Talk:Deep color

Spelling regarding one link
I'm not entirely sure what Wikipedia's policy on this is, so I'll ask here. There was an issue with the spelling of "colo(u)r" on this page -- the page's title is "color", so I changed all instances of "colour" appropriately. The problem is that one of the links became a redirect this way -- the target page is under the "colour" spelling. So I have a piped link displaying the American spelling but pointing to the British. This seems horribly inconsistent, though (an article about "color" linking to an article about "colour"?), but, as I've said, I don't know how Wikipedia handles these things, so I leave this to you. --kaoskastle (Talk) 15:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Your changes were the proper way to handle it. See WP:ENGVAR for the relevant policy. VMS Mosaic (talk) 08:58, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Added a message box on this issue in case there are any future questions. --GrandDrake (talk) 01:51, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Deep Color is not all marketing hype
This article is very negative on Deep Color. Although it is true that the human eye cannot possibly distinguish between all the possible colors, almost all people CAN see the banding in any image that has pure R, G or B regions. Take for example a pure blue gradient (that has no red or green components). Since the blue channel only has 8 bits of information, this means that there are only 256 possible shades of blue. And this results in very obvious "bands" that are extremely irritating to the human eye. This is especially obvious in computer animations and games. In my opinion, this is the REAL reason behind Deep Color, and has been marketed as such. This article is very poorly written, and completely biased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Unherdable (talk • contribs) 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)