Let's stop calling bits per channel "color depth"

Crusades can be tiring. They can end up in defeat. They can also end up being not much more than tilting at windmills.

There's all sorts of historically inaccurate things about color and just about any other subject that can try a person's resolve in seeing the larger body who use certain terms change from their historical inaccuracies. About the best you will be able to do is use your preferred language and be ready to explain what you mean if it is not readily recognized by the readership.

Color depth is also commonly called bit depth, which I think is more accurate. I view your preferred term(s) of "gradations of color = color resolution" as explaining the ramifications of greater/lesser bit depths.

Good luck...

Phil1923 said:

Hi Everybody,

I have a new crusade.

"Color depth" is a poor choice of words for 8 bits/channel vs. 16 bits/channel.
There is no "depth".  What's "deeper" about bits/channel.
The range of colors is identical in any color space for either choice.

The difference is the total number of gradations of color -- 16 million vs trillions.

I don't have a good name for it.  Perhaps "color resolution" ? ?

Phil  

I agree with you. Really, the color depth is the amount of available color on each pixel. For example, a monochrome bitmap has a depth of 2 possible colors (black or withe)on each pixel, Grayscale images has a depth of 256 posible tones or shades on each pixel, etc. 

Phil1923 said:

"Color depth" is a poor choice of words for 8 bits/channel vs. 16 bits/channel.

I like the term. Here's how I visualize things Phil, I made this diagram. Maybe a Corel color scientist can step in to suggest something else or correct me;