[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

Peter,

> Some time ago you promised us a paper setting out your definition,
> derivations and sources.

I HAVE provided definitions, clear, concise definitions.  I have also
clearly provided my assertions etc.  I said I would write-up something, I
never made any PROMISE to do so, nor stated any time frame for doing so.

> Until you do this and circulate it, off forum,
> to those of us who offered to do a peer review I suggest you keep quiet.

I find your "request" unquestionably arrogant and completely out of line.
I'll discuss what I want, within the guidelines of this newsgroup.

> I don't want to get into a further debate until you verify your
> assertions.

I don't need to verify anything on this subject.  What the purpose of my
proposed paper was, was simply to provide all the information that I have
already posted on this subject, as well as any other information I may have,
plus possibly some diagrams explaining concepts further.  As you somehow
believe there is something wrong with my understanding of dynamic range
(which I know are correct, and the ISO spec backs up my understanding as
well), I suggest it is you who should "verify" his assertions.

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body