View Full Version : Dfx4/df4
06-09-2003, 04:17 AM
whats the diference between DF4 and DFX+4
06-09-2003, 05:02 AM
I don't use DFX+ but I do use Digital Fusion. From what I see on www.eyeonline.com the only significant difference between DFX and DF is that DFX is limited to 8bit color depth. Where DF is capable of working in 8bit, 16bit, or floating point color depths. Also DFX+ is broken up and sold in a more modular way so that you can buy the functionality that you need.
06-09-2003, 08:25 PM
06-11-2003, 12:03 AM
I take it that when they say DFX is 8-bit they actually mean 8-bit per RGB channel and not 8-bit as in 256 colours!?!?
06-11-2003, 12:15 PM
of course,otherway it will be useless.compositing in 256 colors????
06-11-2003, 03:28 PM
Haha, excellent, cheers. Badly worded though you've got to admit.
06-11-2003, 11:50 PM
I don't see how my post is poorly worded. I used the common lingo used in the compositing world to describe a file's depth. Both ways only give you a portion of the information about the file. For instance a file with a total of 32 bits per pixel could mean any of the following.
32 channels of 1 bit information
16 channels of 2 bit information
8 channels of 4 bit information
4 channels of 8 bit information
2 channels of 16 bit information
1 channel of 32 bit information
In the compositing world it's the amount of data in each channel that really matters so it just makes more sense to describe things as depth per channel. The print and web community may disagree but we all know they are the ones who are wrong :beer:
06-12-2003, 01:10 AM
Sorry, not your wording - the wording on the DFX site.
Incidently I come from a game development background and when someone says 8-bit they mean 256 colour.
I don't know anyone who would describe bit depth by a per channel figure. It's allways described as a total amount. But then I don't know anyone who composites for a living.
When I initially read the statement on the site I did take it the correct way, it was only upon re-reading did I notice they don't explicitly say "per channel" which made me question what I had seen.
Uh, anyway, living and learning as we speak. Cheers muchly for confirming the (almost) obvious.
01-15-2006, 10:00 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.