16 bit or 32 bit color

AMD_Man

Splendid
Jul 3, 2001
7,376
2
25,780
Yes, there's a huge difference in quality. No, there is almost no performance difference in modern cards.

Intelligence is not merely the wealth of knowledge but the sum of perception, wisdom, and knowledge.
 

jmecor

Distinguished
Jul 7, 2003
2,332
0
19,780
there's a slight performance degradation using 32-bit color.
Plus it requires higher Frame Buffer. At least 64MB for modern games such as UT2003.

<b>j</b>m<font color=red>//\</font color=red>ecor® <b>JAGGI<font color=red>E</font color=red>NAUT™<b> Graphics Processor
feat. up to <font color=green>16X</font color=green> Aliasing & <font color=green>32X</font color=green> Isotropic Fil.
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
If you have a very old card (TNT2, vodoo, Geforce2MX) then you can use 16bit to get better framerates.

But image quality does suffer and become noticably pixilated. you just dont get the nice shades.
Remember 16bit is only 64 thousand colours.
32bit is up to 4 billion.

With modern cards just use 32bit.

<b><i>Consumers have spoken -- they are tired of paying the high cost of CDs and DVDs and prefer more flexible forms of on-demand media delivery."</i>
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 

redstar

Distinguished
Aug 31, 2001
263
0
18,790
i was reading an article on doom 3.

it was saying that games use 24 bit colour and the other 8 bits are used for things like determining opacity of a pixel.

...that john carmack wants even more colour as 32 bit is not enough!

:)
 

lhgpoobaa

Illustrious
Dec 31, 2007
14,462
1
40,780
Thats correct... Saying it has 4billion colours available is somewhat simplistic.
24 bits usually, with the other 8 (256 shades) for your other effects.

<b><i>Consumers have spoken -- they are tired of paying the high cost of CDs and DVDs and prefer more flexible forms of on-demand media delivery."</i>
Regards,
Mr no integrity coward.</b>
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
Oh no...... Not again. Well it looks like I'll have to dig a link to an interesting thread with a discussion between Williamette & I. Don't get <i>too heated</i> at me for bring this back up, okay Williamette? :wink: I think y'all should all look at it. It's a very good thread, and I beleive both of us had some interesting points. I do advise NOT skimming through it but reading it very carefully.

I will post the link in my next post.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
The following argment examines the 16 & 32 bit arguementon a scientific perspective. It's definitly worth a goo read invested. I was still left with some unresolved issues myself about that matter I currently await to discover answers for. There are also exponential an logarathmic variables that I mentioned within mhy argume that I thhough were worth investigating.

<A HREF="http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=365710#365710" target="_new">http://forumz.tomshardware.com/hardware/modules.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&p=365710#365710</A>

This Link will place you at Page 3 of the Original topic.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by UFO_WARVIPER on 09/05/03 01:29 AM.</EM></FONT></P>
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
To AMD_MAN:
I would say there is a noticeable gap in quality, but it is extremely far from making "huge" differneces" in quality.


To the original poster:
But iF you can, try enjoying the games at 32-bit color if you don't take a big performance hit. It will be worth it.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

davepermen

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
386
0
18,780
i use now pc's for several years. i NEVER ever touched 16bits. there is NO reason to do. i started with win98, and it had colour bandings on the titlebar on every window thanks to 16bit. same in win2000. i could never watch photos on 16bit, or anything else. they look ugly.

tell me now a reason why i should step back in games.

well, i _could_ on a kyroII, as internally they still calculate in 32bit. but for anything else, 16bit quality degradation is rather visible. and ugly.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
I never suggested that anyone should step back if they can run 32-bit well. Unfortunately, many people in today's world still own systems with TNT2 or worse graphics cards and using 16-bit color in Hi-res texture details, Full Polygons, A decent screen resultion, and all the other settings cranked up to full against playing on very poor details and res. I had a system like this. UT did NOT look better on 32-bit with a low res, low polygon count, ona poor texture resolution. 16-bit is a much better alteranative in this case. In fact, I just recently replaced the graphics cards (Matrox G400 16MB) in one of the system that I had been using 16-bit in games & on the desktop. Whoops, I think I forgot to turn on 32-bit color on the desktop on that one. :smile: I suggest you give my debate with Williamette a read. I would rather you debate the points points of mine found in that thread rather than me having to retyppe them all here. I supppose I could do a cut & Past job. Admittedly I wasn't quite clear in my initial post. Just because I personally beleive the "real" difference in 16-bit & 32-bit isn't as great as everyone else builds it up to me doesn't make me a blithering idiot. A prime example of my cases is look at the quantum leap from 16 colors to 256 colors. 256 colors made FMV's a possiblitily. Remeber all those old StarWars games like Rebel Assuault II: The Hidden Empire. UT was definately worth its time playing on 16-bit on the Matrox card. I thought it looked fine. I though it looked great in fact. I know the colour scheme was neither as elaborate or exquisite as 32-bit on the other Graphics cards that I have (No I am not blind or retarded). I realize switching to 16-bit isn't a neccessary option for almost all gamers today, so I am not going to tell you why you should switch to 16-bit colour. As far as 2D-desktop, I can't really notice much difference between the 16-bit & 32-bit pallete settings in Windows 98 SE. Maybe its different in Windows XP. I haven't really experimented with a 16-bit desktop on my laptop. I'm really not a picky person, especially when it comes to the 2D desktop. I guess I need a good bonk on the head. Williamette_Sucks, will you do the honors? :lol:

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

Willamette_sucks

Distinguished
Feb 24, 2002
1,940
0
19,780
I actually never really finished debating you on the matter. I was gonna look for some info online (facts are good when ur arguing:) but was too lazy or something. I was actually hoping Dave would pick up where I left off on that thread.

"Mice eat cheese." - Modest Mouse

"Every Day is the Right Day." -Pink Floyd
 

cleeve

Illustrious
The only place the difference is REALLY noticable is in gradients... like smog or smoke type effects.

Otherwise, 16 bit is usually not bad at all... But it *is* slightly noticable, and 32 bit is nicer. :)

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529
 
Screw 32 bit I prefer 36+ for photos.

The difference is that motion isn't as quality intensive as static images IMO. Would you notice the diff. between 32 and slightly above in games/video? Probably not. In Photos, definitely. At least that's my experience, as to he whole original hread/debate, I think we're comin from diferent views. 'Good Enough' vs. 'Man at not much performance hit, I definitely want more!' That's my take on it.


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 

davepermen

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
386
0
18,780
hm? what? where? i missed something.. i know i did.. but what? help me! :D

ps.: soon its weekend, i can't wait to go home. i think thats the reason i don't make much sence anymore.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
I'm not saying there's an extemely small difference in the 2 palletes either. I'm just trying to say, the difference bececomes less & less apparent as the color upgrade increases. Your eyes, my eyes, and everybody's eyes are analog. I'm not saying analog is better or worse than digital. But what I am saying is that the optic nerve is only capable of deciphering between only so many wavelenths of color. My observation is that color pallettes increase exponentially in the amount of colors available inside the pallete, the difference in visual impact between each upscale grade of color is logarithmic inspite of color increase being exponential. My observation have been that the color upgrades at the bottom of the scale made more impact than upgrades on the upper end of the scale.

Monochrome/CGA/16 color VGA/ 256 color SVGA/ 16-bit colore/32-bit color/& maybe soon to come 64-bit color.

I doubt that 64-bit will be make a more noticeable improvement over 32-bit than 32-bit colour made over 16-bit. Look at 16 colors vs. 256 colors. Now look at 16-bit vs. 32-bit. Which made more visual impact on you? In my observation, I say that 256 colors compared to 16 colors, was a much more noticeable difference than the comparison between 16-bit color & 32-bit color. I know it sounds disagreable, but that's just my observation. I agree hands down that 32-bit color has thousands of times more colors available in the pallete than 16-bit, & that's not my arguement. Some day, there will be a visual limit, sort of like a gentetic bottleneck of how many colours our mind can interpret. For example have you ever gone to a paintshop, and tried to compare samples of paint between others, and some samples couldn't be distinguished between other samples while browsing on the same catalogue. I'm sure the wave length differed by some fraction of a nanometer between the 2 samples, but my eyes along with other people's eyes were incapable of both receiving the signal from the optic nerve and interpreting it in the brain.

P.S. Williamette, are you ever going to give me that whooping? :frown:

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

phial

Splendid
Oct 29, 2002
6,757
0
25,780
yes, i agree 100%


16bit color sucks, if you can tell the difference between it and 32bit, but 32bit is already close to as many colors as your eye can see

-------

<A HREF="http://www.teenirc.net/chat/tomshardware.html" target="_new"> come to THGC chat~ NOW. dont make me get up ffs @#@$</A>
 
Speaking of paint there is a genetic malformation (benifit though) that only occurs in women (and like 1 in 10-100million) that gives them an extra set of receptors in their cones (the ones in your eyes not in their bras). This gives them both sharper vision (vision accuity is usually associated with rods because of their greater number). Anyways, these women are usually highly sought after by the paint and fashion industries. They are able to easily discern between differen colour shades/gradients. I'm sure to these women even 32-bit colour needs improvement.

Man, I'd love to have THIS 'defect' (instead of the many others I have). :wink:


- You need a licence to buy a gun, but they'll sell anyone a stamp <i>(or internet account)</i> ! <A HREF="http://www.redgreen.com" target="_new"><font color=green>RED</font color=green> <font color=red>GREEN</font color=red></A> GA to SK :evil:
 

cleeve

Illustrious
Actually ape, that defect would suck...

Think of it this way... if you grew up seeing only 8-bit color, computer games would be SUPERPHOTOREALISTIC!

Better off with crappy vision and not knowing any better in the first place. ;)

------------------
Radeon 9500 (modded to PRO w/8 pixel pipelines)
AMD AthlonXP 2000+
3dMark03: 3529
 

davepermen

Distinguished
Sep 7, 2002
386
0
18,780
well, we need, internally at least, a 64bit colourspace at minimum, and this for non-high-dynamic range. why? because we need internally a linear colourspace, to do real math in it. problem: as you described, the real visible colourdifferences aren't linear, but logarithmic/exponencialhowever:D. and to not get banding effects there where we have the detail, we need at least 64bit colours to work with _IF_ we are in linear space.

we all know we aren't currently, we work in.. "gamma"-space. but all math is wrong there. and thats very unintuitive to work with for programmers.

then again, to do real math, we need hdr anyways, and there we need a much higher range.

but this is all internally. in the end, we need to gamma-correct (say "compress") it, into a 32bit buffer, and send that to screen. that works, and is enough.

its just important to have higher precision to GENERERATE the image.

"take a look around" - limp bizkit

www.google.com
 

ufo_warviper

Distinguished
Dec 30, 2001
3,033
0
20,780
So does this mean are current 32-bit cards have a "64-bit colourspace" that they use to work with? Oh BTW, Williamette & I were wondering if you were interested in the thread that we had going about color bits(actually it was initially one of those "HELP ME" threads) & if you or anyone else here had additional comments about that thread you want to post here.

My OS features preemptive multitasking, a fully interactive command line, & support for 640K of RAM!
 

ytoledano

Distinguished
Jan 16, 2003
974
0
18,980
I think that is a bit misleading, the other 8 bits are realy for making 256 shades of effects, but that's 256 x every color...

Roses are <font color=red>red</font color=red>, violets are <font color=blue>blue</font color=blue>, post something stupid and I won't reply to you!
 

kinney

Distinguished
Sep 24, 2001
2,262
17
19,785
I cant see the difference playing FPSs with 16 vs 32bit.

In windows 32bit is the only way for photos.

I think if there ever is a slower moving game, like an adventure game, with the detail that rivals something like Rise of Nations, 32bit would be a necessity for something like that.

But Q3A, UT2K3.. I can never tell unless I stand still and look at the skys.

Athlon 1700+, Epox 8RDA (NForce2), Maxtor Diamondmax Plus 9 80GB 8MB cache, 2x256mb Crucial PC2100 in Dual DDR, Geforce 3, Audigy, Z560s, MX500
 

TRENDING THREADS