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



It is my conclusion that Austin is either a genius and nobody else can see
through his genius thoughts and reasoning or he just insists on his point
until everybody else gets tired of and stops 'discussing' which he in return
interprets as an agreement to his statements.... Hey, ;) ;) ;)

Rob

> -----Original Message-----
> From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> [mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Jonathan King
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 10:48 AM
> To: filmscanner@meierlim.com
> Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
>
>
> On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 11:46:10 -0500, Laurie Solomon wrote:
> >Thank you for this very lucid and clear definition;s clarify
> >things
> >for me on this front with respect to the concept of "resolution."   Then,
> >am
> >I correct in saying that notions such as dpi, ppi, number of pixels, and
> >bit
> >depth are all means of measuring resolution but from different
> >perspectives?
>
> I'll jump back in for a moment.  Resolution is being used in the sense of
> being able to separate something into parts.
>
> DPI, PPI,# of pixels are all ways of measuring how a scanner can separate
> an image into multiple(Ok, thousands or millions of parts) in space.
>
> Bit depth will determine how finely a color can be described as different
> "shades" of R, G, or B.  Or how many shades of R,G, or B there are to
> describe the color at any individual pixel.
>
>
> As far as the rest of the argument - be careful what you take from it.
> There is just too much arguing and misinformation flying around as fact.
> Add to that a good dose of arrogance and asocial behavior, and a real
> discussion just doesn't seem to be happening.
>
> Jon
>
>
>
>
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> >[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:11 AM
> >To: laurie@advancenet.net
> >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
> >
> >
> >"Resolution" can refer both to the ability to distinguish between
> >different
> >intensities and the ability to distinguish between spatially separated
> >details.  It can be used to refer to the distinctions between different
> >hues
> >or saturation levels, too.  It just means how much or how many
> differences
> >can be seen or rendered in some aspect of the image.
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Laurie Solomon" <laurie@advancenet.net>
> >To: <anthony@atkielski.com>
> >Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 06:34
> >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range
> >
> >
> >I am not going to get into this highly technical discussion where I do
> not
> >belong as an active participant; however, I do have a question.  When you
> >say, "Resolution here is the number of discrete shades of R, G or B," are
> >we
> >using the same term, "resolution," or using the term in the same way as
> >when
> >we speak of "resolution" in terms of ppi, dpi, line pairs, or number of
> >pixels?  If so, I am confused since I did not think that this really had
> >anything to do with the number of discrete shades of R,G, or B but with
> >the
> >number of R,G, and/or B pixels that there were regardless of the shade
> >they
> >portrayed.  I further understood the number of discrete shades to be
> >represented by "bit depth" not "resolution."
> >
> >If the term, "resolution," is not designated the same thing as indicated
> >by
> >ppi, dpi, line pairs, and numbers of pixels but  is being used
> differently
> >or to designate something entirely different then knowing this is the
> case
> >would reduce my confusion and clarify the comments for this layman.
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
> >[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Jonathan King
> >Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 10:45 AM
> >To: laurie@advancenet.net
> >Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
> >
> >
> >Ok, I bitten my tongue long enough.  It hurts!
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 10:32:30 -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>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.
> >>
> >>Hi Peter,
> >>
> >>Correct, but that INCREASES the dynamic range.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >No it doesn't.  You are confusing dynamic range and resolution.  Doubling
> >the number of steps & halving the step size will keep the same dynamic
> >range, but it will double the resolution.  Resolution here is the number
> >of discrete shades of R, G or B.  Peter's point is that if the noise of
> >the system is greater than the step size, decreasing the step size will
> >just digitize noise - Not Good, unless you play with digital processing
> >techniques, as alluded to.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>>My principle argument was that a 5000:1 ratio does not specifically
> >>>define
> >>>that 5000 steps are requires
> >>
> >>Well, yes it does...that's what it means, with respect to what we are
> >>talking about.  Go download a few linear CCD specs (or if you want, I
> can
> >>mail you some), and you'll see they talk about it in exactly the same
> way
> >>I
> >>do.
> >>
> >Try this one, unless there is a better example.  It looks like a nice CCD
> >for a 4000dpi, 120 film scanner?
> >
> >http://www.kodak.com/US/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/ccd/kli8023Long.pdf
> >
> >FYI Kodak defines dynamic range pretty much the way engineering schools
> >I've attended in the U.S., and apparently Ireland, do:  Max. Output level
> >divided by the dark noise level.
> >
> >>>Just a quick question - do CCDs really use a +/- voltage swing? I'd
> have
> >>>thought that would have introduce noise problems around 0.
> >
> >It looks like the Kodak chip uses only positive voltages, but the output
> >has a DC offset that the buffer amplifier and A/D have to deal with.
> >
> >
> >If you want to split technical hairs, please at least be willing to state
> >and consistently use terms.  First Nyquist, and now this.  It has the
> >appearance of trying to baffle the non-technical( Wow, photographers
> don't
> >need engineering degrees? ;), but doesn't provide any clarity.
> >
> >Best Regards,
> >
> >Jon
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> >--
> >------------
> >Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >filmscanners'
> >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title
> >or body
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> >--
> >------------
> >Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >filmscanners'
> >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title
> >or body
> >
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> >--
> >------------
> >Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >filmscanners'
> >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> title
> >or body
> >
> >-----------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------
>
> >--------------
> >Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
> >filmscanners'
> >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message
> >title or body
> >
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----------------------
> Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with
> 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
> or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the
> message title or body

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



 




Copyright © Lexa Software, 1996-2009.