0

I want to use photos for blog. Nature, landscapes, fitnes. I use photos which have 16,7 Million color variations (24 BitsPerPixel) now.

Is it possible to use photos which have color depth more than 16,7 Million color variations (24 BitsPerPixel)?

3
  • 3
    Do you actually find that you have significant issues with the quality of the images on your blog and what makes you believe this is due to bit depth? – Philip Kendall Apr 30 '20 at 8:22
  • @Philip Kendall. Thank you for your question, Philip. No, I have no issues with the quality of the images on my blog. Everything all righ. I explore what I could do better? What benefits I could receive using photos which have color depth more than 24 BitsPerPixel – Konskoo May 1 '20 at 3:07
  • 1
    24 bits per pixel is the standard because it is adequate for 99.9% of what we want to display. It is questionable whether anyone would ever notice the difference between that and something more, even if there weren't technical obstacles. – Mark Ransom May 1 '20 at 17:08
6

The short answer is: no, the maximum practical color depth for images on websites is 24-bit color. Few image formats support higher color depth (TIFF is a notable example), and of those, there are none that all common web browsers support.

Wikipedia features a table of web browsers and the image formats they support. You can see that Chrome and Firefox - which account for about two thirds of browsing - do not support TIFF, although Safari and Edge do. Unfortunately, even if you created a reliable mechanism to serve TIFF files to browsers that support them and JPEG to the rest, your TIFF files would only be seen by a third of visitors.

Aside from browser support, there's another limitation: many people don't have display systems that can render more than 16.7 million colors. This isn't just a function of the monitor, since the graphics card must also support higher color depth. These are both more expensive and specialized items that most don't have on their desks at home.

Ultimately, even if browser support for deeper color increases, there will need to be a massive change in hardware standards before it will become widely accessible.

12
  • 4
    >8-bit per pixels is useful when you do computations (ie, processing), a bit like long decimals in numbers. But when you use the result (display image, or final sum), you don't need all that precision any longer. – xenoid Apr 30 '20 at 8:16
  • 1
    @xenoid " But when you use the result (display image, or final sum), you don't need all that precision any longer. " — then you'll need to dither your image before conversion to lower color depth to avoid color banding. See e.g. this issue in a sky renderer. Not so relevant in an inherently noisy photo, but I seem to recall seeing it even in some photos. – Ruslan Apr 30 '20 at 11:57
  • 2
    Yes.. But banding also comes form lack of precision in the underlying computations... – xenoid Apr 30 '20 at 12:01
  • 1
    @xenoid banding can occur even on pictures that haven't undergone any computations. But as noted, any noise whatsoever in the scene will make it a moot point as the noise produces a natural form of dithering. – Mark Ransom May 1 '20 at 17:12
  • 2
    Most monitors don't display more that 8-bit per pixel. It's the computation that produce different results. It is the equivent of doing this: if you add 1.2,2.4,3.3 and round off the result (low precision on the result only), you get 7. If your round off first (low precision in the computation, which is the equivalent of using 8-bit/pixel computation), you add 1,2,3 and the result is 6. And the equivalent of the difference between 6 and 7 is visible on an 8-bit display. – xenoid May 5 '20 at 6:24

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.