• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

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

You are here: Home / The Last Word / The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras

The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras

May 6, 2025 JimK 3 Comments

I’ve written on this subject before, but I’ve not done a piece that deals with the common counterarguments. Here is one.

The Fujifilm GFX 100-series and Hasselblad X2D cameras  support 16-bit RAW files. At first glance, this seems like an obvious win: more bits should mean more data, more dynamic range, and more flexibility in post-processing. But in practice, the benefits of 16-bit precision over 14-bit are negligible for photographic applications. Here are the arguments often made in favor of 16-bit capture and why they don’t hold up under scrutiny.

1. Myth: 16-Bit Provides More Dynamic Range A 16-bit file can, in theory, encode 96 dB of dynamic range versus 84 dB for 14-bit. However, the real-world dynamic range of medium format sensors is limited by photon shot noise and read noise, typically capping at around 14 stops (about 84 dB). Once quantization noise is well below the sensor’s analog noise floor, increasing bit depth adds no practical dynamic range.

2. Myth: 16-Bit Prevents Banding in Edits It is often claimed that more bits reduce banding in gradients during aggressive post-processing. But in RAW files, the tonal resolution of a 14-bit file already exceeds the eye’s ability to detect steps, especially once converted to a working color space and edited in a 16-bit pipeline. Any banding in real workflows is usually due to limitations in output color space or lossy compression, not insufficient bit depth in the original capture. In addition, shot noise smears over the quantization noise.

3. Myth: 16-Bit is Better for Color Grading While more bits may benefit extreme color grading in video or scientific imagery, photographic sensors do not generate color information with 16-bit fidelity. The signal is already quantized, and color differences at the bottom 2 bits of a 16-bit file are buried in noise. Color precision is far more influenced by lens transmission, sensor design, and spectral response than bit depth.

4. Myth: 16-Bit is Needed for Future-Proofing Some argue that 16-bit data ensures longevity in the face of evolving editing software or display technologies. But if the source data carries no meaningful information in the bottom bits, storing them is like preserving empty decimal places. 14-bit files already provide more granularity than is practically usable for current sensors.

5. Myth: Scientific or Industrial Applications Justify 16-Bit While true for specialized imaging tasks like fluorescence microscopy or machine vision, these use cases have little in common with handheld photography. In those domains, exposure, temperature, and electronic noise are tightly controlled. In photography, the environment is uncontrolled and analog noise dominates.

Conclusion: The 16-bit RAW format in cameras like the GFX 100 series and Hasselblad X2D is more about marketing than measurable photographic benefit. While there is no harm in storing images in 16-bit format, it offers little to no advantage over 14-bit for dynamic range, tonal smoothness, or color accuracy. Photographers should base their expectations on physics and perceptual limits—not on file format headlines.

 

[INT. STUDIO – Nigel is showing off his computer setup with a smug grin.]

Nigel:
This one here—this is the RAW file. Not just any RAW file. This one’s 16-bit.

Marty (the director):
Right. And what’s the advantage?

Nigel:
Well, most people shoot in 14-bit, right? You got your shadows, your highlights… but 14 bits only gives you 16,384 levels. This—this gives you 65,536.

Marty:
Uh huh. But isn’t the sensor noise floor higher than the 14-bit quantization? I mean, can you really see any difference?

Nigel (nods slowly):
No. But it’s two bits more, innit?

Marty:
Why not just process the data better at 14 bits?

Nigel (pause):
But this goes to sixteen.

Marty:
I see. So… it’s not actually capturing more detail?

Nigel:
Well, no—but when you say you shoot sixteen, people listen.

Marty:
Couldn’t you just make 14-bit better, and call that louder?

Nigel:
[beat]
But… these go to sixteen.

The Last Word

← Diving deeper into cropping in the GFX 100RF and dynamic range Correcting Raw Black Point Errors with Lightroom’s Calibration Panel →

Comments

  1. Wedding Photographer in DC says

    May 7, 2025 at 1:19 pm

    The last bit gave me a chuckle. My husband would most certainly agree and I can almost hear him say “Told you so” haha

    Reply
  2. bob lozano says

    May 9, 2025 at 2:44 am

    For my part, going to 11 is enough…

    Seriously thx for the recap of the realities. If a time comes where there are adequate approaches to inferring / extrapolating another couple of bits of `precision`, then the resulting extrapolated image could always be stored in 16 bit at that time. I have my doubts however, since the human eye will be the ultimate arbiter of images, by definition.

    Reply
  3. Javier Sanchez says

    May 13, 2025 at 10:07 am

    Also worth noting that switching cameras like the GFX100S to 14bit make them significantly more enjoyable and usable by noticeably decreasing the viewfinder blackout time between shots.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

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

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • 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 35-70 MF 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 How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.