Apache-Talk @lexa.ru 

Inet-Admins @info.east.ru 

Filmscanners @halftone.co.uk 

Security-alerts @yandex-team.ru 

nginx-ru @sysoev.ru 




      :: Filmscanners
Filmscanners mailing list archive (filmscanners@halftone.co.uk)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range

Hi Laurie,

> >It does, you are right...but only to the point of reaching the
> noise level.
> >Once you have resolved down to the noise, resolving any further simply
> >doesn't give you any more information.
> Here is where I tend to get myself in trouble; but here it goes.  As a
> practical empirical matter of pragamtic significance, I agree and in my
> comments have sort of taken that as a given eventhough logically,
> analytically, and theoretically you could extend the descrete segments
> beyond the noiseless portions of the density range into the noise.  If one
> did so, it would be meaningless from an empirical and practical
> standpoint.


> That is my thinking and why I could not visualize noise in the equation (I
> suppose one could just define as a matter of definition the
> density range as
> being only the noiseless portion of the density spectrum ignoring that
> portion which lies below; but I guess I am reluctant to do this for
> analytical reasons of defining a phenomenon like the density range which
> often extends beyond the clean, noiseless, visable - taken
> metaphorically -
> elements of that phenomenon). But with respect to my conceptual
> understanding as it is, am I incorrect about this?

Hum.  I believe I understand what you are saying, I just have to think about
it a bit.  You are talking about noise, say in the shadows...where it
becomes quite non-linear (increases)...  If that's what you're saying, I

> >Simply put, dynamic range is the number of steps within the
> density range.
> >I believe we have no problem with the definition of density
> range...right?
> That is my generic understanding of what you have been saying,
> and one with
> which I understand and agree.  To carry it further, I also
> understand you to
> be saying in general terms that the bit depth (number of bits) has no
> bearing on the size of the density range, but it does determine the number
> of steps or segments that that density range is divided into (not
> necessarily the size of any of those steps or segments).


> Or to put it
> another way, the bit depth describes the structure of the dynamic
> range and
> not the size of the density range.  Am I off base or close to what your
> understanding is.

Nope, right on the dot!



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


Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.