Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: -hh <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Why GIMP Is Better Than Photoshop
Date: Sun, 5 Jan 2025 15:51:51 -0500
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 44
Message-ID: <vlerd7$13ci0$4@dont-email.me>
References: <pan$12f0c$b8055f7b$e138cd3a$8c4aa277@linux.rocks>
 <vle9tl$13eiv$3@dont-email.me>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sun, 05 Jan 2025 21:51:52 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="cebf768cdb62fd71421c22484e44e667";
	logging-data="1159744"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/MDqTv+1IQJA73QciDRoZa5DQE8qK52sM="
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:F7Pc6pVkJ8aAadCCa7pAtV/kUDQ=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <vle9tl$13eiv$3@dont-email.me>
Bytes: 3138

On 1/5/25 10:53 AM, DFS wrote:
> On 1/4/2025 6:56 AM, Lying Lameass Larry Piet (posting as Farley Flud) 
> wrote:
> 
>> Photoshop, the name that hangs on every lackey asshole's lips,
>> is actually severely limited in its bit depths.
>>
>> Photoshop, as well as other commercial garbage, only allows
>> processing in 8, 16, or 32-bit (integer) depths.
>>
>> The mighty GIMP, otoh, offers 6, 16, 32-bit integer as well
>> as 16 and 32-bit floating point and this is a HUGE difference
>> in modern, cutting-edge processing.
> 
> Show us the visual difference, with your own code of course, "image 
> processing expert" and "computing virtuoso" that can "program anything".

While Feeb is at it, he needs to explain how & why it is significant for 
there to be floating point at all, since the input sensor is integer 
based:  where is this necessary?  Because without a clear need, it 
sounds more like sloppy/lazy programming and/or false features.

Similarly, why 16 or 32 bits/channel is necessary when the human eye 
can't even biologically perceive that resolution (its considered to be 
10-12 bits/channel):  did the GIMP programmers choose 16 because they 
chose an easy (lazy) way to get to the 10 or 12 bits/channel that's 
anthropometrically appropriate?  Overkill results in sub-optimally 
larger file sizes.

Finally, just what good is for this amount of overkill on color bit 
depth when there's not even the hardware to display the answer on?

Specifically, who makes a 16 bit/channel computer monitors?  Who makes 
32 bit ones?  Name names/makes/models (and price).  Because the last 
I've seen was 12 bits/channel in an expensive reference display; the 
mainstream 'State of the Shelf' is still at 8 bits/channel (plus there's 
still some 6 bit based displays which are faking 8 bits/channel - one 
manufacturer got hit with a lawsuit on that a few years ago).

So even if humans could perceive 32 or 16 over 12 bits/channel, where's 
the hardware which can actually display more than 12 bits/channel?


-hh