Different versions of Slide scanned on Howtek

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here are 4 different versions. Main difference from previous ones is that this version was scanned using a custom CMS file. Tells the scanner how to scan the film vs software manipulation after scan. Lots of possibilities with this. First two are moodier while the second two are closer to the slide viewed on light table.

Not sharpened
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50392716656_4d51ac8017_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jM2R1m)

Sharpened
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50392887262_14b8c87dcf_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jM3HHQ)

Not Sharpened
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50392024118_49c76aebfb_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jLYi93)

Sharpened
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50392887582_33f6f49a3e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jM3HPm)

[Steven Ruttenberg]

This one was scanned using the preset Fuji RDPIII CMS file. Only other difference was the above were scanned with Aperture 6, while the one below was scanned with Aperture 13.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50380682313_25f3a5337e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jKYaBF)

Still a ways to go learning the scanner, but it is straight forward and holds some possibilities that the Epson does not. Working on my color interpretation (always the hardest) especially avoiding over doing it with Grand Canyon images.

[Tin Can]

I agree color is always subjective and most difficult, variations are useful to impose with artistic intent

I prefer the sharpened images as the river is better defined and the most influential artifact IRL

My recent post of a blue portrait, my decision, chosen for mood

[Corran]

I'd like to see a cell phone shot of the slide on the table. For comparison.

[Alan Klein]

Here's link to various software and manuals. http://www.aztek.com/Howtek%20Pages/User%20Guides.html

Do you use Trident?

[Alan Klein]

Here's how the bw negative was scanned for me.

The scan was done at 4000 ppi using the native aperture (6.35 microns) for that resolution. It’s 16 bit RGB directly into Gamma 2.2 Adobe RGB color space. Note the adjusted version was changed only to set the clipping points using Trident. I did not sharpen either of the Howtek furnished files.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here's link to various software and manuals. http://www.aztek.com/Howtek%20Pages/User%20Guides.html

Do you use Trident?

No. DPL

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I'd like to see a cell phone shot of the slide on the table. For comparison.

When I get a break from work I will post up.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here is image on light table.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

If anything, clouds would be a bit darker than the slide depicts. Saturation could be dialed back, but then the drama of the Canyon goes. Becomes more documentary. Not that there is anything wrong with that.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Here's how the bw negative was scanned for me.

The scan was done at 4000 ppi using the native aperture (6.35 microns) for that resolution. It’s 16 bit RGB directly into Gamma 2.2 Adobe RGB color space. Note the adjusted version was changed only to set the clipping points using Trident. I did not sharpen either of the Howtek furnished files.
https://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?158728-Howtek-8000-Drum-vs-Epson-V850-flatbed-scanners

Nice comparison.

[Alan Klein]

No. DPL

What's DPL? Is it Howtek's software?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yes it is Aztek's software they use for their scanner and the Hiwtek's. They bought out Howtek line many years ago. They offer training I may take them up on. They charge one price regardless of how many attend. Maybe we could get some people who own Howtek's and DPL to sign up and do online video training.

[Alan Klein]

Here are 4 different versions. Main difference from previous ones is that this version was scanned using a custom CMS file. Tells the scanner how to scan the film vs software manipulation after scan. Lots of possibilities with this. First two are moodier while the second two are closer to the slide viewed on light table.

Not sharpened
....
Sharpened
....
Not Sharpened
....
Sharpened
....

The 3rd and 4th samples' lighting was more even while the first two were lighter in the center and darker as you go out to the borders. Is that because you didn't use a Center Filter? How did you correct that in post? Which lens were you using?

[nbagno]

This one was scanned using the preset Fuji RDPIII CMS file. Only other difference was the above were scanned with Aperture 6, while the one below was scanned with Aperture 13.
https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50380682313_25f3a5337e_c.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jKYaBF)

Still a ways to go learning the scanner, but it is straight forward and holds some possibilities that the Epson does not. Working on my color interpretation (always the hardest) especially avoiding over doing it with Grand Canyon images.

One nice feature about DPL 8 is the Aperture check feature. You select an area and will automatically scan it multiple times using different apertures. Makes it rather easy to figure out which one to use on each film type. On my HR8000 the default go to is 16.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I have 7 but you can do aperture checks by turning on optvu or doing a manual check which is a bit more subjective. 7 also can’t do control points :(. Will upgrade to 8 soon and Aztek’s scsi to usb setup.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

The 3rd and 4th samples' lighting was more even while the first two were lighter in the center and darker as you go out to the borders. Is that because you didn't use a Center Filter? How did you correct that in post? Which lens were you using?

Correct. I really need to get one. I use the radial graduated filter in Photoshop to correct as best I can.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Same scene slightly different time. This was shot on Porta160. I used the Wide Gamut Uncorreted trany CMS file for prescan setting and Colorneg to convert. The scanned image does not play well for manual conversion. At least the way I learned. I really need to learn how to create a CMS file for scanning the negative as WYSIWIG so it plays well with however you chose to convert it. Seems to do okay with the scanner converting the file and you can still save it as a linear raw file. So that is a plus. Anyway, I make no claim to color "correctness", etc. I think it looks good, I am not happy with some of the red and can't figure out how to correct well. This is why I want to know how to create a CMS from complete scratch so I can get a good scanned negative to convert as I suspect the reds are due to the scanner settings from the canned CMS file.

All the above will be important for bw as well.

Getting better at mounting so that is not a challenge any more.

Ignore the crispy factor from whatever flicker does to the image when uploaded. I really hate that and they won't admit it.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50400040666_80813f1dd1_h.jpg (https://flic.kr/p/2jMFobo)

[Chester McCheeserton]

Looks good the highlights just look a little hot. My suggestion would be to try using wide gamet negative uncorrected. and use the densitometer feature and make little detail prescans of those highlights and make sure to keep the numbers below 230.

Do you work in PS using Adobe 98? The people I learned from taught me to always start by assigning the file to srgb if working from a color negative to start. You can always punch it back up using hue/sat or even assign just parts of the file back to Adobe 98 if you really need to. Understanding the difference between assigning and converting a file to a colorspace is something not many people actually understand.

also you see that big mounting bubble at the bottom – right?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Yeah. Good thing it is in area I can crop out.

I typically work in Adobe rgb. If I am converting from scratch and do scan without profile assigned. Then convert adobergb. Sometimes srgb first then to Adobe. Understanding color is not easy.

[SergeyT]

>> If I am converting from scratch and do scan without profile assigned. Then convert adobergb.

Assuming that you work in PS..
When you open an image with no RGB profile assigned and discard the color profile assignment, PS assumes that your image is in your Working RGB profile and then converts from Working RGB into whatever destination profile you did chose.
Adobe RGB is not large enough to cover all the colors that slide film can capture. Chrome Space 100, J Holmes (https://www.josephholmes.com/profiles/about-my-profiles) would be a better choice. ProPhotoRGB is another one but is less "safe".

[Chester McCheeserton]

>>
Adobe RGB is not large enough to cover all the colors that slide film can capture. Chrome Space 100, J Holmes (https://www.josephholmes.com/profiles/about-my-profiles) would be a better choice. ProPhotoRGB is another one but is less "safe".

Sergey, I respectfully disagree.

Yes, Prophoto can hold more theoretical color information then Adobe 98.

But using it or some obscure profile made by Joseph Holmes will not help Steven's files (or prints) look any better.

Adobe RGB 98 is more than enough, and is most often too saturated for natural looking color from a well exposed color negative. For slide film, I would just leave it in Adobe 98.

Nearly all scans from color negatives need to be assigned to srgb, in order to knock out weird crossover color and really get a neutral starting point in photoshop.

Steven - for your original chrome, I would suggest trying the kodak ektachrome setting in DPL. Producing a file that looks similar to your original. Then if you want to make it look way less blue and more warm, do that in photoshop using levels mainly, and curves more subtly, and hue/sat last. And obviously a lot of layer masking local adjustments, (which I assume you are already doing in the files you posted?)

[SergeyT]

>> Sergey, I respectfully disagree.

I am not going to argue. Just sharing my knowledge and experience. There were scans from positives presented in this thread as well. Quite a few commercial scanning shops used "Ekta Space PS 5, J Holmes" as their output space for a good reason. Adobe RGB is a non-starter for color negatives on a Tango. The orange and red hues captured by Tango simply do not fit into that space.

>> Nearly all scans from color negatives need to be assigned to srgb

I use sRGB only for small JPEGs that I intend to share electronically. My color negs are scanned as positives and get converted in PS from scanners input RGB into either Chrome Space 100 (almost always) or ProPhoto (almost never). But at the end there is not much of a visual difference between imaged proceed in either of the two. Chrome space has an advantage of being smaller than ProPhoto but still sufficient to fit most if not all colors from positive emulsions. It (or the set, to be precise) also allows to change chroma (saturation) without changing image data. Proven to work equally well with a variety of emulsions (Porta 160VC, 160, 400, 800, Ektar, Fuji 160NS, Pro 400H, Superia 1600) scanned on either CCD or drums scanners.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I use light masks and almost exclusively curves. I can sometimes have 15 or 20 layers to get subtle changes and everything I do is non-destructive so I can edit any point in the process or go back and find out where I screwed up.

As for color space, printers today can't even fully reproduce adobergb. Not much pointing working in any expanded color space s I n e in the end you need to goto adobergb for printing. Plus, when soft proofing prior to printing you can see where prophoto is outside the gamut by a lot for even the best papers and printers. In addition the monitors I use reproduce 99.9% of adobergb so no point again working in a color space I can't print. If strictly for the web again, you are converting to srgb which means a huge compression /alteration to fit prophoto into that space. And worse, most people on the net do not use calibrated monitors and ie, chrome, Firefox, safari. Flicker, zenfolio, etc mangle the picture upon upload or display. Not saying you don't get a decent image to share thru these programs, but I print so no point in working in a space I can't reproduce.

[Alan Klein]

I don't print much. So I do everything in sRGB since it gets posted on the web. Or I watch it on my 4K 75" UHD TV or monitor. My monitor is calibrated for sRGB. I have no idea what the TV is calibrated to other than what looks pleasant to my eyes. I scan color film mainly chromes or use digital photos.

So, I haven't noticed anything bad about any of the colors. Should I change to a different color space? What advantages?

I will be printing a book like from Blurb or another service. Does the color space matter for them? I believe they use offset printing. What color space should you use for offset printing?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

I am not sure about printing a book. I would see what the printer you are using wants. If doing yourself and everything already in srgb, adobergb may be better however, you would need to soft proof to make sure it looks like you intend after converting. Most likely srgb should be fine.

[Corran]

IMO, a lot of the time when folks who go down the rabbit hole of different color spaces end up just wrecking their files anyway, especially at the end level of printing or online sharing. You have to have an absolute mastery of all the variables and really have your process calibrated end-to-end.

Back when I was working at a different university I audited a class so as to use the university equipment (printers). I was using both digital files and scans. Everything I did was sRGB and I pretty much came in with edited scans/jpegs, did a couple small test prints, and then after some slight tweaks if needed made the master print. During this there was a digital color photography class also being taught and they were all instructed to use AdobeRGB throughout the imaging chain. Those poor students suffered to no end with bad color, color variability from file to print, and other issues. Several asked me "what was my secret." I told them I just use sRGB for everything. I think some of them switched w/o the instructor knowing to just using sRGB.

Furthermore, if I send out for color prints, almost always I get a perfect representation of what's on my screen to what I get in the mail. Unless you are working with a super pro lab who's giving you a calibration profile and you are doing many test prints (and inspecting them!), anything other than sRGB is asking for a whole lot of trouble and headache IMO. And no, Blurb is not a "pro lab" by any means. The only trouble I have ever had is with accidentally sending grayscale images rather than desaturated or slightly toned "RGB color" images. That was my fault though, and I received images with very slight reddish hues in the highlights that really only I noticed when in-hand and disappeared behind glass.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Agree. If you don’t know how to use a tool, you will end up making a mess of things. This true in any profession. You can have the best tools available. If you don’t know basics, you will ruin things every time while some with the very basic tool will produce a master.

I studied and study color space when I can and realized the level of complexity is unbelievable, like PhD and higher level and I realized that as much as I believe I know, I still know almost nothing.

[Alan Klein]

IMO, a lot of the time when folks who go down the rabbit hole of different color spaces end up just wrecking their files anyway, especially at the end level of printing or online sharing. You have to have an absolute mastery of all the variables and really have your process calibrated end-to-end.

Back when I was working at a different university I audited a class so as to use the university equipment (printers). I was using both digital files and scans. Everything I did was sRGB and I pretty much came in with edited scans/jpegs, did a couple small test prints, and then after some slight tweaks if needed made the master print. During this there was a digital color photography class also being taught and they were all instructed to use AdobeRGB throughout the imaging chain. Those poor students suffered to no end with bad color, color variability from file to print, and other issues. Several asked me "what was my secret." I told them I just use sRGB for everything. I think some of them switched w/o the instructor knowing to just using sRGB.

Furthermore, if I send out for color prints, almost always I get a perfect representation of what's on my screen to what I get in the mail. Unless you are working with a super pro lab who's giving you a calibration profile and you are doing many test prints (and inspecting them!), anything other than sRGB is asking for a whole lot of trouble and headache IMO. And no, Blurb is not a "pro lab" by any means. The only trouble I have ever had is with accidentally sending grayscale images rather than desaturated or slightly toned "RGB color" images. That was my fault though, and I received images with very slight reddish hues in the highlights that really only I noticed when in-hand and disappeared behind glass.

What's the expression? If it's working don't fix it.

A side question. Is anyone including me every going to realize whether its in Adobe RGB or sRGB, or ProPhoto, or whatever. How many colors do you need in a print or display? Isn't this sort of pixel peeking where it's not really going to make a differences other than to purists? I mean as long as the prints don't have a color cast or some other discoloring and are exposed correctly, it's going to look good.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

It really comes down to interpretation, intent and capabilities both of artist and equipment. I will say though trying to fit srgb into adobergb98 can lead to issues whereas fitting adobergb into srgb is much better. Easier to compress than to expand.

[grat]

What's the expression? If it's working don't fix it.

A side question. Is anyone including me every going to realize whether its in Adobe RGB or sRGB, or ProPhoto, or whatever. How many colors do you need in a print or display? Isn't this sort of pixel peeking where it's not really going to make a differences other than to purists? I mean as long as the prints don't have a color cast or some other discoloring and are exposed correctly, it's going to look good.

If you just want to display something on a web page, no, it probably doesn't matter, although it probably should.

If you actually want your colors to look right when you print on a digital printer, it is absolutely important.

Here's an interesting video showing soft-proofing on Affinity Photo-- even if you don't use Affinity, it's worth watching, because it does a very good job of demonstrating why color spaces actually matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8_yxRK7gA

[Alan Klein]

If you just want to display something on a web page, no, it probably doesn't matter, although it probably should.

If you actually want your colors to look right when you print on a digital printer, it is absolutely important.

Here's an interesting video showing soft-proofing on Affinity Photo-- even if you don't use Affinity, it's worth watching, because it does a very good job of demonstrating why color spaces actually matter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb8_yxRK7gA

Doesn't soft proofing have more to do with lightness and darkness of the print rather than color quality?

[Steven Ruttenberg]

No. It will show you whether or not your medium for displaying your image is capable of render g the color,saturation, etc of your image as you intended.

For example, an image done in Prophoto will have a lot of out of gamut colors when printing. If you just printed it, the print would look horrible and nothing like your image on screen. Soft proofing allows you to make adjustments so what you pri t looks as close to what you want.

[Alan Klein]

What gamut would you work in if all your printing was done in an outside lab?

[grat]

Doesn't soft proofing have more to do with lightness and darkness of the print rather than color quality?

I linked the video not so much for the soft-proofing info (although that's hugely useful), but it was one of the clearest demonstrations of how different color spaces affect the appearance of an image.

The fundamental issue is that there is no one-to-one mapping between the visible spectrum and the various bits-per-channel used to represent colors-- mapping 486nm (cyan) for instance, to a specific RGB value for 8/10/14/16 bits per channel isn't as straightforward as it sounds. Worse, everyone wants a standard that suits their purposes-- Adobe RGB, unless my memory has failed, was developed for desktop publishing back in the 1990's. It was an enhancement to the existing sRGB space. Neither covers the full CIELAB spec.

In early days, we had GIF which had exactly 256 colors to choose from-- and if you had a display that only handled 256 colors, your display would shift to that palette in order to display a GIF properly (xv, anyone?).

The color space is primarily for translation between display environments-- my sRGB space image will look approximately the same on my digital camera, my monitor, and your monitor, as long as all three are moderately close to "calibrated". If you want to print, or display on HDR, or process in other ways, it may be important to have both the right color space, and the right ICC profiles for your destination.

[Peter De Smidt]

Ideally, you want a space just large enough to contain the color extremes in your image. Bigger color spaces and smaller color spaces have the same number of colors, which is determined by the bit depth. What changes with color space size is the extremes of any given color that can be represented in the space. This means that the steps between colors are bigger in a bigger space.

[SergeyT]

...an image done in Prophoto will have a lot of out of gamut colors when printing.
Not neccesserely. As an example convert an image from sRGB into Prophoto. They will look identical. And "soft-proof" identical.


If you just printed it, the print would look horrible and nothing like your image on screen.
It may look just fine printed even if some colors are OOG. It all depends on the quality of printer profile, Color Management engine and rendering intent.


Soft proofing allows you to make adjustments so what you pri t looks as close to what you want.
I find soft-proofing mostly useless , especially soft-proofing for prints on matte paper.

[SergeyT]

What gamut would you work in if all your printing was done in an outside lab?

I would request them to provide a copy of their printer profile and convert my images into that profile. Then ask them to print as-is with no color management applied.

[Alan Klein]

Not neccesserely. As an example convert an image from sRGB into Prophoto. They will look identical. And "soft-proof" identical.


It may look just fine printed even if some colors are OOG. It all depends on the quality of printer profile, Color Management engine and rendering intent.


I find soft-proofing mostly useless , especially soft-proofing for prints on matte paper.
So what's your procedure to get the best print?

[SergeyT]

Try to get it right at the time of exposure...If light is not great or something else is "not quite" - better to pass on it - PS is not going to fix that (or I don't know how).
Critically review the image on light table (almost does not apply to color neg , unfortunately)
Scan if I like what I see. Either in scanner RAW or with just White Point set.
Bring the scan into PS.
Convert into working space if/as needed.
Dust cleanup (right over the image , I do not need to keep the dust on a separate layer in my already large file)
Edit to my liking using adjustment layers. If all falls into places during exposure then I can go with as few as 1 layer for either contrast or color balance or two for both. Other times it could be as many as 5-6 layers , mostly for making local tone adjustments to even out the luminosity across the image and make the relationship between tones look natural\pleasing (may not apply to B&W as there is nothing natural in B&W to begin with).
Saving in PSD.
Making a copy of the image. From this point all the work below is done on the copy.
Flaten.
Selective sharpening.
Resizing to desired print size in max printer output resolution. For initial test prints it is usually 4x6 in. [Optional: If the final print is 16x20 or larger and I am happy with how the 4x6 turned out I would make another test print at 8x10 in to be certain everything is right before I waste any paper and ink on a large print.]
Selective sharpening. The effect is best assessed at 50%, 25% or 12.5% magnification.
Conversion from working space (Lab or RGB) into printer's RGB (Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual, whatever works best for particular image) . For B&W it is always Relative Colorimetric. AT this point the image should look almost as it would print... I may check the histogram to see if there is any clipping. Slight clipping in one or two channels is usually ok. If clipping is too severe I may go back one step and apply a curve or desaturate a bit and then convert into printers RGB again.
Sending to printer with no color management (color management disabled) in both PS and printer driver.
Assessing the test prints in good light (day light on a sunny day) as well as in other less optimal conditions (artificial light, gloomy day light, etc). Usually I am lucky to nail it on the first try. Sometimes it takes another round of tweaking the layers and printing. In rare cases when I am not certain what the image needs I just leave it and move on to another one, until the right time comes...

[jnantz]

Hello Stephen
Are you planning on printing these images ( this image ) ? Will it be printed on paper, backlit on film? separation negatives made and a trichrome gum print? Gum over PT or silver?
While I love the different interpretations of the original slide sometimes its best ( for me at least - no clue about you or anyone else ) to think about how something will be enjoyed, ... and if it is going to be enjoyed off as a tangible work not on a monitor enlist someone whose mastery of whatever medium it will live on to help you interpret the way you want.
While the scan rabbit hole is deep, the print rabbit hole seems to be deeper, unless you are a wickedprinter.

Best of luck with your fun-stuff!
John

[Alan Klein]

Try to get it right at the time of exposure...If light is not great or something else is "not quite" - better to pass on it - PS is not going to fix that (or I don't know how).
Critically review the image on light table (almost does not apply to color neg , unfortunately)
Scan if I like what I see. Either in scanner RAW or with just White Point set.
Bring the scan into PS.
Convert into working space if/as needed.
Dust cleanup (right over the image , I do not need to keep the dust on a separate layer in my already large file)
Edit to my liking using adjustment layers. If all falls into places during exposure then I can go with as few as 1 layer for either contrast or color balance or two for both. Other times it could be as many as 5-6 layers , mostly for making local tone adjustments to even out the luminosity across the image and make the relationship between tones look natural\pleasing (may not apply to B&W as there is nothing natural in B&W to begin with).
Saving in PSD.
Making a copy of the image. From this point all the work below is done on the copy.
Flaten.
Selective sharpening.
Resizing to desired print size in max printer output resolution. For initial test prints it is usually 4x6 in. [Optional: If the final print is 16x20 or larger and I am happy with how the 4x6 turned out I would make another test print at 8x10 in to be certain everything is right before I waste any paper and ink on a large print.]
Selective sharpening. The effect is best assessed at 50%, 25% or 12.5% magnification.
Conversion from working space (Lab or RGB) into printer's RGB (Relative Colorimetric or Perceptual, whatever works best for particular image) . For B&W it is always Relative Colorimetric. AT this point the image should look almost as it would print... I may check the histogram to see if there is any clipping. Slight clipping in one or two channels is usually ok. If clipping is too severe I may go back one step and apply a curve or desaturate a bit and then convert into printers RGB again.
Sending to printer with no color management (color management disabled) in both PS and printer driver.
Assessing the test prints in good light (day light on a sunny day) as well as in other less optimal conditions (artificial light, gloomy day light, etc). Usually I am lucky to nail it on the first try. Sometimes it takes another round of tweaking the layers and printing. In rare cases when I am not certain what the image needs I just leave it and move on to another one, until the right time comes...

Thanks. It seems very meticulous and involved.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

Hello Stephen
Are you planning on printing these images ( this image ) ? Will it be printed on paper, backlit on film? separation negatives made and a trichrome gum print? Gum over PT or silver?
While I love the different interpretations of the original slide sometimes its best ( for me at least - no clue about you or anyone else ) to think about how something will be enjoyed, ... and if it is going to be enjoyed off as a tangible work not on a monitor enlist someone whose mastery of whatever medium it will live on to help you interpret the way you want.
While the scan rabbit hole is deep, the print rabbit hole seems to be deeper, unless you are a wickedprinter.

Best of luck with your fun-stuff!
John

Even ually I will print ising my Canon Prograf on Baryta type paper. The super heavy stuff. For black and white ai plan to migrate from digital prints to actual dark room printing


All this of course once we move into our home we are building. Unfortunately that is about a year from now before we can move in.

Thanks, I will.

[Steven Ruttenberg]

One thing to remember about number of colors/shades, etc. 8s that the more you can actually represent the smoother the transition from one to the next will be.

As an example look at an image that is comprised of only 256 colors or shades of gray. The transitions can be harsh as you move from one shade to the next or color. Now if I have 65 million colors or shades of gray, I get smooth and subtle transitions. The more I can represent the closer I get to how we truly perceive the world which is in analog.

Anolog is a continuous function, not discritized. In the world of math, if I plot a step function which digital is, I get a curve that looks like a stair case. I'd I only have 256 steps the changes are obvious and abrupt. If I have 65 million steps the curve is practically smooth depending on the size of the curve ( space it resides in).

If I take the limit of the function as it goes to infinity, ie, the number of shades/colors steps becomes infinite and I now have a continuous function. Ie, the way we see the world