Talk:Colour banding

Limited gamut
"Colour banding is more present with relatively low bits per pixel (BPP) at 16–256 colours (4–8 BPP), where not every shade can be shown because there aren't enough bits to represent them." This sounds more like posterisation since it is not necessarily a function of colour saturation. Banding occurs when multiple colours in a wide gamut are clipped to the boundary of a limited gamut. This means that several tones of a hue are mapped to the same colour, flattening out any modelling or rounding that these tone gradients might have been representing, e.g. the curved cylinder of a Royal Mail post pillar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hfinger (talk • contribs) 04:54, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image labels
The image to the Article is not right, its shows the problem of banding, but it labes an 8 color(3bit) gradient as 8 bit gradient(but the right image repesents an 8 bit gradient, since its only one color channel which is usually 8 bit)


 * The caption is correct though. ~Kvng (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes the image needs to either be remade or the completely misleading text cropped off the bottom.Spitzak (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Banding is very prevelant for 8 bit colour (24bit total) also.
The 24bpp spectrum looks convincing... but if you blow it up banding will become very apparent. Don't ask me how many bpp would be necessary to satisfy the human eye, but its much better than 8bits per colour channel. This is a problem for video games for example. A large swath of sky can be very banded if it doesn't transition through very many shades very quickly throughout. --Truth Glass (talk) 01:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Change title to "Color banding"
I fixed everything that I could to fix the misspelling of the word "color", but I couldn't change title.


 * Hello, thanks for your concern. However, the spelling "colour" is not a mis-spelling but instead it is the spelling used in British English, which is common in many parts of the world. See here for more details. Now, Wikipedia policy is that the spelling in an article should not be changed from one variant to other if there is no good reason to do so and hence your edit was undone (by another user). Also, the title is fine for the same reason. Thanks, extra 999  ( talk ) 15:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Blurring won't fix it?
"Because the banding comes from limitations in the storage of the image, blurring the image does not fix this." 1) it's not about storage, as it's properly explained in the first paragraph. 2) blurring obviously could fix it, because blurring is effectively dithering image. And indeed blur is one of the simplest ways to deal with it. It's a Gimp's built-in lens blur I used on it - https://imgur.com/FFaomuO - it has some darker strips all over, but that's because original image doesn't show bands, but a few banded gradients, which would be a third issue. 89.69.127.250 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Blurring where the blurred image is calculated at higher color resolution and then translated back to the original color resolution using dithering, would in fact hide the bands. However if you just use Photoshop and shove the blur up, it truncates or rounds the blurred value to the color resolution, producing pretty much exactly the same image you already have.Spitzak (talk) 18:40, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have changed storage to presentation to be consistent with the first paragraph. I agree with, blurring can be part of a fix but dither must do the heavy lifting. ~Kvng (talk) 14:43, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Posterization
I think this article can be made more coherent with posterization, i.e. make them both complement and cooperate with each other, since both of these articles are looking at the same effect by different perspectives (art versus computer graphics).172.218.5.205 (talk) 05:50, 3 April 2022 (UTC)