All the JPG stuff does raise an interesting point, life after jpg.
The concept of having raw and a processing format makes perfect sense, but as cameras are advancing and as 14bit becomes more common and maybe we start to see 16bit in dslrs will we see a third option? something with support for 16bit colour? Fuji used to have tiff support but usually in the absence of raw support. Perhaps png? Tiff even with lzw isnt really compressed enough.
16 bit acquisition won't really make sense for another 4-5 years (or so). Even now, most cameras really don't make good use of 14 bits. Indeed, most testing of the Nikon D300 in both 12 bit and 14 bit mode showed little to no clear advantage.
The primary reason to have more data bits in the first place is twofold:
To provide more accurate color information.
To describe more dynamic range.
More color accuracy is likely to be both incremental and small in the next few years. Limiting factors are Bayer color technology and A/D conversion accuracy.
Dynamic range is also hitting some hard limitations, although there are a few patents which have not been exploited yet which could help the situation.
In short, if you see 16 bits anytime soon it's just clever marketing unless it is accompanied by some additional new technology which requires the additional bandwidth.
Interesting points, I dont doubt that real world difference is minimal and that some of the 14bit claims are marketing induced (like the old stretched 50 1.7's), but 16bit has been about in MFD backs for a while. ...
While many digital backs do use 16 bit files for storage, there is some dispute whether it is of value or need.
For those 3-pass, scanning digital backs that also possess low noise and very high dynamic range, I think it probably is justified. Unfortunately, many of these same backs lose any advantage at higher ISOs, but they still record in 16 bit. At that point it is a disadvantage to record in 16 bit because you are mostly recording unusable data in the extra size of the file.
There are some digital backs which do not seem to record at a high enough quality level to justify 16 bits under any situation or setting. For those backs, 16 bit files are just "bragging rights". Do not assume that 16 bits are required or desired just because a manufacturer chooses to use that format.
16 bits, hmmm.... I seem to recall reading that Photoshop's internal image representation is 15 bits. Anybody know whether this is still true? Might be an issue one of these days.
Re the 120MP sensor, it may not necessarily end up in a consumer or pro camera. Canon is also a tech company, and something like that could easily end up at the user end of an observatory telescope. Re 16-bit: if 16 bit files and something to increase DR (in one shot) was applied together, then it would be real real nice.
My Smugmug
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
Hah. Don't forget black ops. I'm sure the CIA/NSA/Etc... already have things that top it, but we will never know... but for satellite imagery, think of google earth using 120MP sensors in their sat images. Which blade of grass you wanna see in your front yard? lol
MOD NOTE: Ooops, I was responding this post and I b0rked it up by accident.
Very sorry.
Comments
16 bit acquisition won't really make sense for another 4-5 years (or so). Even now, most cameras really don't make good use of 14 bits. Indeed, most testing of the Nikon D300 in both 12 bit and 14 bit mode showed little to no clear advantage.
The primary reason to have more data bits in the first place is twofold:
More color accuracy is likely to be both incremental and small in the next few years. Limiting factors are Bayer color technology and A/D conversion accuracy.
Dynamic range is also hitting some hard limitations, although there are a few patents which have not been exploited yet which could help the situation.
In short, if you see 16 bits anytime soon it's just clever marketing unless it is accompanied by some additional new technology which requires the additional bandwidth.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
While many digital backs do use 16 bit files for storage, there is some dispute whether it is of value or need.
For those 3-pass, scanning digital backs that also possess low noise and very high dynamic range, I think it probably is justified. Unfortunately, many of these same backs lose any advantage at higher ISOs, but they still record in 16 bit. At that point it is a disadvantage to record in 16 bit because you are mostly recording unusable data in the extra size of the file.
There are some digital backs which do not seem to record at a high enough quality level to justify 16 bits under any situation or setting. For those backs, 16 bit files are just "bragging rights". Do not assume that 16 bits are required or desired just because a manufacturer chooses to use that format.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
"You miss 100% of the shots you don't take" - Wayne Gretzky
MOD NOTE: Ooops, I was responding this post and I b0rked it up by accident.
Very sorry.
David