There are 16 and 32bit modes in PS, so my question is: can PS display 10bit color depth per channel if all other components support it? (i.e. Windows 7, ATI FirePro graphics card,10bit monitor connected via Displayport)
If not, will there be an update/plugin? Will the next version of PS support it?
I'm thinking about upgrading. Wouldn't make much sense if the software doesn't support it…
Thanks in advance
What would you require that functionality for? 16pc and 32bpc already far exceed those specs and even though they are dithered down to be displayed on your LDR devices, that should be more than enough to work with. Additionally, 10/12/14bpc support would only make sense, if you worked with a file format that also stores that info natively as well as requiring a whole lot of other magic in the color profile engine, the print engine, filter handling and so on. So by all means, this is much more complex than just shuffling around a few bits and bytes in the display routines, which in turn means it's not coming any time soon. Definitely not for CS5 and most likely not for CS6, either. You have to understand that any software vendor will have to weigh the development effort agains how many users would actually benefit from such a feature and currently that is probably only a fraction of a percent, so it is not a must-have feature. This may change as wider gamut devices become more affordable and thus more widespread used as well as OSs supporting them, but for the time being it is something most people have no need for.
i think that he might be talking about output, support for 10bit monitors. The answer is no, Photoshop doesn't currently support that
Hi Mylenium, thanks for your comment!
What would you require that functionality for?
Like I said, I'm building a new system with Windows 7 (supports 30-bit and 48-bit color depths). The monitor I plan to buy also supports 10bpc via Displayport. Now I have to choose between a regular graphics or a more expensive ATI Firepro. If PS and/or the current file formats don't support 10bpc OUTPUT yet (and won't in the near future), I do not need to buy the expensive graphics processor and will probably buy another monitor
There was a plugin from Matrox that enabled 10bpc in PS some years ago. Like I said there is already a 16 bit per channel mode in PS I wondered about Photoshop's ability to display a higher bit depth. For years PS has been able to create HDR images although noone can actually see the tonal values.
That leaves the question: Why would one need to buy a 10bpc monitor? Why do workstation graphics support 10bpc? Are they only useful in CAD, animations, video and rendering programs?
It seems we were talking at crossed purposes (thanks Zeno Bokor ), so is your comment still valid?
I`d also like to see 10bit display output in CS5. I have the impression that 10bit displays will be affordable soon. Some years ago a wide gamut display was extremely expensive. Now you can get very affordable Wide gamut displays. Same will happen with 10bit displays. There is the HP Dreamcolor and also 2 new Eizos for around 2000.-. Not cheap, but not totally out of reach. Would not surprise me, if you can get a 10bit display for 1000.- in one or two years from now. At this time many people will use PS CS5. So it should support 10bit display output.
I once had a small program that simulated 10bit output via temporal dithering (or so). I tested many pictures. Some of the pics showed (very little) banding in certain areas (in PS and in the other program (when 10bit dithering was disabled). But you never knew wether the banding was in the file or because 8bit output was the limiting factor. When I enabled the 10bit output, you could see that in some of the files the banding went away. In other files it did not. So it was clear what was the reason for the banding. Sometimes the files, sometimes the 8bit display output.
So if you want to judge your files on a very critical level 10bit output would really help.
Photoshop can't support greater than 8 bit/channel output yet.
We tried, and the APIs still had problems. We're working with the vendors to resolve those problems. (and trying to find good displays to test with that *really* output 10 bits or more per channel).
Chris, please, can you present actual state of Adobe aproach to implement 30bit color depth viewing in Photoshop CS5? I am writing little article about whole 30-bit viewing situation and it will be fine to have right information. Thanx in advance.
In addition to Mikrotoms request I would like to know, what would be needed to display 10 bit, IF CS5 (or later) would be able to do it.
What OS, what graphics card (only Quadro, or also "Consumer"-card), what monitor? Would this Eizo do it:
According to specs it can display 10bit, although only by dithering.
This is really easy nowadays. Windows 7 has native support for 30-bit color depth, nVidia produces complete row of Quadro FX card with 30-bit color depth (even ATI does with FirePro cards), drivers are working good, DisplayPort can transfer 30-bit content to displays and HP/EIZO/others made lot of LCDs with native 30-bit support. The one and only missing piece of chain is SW application wich will be capable to utilize new API functions and manage out true 30-bit per channel output...
List of current LCDs with true 30-bit display abilities (input, inner calculations and panel):
Hewlett Packard - LP2480zx DreamColor (24″, S-IPS, 1920 × 1200, 100% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, DP, LED)
Eizo - SX2262W (22″, PVA, 1920 × 1200, 95% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, 16-bit, DP, CCFL)
Eizo - SX2462W (24″, H-IPS, 1920 × 1200, 98% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, 16-bit, DP, CCFL)
Eizo - CG243W (24″, H-IPS, 1920 × 1200, 98% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, 16-bit, DP, CCFL)
Eizo - CG232W (22,5″, S-IPS, 1920 × 1200, 97% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, 16-bit, HD-SDI, CCFL)
Dell - UltraSharp U2711 (27″, IPS, 2560 x 1440, 98% Adobe RGB, 12-bit LUT, 16-bit, DP, CCFL)
What would you require that functionality for? 16pc and 32bpc already far exceed those specs and even though they are dithered down to be displayed on your LDR devices, that should be more than enough to work with.
Opinions vary on how many levels the human visual system can distinguish. 8 bpc may be sufficient to prevent banding, but barely so. However, 10 bpc on the system and software side would allow an extra two bits for calibration. Some high end monitors do have 12 bit LUTs for this purpose, but does it make sense to have two LUTs?
For me, having 2 LUT monitors, would be a waste of money for what I do.
I told "A file format caller Kodak CINEON is a 10 bit"
I review it....3 channels together compose 10 bit in CINEON..
Message was edited by: Gustavo Del Vechio
Since the ability to detect color differences varies greatly between humans anything above 24 bit is a waste of time. Unless a woman is a tetrachromat.
It would not make much sense to have 10-12-14 bit functionality for monitor purposes if the other output devices didn't. Banding for instance. How much aggravation would be encountered to see banding in a print which isn't present on screen? I would want to be forewarned.
It would be interesting if klsteven could print examples of both images displaying banding in 8 bit but certain images in 10 bit did not band, on a 16 bit printer. I believe canon has 16 bit printers.
Banding is my #1 concern these days. Agressive moves with Shadow/Highlight followed by agressive moves in Black and White produce serious banding (as well as other noise components, but the banding is a deal breaker). I could, of course, test it myself and see if the 16 bit file which shows banding on screen and in print shows on the 16 bit printer. Probably will.
This is common mistake. You definitely need much more than 256 color steps in each channel. Creative photography in BW usually produces lot of banding in smooth transitions between black-greys-whites...
Well, I wouldn't call it a mistake!
I've explored it sufficiently that I have tentatively ruled out equipment problems, so it comes down to limits of processes.
I first encountered it years ago with a scanned image of a mountain reflected in a mirrored surface of still water. The banding in the sky's reflection blew me away.
It's at least one of my legacy images that cannot be adequately handled in digital form. Curiously, returning to that site at the appropriate time with a digital camera did not show banding until I made the conversions. Then it was the sky that banded!
I have some workarounds but they do not always work.
If the reviews can be trusted for the Eizo. I did not look in the Eizo forums for the real story.
I did check out the new Dell U2410, just for the heck of it, and the reviewers love it and it has no problems. However, in the Dell forums there are all sorts of Dithering problems and Photoshop problems found in a 7 page thread with the ICM that Dell has duplicated. A fix is in the works. So everything a person reads on the net is not exactly fuzzy kittens.
Test, test test!
Ha, you love it don't cha.
Love testing is an oxymoron. Ask any test engineer!
As for untestable, it's a matter of perspective. And ingenuity.
It cant be tested any way, because there is not such a application with abilities to display 30-bit content... It is not just Adobe who is little bit behind HW. Even ACDSee and all of other viewers does not displays content using real 30-bit output 😞
So, what is the situation in CS5? Does anybody already knows? Still no 10-bit per channel color output?
Nope, still no support
Actually, the 10 bit/channel display path is working quite well in CS5 - on cards and displays that support it.
Again, we've been working with the manufacturers for a while to get it working...