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

Here I go again.  I understand what both of you are saying; and you are both
right except you are approaching the topic from two different points of view
and philosophies.  It is almost like the tree that falls in the forest
question at if it makes an noise if no one is there to hear it or not.  In
short if one assumes a phenomenological approach to the philosophy of
science and to the nature of knowledge and reality, one says their is not
any reality apart from that which is conceived, perceived, or experienced.
Truth is the coherence between reality and knowledge of it and not a
one-to-one correspondence. However if one assume a logical positivist
philosphopy of science and approach to knowledge and reality, one assumes
that their is an objective reality apart from our conception, perception, or
experience of it which is knowable and measurable independent of us and to
which our theories and knowledge correspond if they are true.   Anthony, I
believe is asserting something closer to the former, while Austin seems to
be assering somthing closer to the latter.

Austin, Anthony's assertion is similar to your saying that there is no
useful density range below the noise for any or all practical purposes -
even if it may or may not exist theoretically beyond our ability to
experience it.  This discussion brings to mind the Einstein versus
Heisenberg dispute over the uncertainty principle.

-----Original Message-----
From: filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk
[mailto:filmscanners_owner@halftone.co.uk]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:17 PM
To: laurie@advancenet.net
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range

> > ... if your luminosity range contains a 6 stop
> > range, which is within the tolerance of slide
> > film, and you shoot the scene on slide film and
> > neg film, of the two frames of film I believe
> > the slide frame would be the one with the higher
> > dynamic range.
> No passive system has dynamic range.  Slides and negatives do not, in
> themselves, have dynamic range.  Only the combination of a slide
> or negative
> with some sort of active process--such as viewing, scanning, exposure, or
> development--can have dynamic range.


That's absolutely wrong.  Film, in and of it self, has dynamic range.  There
IS noise in film, it exists whether it's being viewed or not.  There is also
a range of density that is recorded on the film, and that's all that is
needed to determine dynamic range.

Of course, you do have to do something "active" to measure the noise, just
like music has to be played to measure the noise, but that doesn't mean the
content doesn't have inherent noise, and range in it.  It seems like you are
claiming an audio system has no noise, because it's not turned on, which is
entirely different than the noise inherent in the media, which exists even
when it's not being "used".

> Slides and negatives have
> only density
> ranges inherently, not dynamic ranges.

So you claim film has no inherent noise, in and of it self, unless you are
"viewing" it?  Does the noise of music recorded on a CD not exist until it
isn't being played?

I think you're being really obscure here...


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

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.