workflow, I only use 8-bit images for web publishing, e-mail, and the like.

Image-editing programs such as Adobe Photoshop Lightroom are now set up to use high-bit images. And Adobe Camera RAW and Photoshop provide pretty much the same editing tools for 8-bit images and high-bit images, making workflow choices easier for the photographer. This is all good news for those of us who love creating the most detailed and beautiful prints possible. 

What’s re-complicating printing workflows right now is the fact that Adobe Photoshop Lightroom uses a bigger color space—ProPhoto RGB instead of Adobe RGB. But we’ll leave a discussion of printing through Lightroom to a future post.

If you have any specific questions about bit depth, I would welcome your comments.

 

 


Posted 07-29-2009 10:58 PM by Eileen Fritsch

Comments

Mitch wrote re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game
on 07-30-2009 3:02 PM

Hi David:

I enjoy your site. You say some important things on this thread.

I disagree with your comments and you example that argue for a relationship between bit depth and dynamic range.

Rather than repeat a longer blog entry, I'll just post the link:

www.thelightsright.com/BitDepthAndDynamicRange

The example you show has no perceptible difference, and any perceptible difference will almost certainly be the result of other camera feature differences.

It is very unlikely that two identical RAW photos from the same camera, differing only in 14-bits v. 12-bits per channel would show perceptible differences before or even after processing typical for a photographer.

Dithering from noise alone would very likely mask any perceptible differences in terms of posterization.

Cheers,

Mitch

Dennis wrote re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game
on 07-30-2009 5:27 PM

Great information. Just one more thing to separate the weekenders from the pros.

David Saffir wrote re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game
on 07-30-2009 7:36 PM

In regard to Dennis' post,

Thanks for the kind words!

In regard to Mitch's post:

My point here is *not* that there is a huge difference between 12- and 14-bit.

There IS a big difference in performance between 8-bit and high-bit images. And, getting an increase from 12 to 14 bit in the new cameras is is a plus, particularly in performance in shadow detail - that is a quite likely in images with intense shadows, and is driven by the physics of digital sensor based capture.

Next, it *should*  be difficult or impossible to see a difference between the images provided in my article here - non-color managed web browsers, web-safe color, etc. The histogram is the real point of focus - and posterization does tip the balance toward an increase in image artifacts.

Noise may suppress other digital artifacts, but in many cases it is a high price to pay in overall image quality. Who wants to see noise in a clear blue sky just to suppress banding?

David Saffir

Mitch wrote re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game
on 07-30-2009 9:58 PM

There is a perceptible difference in posterization between 8-bit images and 12-bit images. Yes. That's my empirical experience.

You cannot compare 12-bit and 14-bit differences between two different camera models. There are too many variables that can explain perceptible differences. You could need to use the same sensor and the same emthod of processing the RAW data. Only allow the bit depth to differ.

You don't need noise in a clear blue sky to suppress banding. That's a red herring.

I've provided the theory for why there should be almost no perceptible difference between 12-bits and 14-bits with the adjustments to tonality and color that are typical of digital photographers.

In theory, the difference between 4,096 levels and 16,384 tones could result in perceptible differences. That assumes that the device used to display the photo could display such fine differences and the human eye could perceive those differences. That's where you run into the issue of those differences being less than noise and the attentuation of noise that will happen in-camera even with a RAW file. To reduce noise, small differences in color/tone are eliminated.

I'd suggest you present scientific evidence that challenges what's in Emil Martinec's whitepaper. He makes a very strong case, whereas you simply assert. ;)

(BTW, if the photos cannot show a perceptible difference, then why did you post them *AND* why did you not mention this point?)

The shadow detail discussion is also not quite right. If you want more shadow detail (and less noise), you should increase the exposure, not the bit depth. Taking the same dynamic range and chopping it up into finer gradations does not give you an additional shadow detail.

If you think of dynamic range as a staircase, to use an analogy from Jeff Schewe, then bit-depth detemines the step size. It does not alter where the top of the bottom of the staircase ends up.

Your blog claims it's not a numbers game, yet your comments and your reply imply to my comment imply that it is a numbers game. 14-bits is superior to 12-bits, seems to be the point.

I agree, in theory, holding everything else constant, if we assume a recording medium that can distinguish even the tiniest of differences in color and that our eyes can also distinguish those tiny details, *THEN* we could conclude that 14-bits will produce a superior image compared with 12-bits.

Regrettably, everything is not constant, recording devices have their limits, and certainly human visual perception has even more restrictive limits that make it unlikely that 14-bits will result in a perceptible difference compared with 12-bits.

Cheers,

Mitch

Brian wrote re: Bit Depth Basics: More Than a Numbers Game
on 08-02-2009 2:08 AM

Hi David and Mitch,

I'm afraid I tend to lean in Mitch's direction here.  Whilst I agree that there are 'theoretical' benefits from higher bit rates, in real world display situations the differences are mostly imperceptible.

Mitch is also perfectly correct - 8-10-12-14-16 bit has absolutely nothing to do with the dynamic range of a device, just the 'sensitivity' - i.e.  steps it can record.

A histogram BTW is a very poor tool to use, firstly histograms in any software AFAIK (e.g PS),  only has 256 steps (see monitor comment below), thus when you show a 'histogram' of a 16 bit edited file you are unlikely to see any "gaps", however if you were able to expand the histogram, or say zoom in to a section you would see the same type of gaps.

Also, whilst the human eye has an upper dynamic range (DR) of 25 to 30 stops, many many times that of  a 12 stop camera this does not translate to the same capability in contrast detection i.e. perception of steps of brightness, at best the eye has about a 10,000 step range (more sensitive at lower light levels than high) see www.clarkvision.com/.../eye-resolution.html.

More importantly, (LCD) monitors typically have a DR of only 8 stops, they can only display 256 levels in R, G, or B and (most) are only 8 bit devices so.... guess what?  They can only ever display 256 gradations. So if the monitor can't display the DR or the subtle gradations, just exactly how are we going to see it??

Paper: Even the best quality paper (being only a reflective device) can manage between 3-4 'stops', and whilst the 'theoretical' gradations the best paper/printer combo is higher, it is nowhere near 4000 levels, anyway the very limited DR makes comparison from 8 to 12 -14- 16 bit sources irrelevant.

Again if the displaying mechanism can't actually display the difference, how is it possible to see it?

The only real test IMHO, is to perform (like in medical science) a 'double blind" test, i.e. you are given multiple versions of the same image , say 10 x 8bit, 10 x 16 bit, 10 x 14 bit (not just 2 images, so you have a 50/50 chance of guessing right).  If you can't correctly identify which is which, then poof goes your argument.

However I must concede that the creation of computer generated gradients often benefits from a higher bit rate, but that isn't a photo now is it?

To repeat, unless a true double blind test is performed. this is all just "I think I can see a visible difference,  therefore there is a visible difference", well how can I dispute that, no I say - how can you prove it? Easy, a proper controlled test.

It's a little like hi-fi / audiophile claims, when the 'experts' are put in a controlled room, magically they can't determine the difference they claimed they heard between two similar components.

Regards, Brian

Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems