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


This will be my last posting on this as we are (now) broadly in agreement.

One cause of the disagreement has been your use of terms that have had an
agreed understanding in the engineering world since long before scanners
in a non-standard way. I realise that you may have been "encouraged" into
this usage by the scanner industry, but it doesn't make it any less
confusing to the rest of us.

In engineering terms you are confusing dynamic range with signal-to-noise

I will make one final comment. In the post, to which this is a reply, you

> So, where on earth did you get the idea that I believe that I fail to
> understand that "increasing the number of bits from the AtoD does not
> necessarily increase the dynamic range of the scanner"????????
> from my four clips above, and ESPECIALLY the last one it should be
> bloody
> obvious that I completely understand what you believe I do not.

However, at 10:32 yesterday, you said:

> > However my point is that if you can reduce the noise level then you
> > can
> > increase the number of steps (by halving the step size) with real
> > benefit, but without altering the range.
> Correct, but that INCREASES the dynamic range.

Does not the first clip say "no increase of dynamic range" and the second
say "increases the dynamic range"?

I rest my case m'lud.

Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland
(To avoid confusion, British born and educated - recent move to Ireland)

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.