DaveD Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 This thread is not specifically Paint.NET vs. GIMP, but more about GIMP's limitation of 8-bit post processing and how that can differ between the two programs. How many 'bits' is Paint.NET for this post processing thing? Would this mean that images created with the GIMP are worse quality than Paint.NET? Obviously, I have no idea what I am talking about with this post processing thing, but that is why I am hoping for some clarification here. Thanks, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Pi Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I believe it's referring to 8 bits (range from 0-255) per channel, which is the exact same as Paint.NET. Some high quality photos have 16 bits (range from zero to 2^16-1) per channel, which allows for more detailed color information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveD Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 I believe it's referring to 8 bits (range from 0-255) per channel, which is the exact same as Paint.NET. Some high quality photos have 16 bits (range from zero to 2^16-1) per channel, which allows for more detailed color information. Thank you for your response. For some reason, though, I was under the impression that Paint.NET used 16-bit or 32-bit and did not have that same limitation as GIMP. So does that mean that the image quality between Paint.NET and GIMP would be indistinguishable then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 if that is indeed the case, Paint.NET must be 16-bit color, as that yields 65,535 colors, which is the number of combinations you can get with a 0~255 scale on each of the Red, Green and Blue colors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Pi Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 It's 8 bits per channel, 32 bits per pixel (RGBA). Also 256*256*256 is 16777216, not 65536. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Curmudgeon Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 after my post, I decided to eat lunch, and give my brain some food...then it woke up and I felt like a tard at least I know my gazintas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveD Posted January 16, 2008 Author Share Posted January 16, 2008 I am still learning more about this so I don't have much to say at the moment, however, I just found a great article that I thought I should share that is related to this. Benefits Of Working With 16-Bit Images In Photoshop http://www.photoshopessentials.com/essentials/16-bit/ It is talking about Photoshop, but the information could relate to just about any image program from my understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveD Posted January 18, 2008 Author Share Posted January 18, 2008 So according to the article, all JPEG images are 8-bit. Raw images are 16-bit. Is the Paint.NET format (.pdn) 8-bit or 16-bit? Thanks, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrochild Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 It's been stated above: 8 bits per channel per pixel. 32 bits per pixel. ambigram signature by Kemaru [i write plugins and stuff] If you like a post, upvote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirby145 Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Gimp's interface is too hard, ugly, and full of bloody potato. So I ca't use it. I have tried many times, but I just can't. "By trying to reinvent the wheel every time we find very often with square wheels" ...X-blaster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pyrochild Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Gimp's interface is too hard, ugly, and full of bloody potato. So I ca't use it. I have tried many times, but I just can't. Completely unrelated to this thread... ambigram signature by Kemaru [i write plugins and stuff] If you like a post, upvote it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david.atwell Posted January 19, 2008 Share Posted January 19, 2008 Agreed, Pyrochild. I think the question has been adequately answered. Thread Locked The Doctor: There was a goblin, or a trickster, or a warrior... A nameless, terrible thing, soaked in the blood of a billion galaxies. The most feared being in all the cosmos. And nothing could stop it, or hold it, or reason with it. One day it would just drop out of the sky and tear down your world.Amy: But how did it end up in there?The Doctor: You know fairy tales. A good wizard tricked it.River Song: I hate good wizards in fairy tales; they always turn out to be him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts