I stumbled upon this ... found it interesting in the context of how many times folks have said that Jim has indicated 16 bit was of no value, it was only marketing goo ... vs. my point that when pushing the math, that the difference can be realized.
YMMV
That's why when you asserted in the GF100RF thread you were disagreeing with Jim I said that I really didn't see it that way he never said there was no use case(at least for the newer sensors). I also noticed you've been pushing some images really hard in recent years so... maybe... I don't use 16 bit and when I did try it the biggest difference was C1 was choking on the files at that point so it was a net negative for me. But I don't push files anywhere near that hard.
rbf_ wrote:
That's why when you asserted in the GF100RF thread you were disagreeing with Jim I said that I really didn't see it that way he never said there was no use case(at least for the newer sensors). I also noticed you've been pushing some images really hard in recent years so... maybe... I don't use 16 bit and when I did try it the biggest difference was C1 was choking on the files at that point so it was a net negative for me. But I don't push files anywhere near that hard.
Yup ... guilty as charged. I've pushed a few rather hard.
RustyBug wrote:
Yup ... guilty as charged. I've pushed a few rather hard.
Definately! I'm not currently doing anything like that but I've been to St. Louis a couple of times and stood where you stood and I like your images a lot better So...
I'm not currently doing anything like that but I've been to St. Louis a couple of times and stood where you stood and I like your images a lot better 
So...