4 ms·
8 bits and no transparency is good enough for many 9s worth of the photos people take. I have a calibrated HDR monitor. I have a camera that can shoot in 12bi
by Arainach 11mo ago
8 bits and no transparency is good enough for many 9s worth of the photos people take.
I have a calibrated HDR monitor. I have a camera that can shoot in 12bit color. And what HDR support does is just cause me pain. I don't find it beneficial in games. I find it to have limited utility in video. I never need more than 8 bits when sending photos to friends or having them printed. The extra support other formats offer gives me no value.
If you want transparency you want some other format, but no camera I know of records an alpha channel.
- Kirby64 11mo agoTransparency is useful immediately for any editing. Why is that so hard to have support even if it’s unused? Also, the other formats are useful and provide value: if you send a photo to people, the “live” portion of the photo is sent automatically for compatible receivers. It’s only beneficial. If that’s not enough, why wouldn’t you want similar compression quality at half the file size? That really, really adds up with tons of photos.
- Razengan 11mo ago> 8 bits is good enough > And what HDR support does is just cause me pain. I don't find it beneficial in games. I find it to have limited utility in video. Oh boy. You must either be using Windows or never seen photographs/video taken on modern phones/cameras and viewed side-by-side on a good modern display (such as an iPad Pro or MacBook Pro) vs. a random "gOoD eNoUgH" display.
- Arainach 11mo agoI regularly edit (RAW) photos from a Nikon Z8 on both a M2 Macbook Pro and a Windows Machine (either desktop with good monitor or Surface Laptop Studio 2) and do not notice a difference.