the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 3

Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 3

May 22, 2012 By JimK Leave a Comment

In the previous post, I described histogram depopulation in images encoded with eight bits per color plane, as was the standard until about ten years ago. Nowadays serious photographers use image codings with 16 bits per color plane, which makes an immense difference.

Here, in compact form, is what happens when we darken our test image in the eight-bit representation:

And here’s what we get if we lighten it:

Now, let’s look at what we get if we perform the same operations to 16-bit—per-color-plane images. First, darkening:

And next, lightening:

It looks like there’s no histogram depopulation! But didn’t the argument of the preceding post say that histogram depopulation will occur at any bit depth? It did indeed, and I stand by that reasoning. We can’t see the histogram depopulation in 16-bit images because the Photoshop (and Lightroom) histogram tool only has 8 bit horizontal resolution. It’s too coarse an instrument to see the histogram depopulation in the 16-bit examples above.

Let’s consider passing an eight bit image through a curve that sets a quarter of its histogram values to zero. We started out with 256 non-zero histogram values, and now we have 196.  If we passed a 16-bit image through the same curve, we’d have a quarter of the histogram values set to zero, so the original 65,536 non-zero values would have been reduced to 49152. If we had a histogram tool with 65,536 “buckets” we’d see the gaps.

However, the Photoshop and Lightroom histogram tools only have 256 counters along the horizontal axis. For eight bit images, that’s enough resolution for every possible value in each color plane to have its own counter. For sixteen-bit images, every pixel with a value between 0000 and 0100 (both numbers in hexadecimal) get thrown into the 0 bucket of the histogram, every pixel with a value between 0010 and 0200 (both numbers in hexadecimal) get thrown into the 1 bucket of the histogram, and so forth. (Actually, I suspect that, in the interest of speedy computation, Adobe does its histogram calculations on a subsampled version of the image, but that’s another story.)

Is this coarse histogram computation a problem when we’re not looking for microscopic amounts of histogram depopulation? Not really; 256 buckets is plenty for every photographic need that I can think of.

 

← Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 2 Histogram depopulation in image editing, part 4 →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Ludwig Haskins on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Anthony New on Camera resolution and 4K viewing — summary
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • CarVac on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Bill Claff on Detectability of visual signals below the noise

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.