8bit vs 16bit - Why most PROs get Bit Depth WRONG?

Bit Depth SIMPLIFIED In-Depth and 2 Biggest MYTHS Debunked in this Photoshop Tutorial. Witness Theory vs Reality of Bit Depth to see what almost Everyone fails to Understand. The only video you will ever need to watch about Bit Depth...

► Skip to ANY section ⏰ TIME STAMPS:
0:10 Introducing Bit Depth/Color Depth/Pixel Depth
0:26 Concept of Bit Depth
0:47 Bit Depth definition Visually explained
1:18 Understanding Bits per Channel(BPC) in Photoshop
1:54 What exactly are 'Bits'?
2:31 Why 8 bits have maximum value of 255
3:06 Different Bit Depth have different tone/RGB values
3:38 Photoshop Bit Depth comparison 1bit B&W/8bit grayscale/8bit RGB/16bit RGB
5:17 1st Reason for no visible Difference between 8bit & 16bit RGB
6:16 2nd Reason for no visible Difference between 8bit & 16bit RGB
7:25 Spot the Color difference challenge in Photoshop + Human Visibility explained
8:11 Why Photoshop shows 255 value for both 8 & 16 bits
8:28 Which is Better for retouching - 8bit or16 bit
8:59 Myth 1 debunked (To fully understand, watch the full video)
10:06 Myth 2 debunked (To fully understand, watch the full video)

------

📸 Start Retouching 10x FASTER with Post Pro Photoshop Panel:

-----
#photoshop #bitdepth #16bits

[DysoniaMultiverseNews]

Part of the reason you don't see the gradation is the DACs that converts the digital values to analog is 8 bit DACs for each of the color channels just as it were for an Amiga 1200 and Amiga 4000 back in 1991. This means the gradation of each of the color channels like greyscale. The more shades per channel is like the shades of the 8bpp grey scale vs 16bpp grayscale but now apply that to each of the three color channels. Most TVs and monitors are using 8bit DACs (DAC = Digital to Analog Converters). Some newer TVs with the touted high dynamic range, in order to do it not only widens the gamut but also widens the range from darkest levels of the color channel to the brightest level of the color channel. Then you have that divided by 1024 shades of the component colors of R, G, and B. Hence, 10 Bit DACs per channel being used. The most extreme end of TVs currently that I have heard of uses 12 bits per channel. 16 bits can be used and you would notice it more IF you look solely in the gradation of that channel and the smooth transitions along it just as you compare between 8bit greyscale, 12 bit grey scale and 16 bit greyscale. Human eyes will notice most on the green channel and the red channel. Human eyes are weakest on the blue channel. This is due to the area of color spectrum our eyes are most sensitive. As creatures of nature, our eyes evolved to perceive the shades of green more and that's due to evolving from our earliest ancestors in woods, forests, and jungles. This is the natural spectrum our eyes are sensitive to. Red and Blue are near the ends of our visual spectrum. Hardware will generally mixes the channels blindly within a minimum and maximum output level in each channel in steps. Be they, 256 steps, 1024 steps, 4096 steps, or 65536 steps. If the DACs are 8 Bit DACs for each component, the limits are 16, 777, 216 colors. You could have had 9 bits of each of the RGB color channels and you wouldn't see any more than 256 shades of red, green, or blue. This is due to HW. Your eyes could perceive more than 256 shades of red or green or blue. However, your display won't output more than the DACs bit resolution. If you have 10 bit DACs, it's limited to 1024 shades of red or green or blue. The human eye could conceivably see as many shades of each of those mixes as it can perceptively discern with grey scale based on steps of brightness or intensity from lowest output level to highest output level. However, once you mix colors into pixels it becomes less and less distinguishable. At some point, you reach a point of practical use. There is a diminishing perceptable return. Going from 16bpp to 24bpp was less perceptible than it was to go from 8bpp to 16bpp. Anything more than 24bpp (RGB888) is more wasting bit size in most end use practical purposes especially in something like games. Heck, even game graphics were sometimes still 16bpp (65536 colors) to save space and look good. You'd be hardpressed to tell a 16bpp picture of ultra4K resolution (3840x2160) from one that is 24bpp. Visually, won't make much difference but saves you 1/3 in data space. Animate it and have lots of frames at that resolution, you can save space and have quality. Further techniques of image data compression and you'll save more space. With good computing power, you can decompress in real time and still have realtime video yet saved space. 16 BPC (Bits per Channel) is probably overkill and won't be needed on something animated. If something was static, maybe if you look at it long enough, you might see a slight shade difference but when you are above 4096 shades of red, or green, or blue, it would be hard.

[Naitooo]

Im blown away by your channel! All your videos strike the right balance between technical explanations that the digital platform needs and the art theory that would follow any endeavor to make content in Photoshop. Great video💯

[DOM_GOOD]

OMG...i can understand everything you've just teach here, thanks!

[jndominica]

The difference of a higher internal/working bit depth is noticeable on an 8-bit screen on clean digital gradients, such as the ending screen on your video, especially grey where all the color channels switch nearly simultaneously. The final 8-bit output will approximate the gradient better through dithering (error diffusion). Dithering noise is often misunderstood as only masking quantization noise, but it actually prevents it if it is added to a more accurate value. JPEG/MPEG has around 7-bit depth and will usually remove high frequency dithering and create banding again.

[pixelpreaching]

Great video. Only one minor issue to point out. At 5:47 you have 2^(15+1). This should be (2^15) + 1. As written, it's the same as 2^16. It's hard to write here in a comment with lack of exponents, but the +1 should be removed from the exponent and just added to the 2^15.


Very minor issue. Thanks, though, this is a great video. Just subscribed. I really want to check out this Pro Workflow X you have going on there.

[riddhishah]

Superbly. Explained in detail.Got concept Clear by this video only . thank you so much sir

[MarkMetternichPhotographyLLC]

8 bit files fall apart very fast with a lot of adjustments. With lots of adjustments, even 16-bit images run into artifacts and noticeable degrading MUCH faster than most realize (especially if you make critical enlargements). 32-bit RAW Layers, and 32 bit rasterized images are a TOTALLY different beast altogether! The ultimate quality workflow.

[wordsshackles]

You're the best. ACCURATE, concise, and intelligible.

[shLSS]

You should have mentioned that the size of the color space you are working in, could demand a bit depth of 16bits. E.g. if you choose Prophoto RGB, you need 16bit as the distances between the three corners spanning the colorspace are so huge, 256 steps often are not enough for smooth gradients.

[Picnuts]

That was a great video! I didn't learn anything new, but you covered all the bases in a way anyone can understand. Well done, sir!

[darkarps]

I am less than 1:00 in and this is already one of the best tutorial videos out there explaining this really important topic, thank you

[SamQureshi-mciz]

latterly I saw a very few video on YouTube that completely worth it to watch, explain in very simple and nice way, you did it man, Great Respect ❤❤❤❤❣

[isaacgardner]

the main problem with 8 bit colours arises when we look at dark colours and/or black backgrounds. Tom Scott has a really good video on this but basically, if we do a gradient from red to black, then we will start to see the limitations, and we will begin to see the individual lines of each colour change. especially when done over smaller pixel distances.

[stevosd]

Brilliant. Have had a few problems converting black & white photos into colour and then working on the images has produced compression problems in Jpg. SO am now trying same with TIFF files and doing photoshop in 16bit from 48 bit scan of black and white negs... This video is GREAT.

[astral_haze]

high bit depth or sample rate or whatever usually is imperceptible but matters more if you do things like distortion, stretching, amplification, anything that stretches out those things. slow down an audio file significantly and suddenly the difference between a flac and a 192 mp3 should be much more noticeable, same for pixel depth, or resolution; make certain kinds of effects and they become more important, like if you substantially brighten+ raise contrast suddenly vs 010000 becomes absolutely massive

[shaileshparekh]

My God!!!! I became your lover in the first visit!❤❤❤❤ How simply could you define the complex technicalities with presentation!!! I cant stop myself to SUBSCRIBE your channel. Hope, the rest videos will definitely be superb!!! Bravo, Dear!!

[jamesbondaygee]

This is a lot of info for me.. I just wanted to know which looks better and does it affect rendering times much? Thanks :)

[GioFar]

Very well explained, but in some cases, if you raw has a very smooth transition and work on 8 bit you gonna see banding very soon, without doing extreme retouching, some example are blue skies without clouds and very smooth transition from brighter to darker tones, and studio work with very smooth light transitions on the background, also if you are printing those same images with very smooth transitions, printing in 8bit can again show banding depending on the ink and the paper, but it's also worth to mention that printing in 16bit with a printer that does not support 16bit, will not give you any benefit.

[alexandrugheorghe]

EXCELLENT . I love your perfectly clear explanation ! TNX

[jargontrueseer]

This was insanely helpful, thank you so much!