__/ [spamharvestor@xxxxxxxxx] on Friday 21 October 2005 10:23 \__
> I read somewhere on Slashdot, regarding Gimp's lack of color depth.
> Sometimes ago, someone told us that Gimp 2.0 was going to change all
> that, and the 8-bit per color channel thing would become history. Now
> that we are approaching the release of Gimp 2.4, we are stick stuck
> with the 8-bit stuff.
> Perhaps there are some who would argue that the 8-bit per color channel
> is more than enough, but, if you just read these comments from
> you would see that images that carries more than 8-bit per color
> channel do give extra benefits.
> I sincerely hope that the Gimp developers would seriously re-consider
> their decision to push back the inclusion of more than 8-bit per color
> channel for the upcoming 2.4 release.
> I do know that cinepaint and photoshop do >8-bit / color channel
> scheme, but I'm used to Gimp, and I wouldn't want to change, if I don't
> have to.
You /might/ find this past discussion, which concentrated in 48-bit images
in the GIMP, helpful:
Whether it truly contributes to what you already know, I am not certain.
Yet, when you mentioned 16-bit channels, I just knew it was bound to con-
cur with that past discussion. If you follow the message ID in the headers
you can find the entire discussion. I tend to record my personal messages
first and foremost.