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



Thankyou Don - I signed up about a week ago and can't believe how long this
rubbish has gone on.

What is the saying -" We must agree to disagree." or somthing like that .
I had hoped to learn and maybe contribute a little about scanning and not be
subjected to a full blown discussion
on mathematics !


----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Marcotte" <donmarcotte@shaw.ca>
To: <cameraman@xtra.co.nz>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:54 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range


If this thread continues any longer, I will put all of the participants in
my killfile. That would be a shame because I think you all appear to be the
kind of people that I would normally like to read the comments of. This
isn't like a Usenet group where I can easily ignore a thread. Instead my
Inbox is continually bombarded. Can we not take this offline, please?

Don

At 08:49 PM 12/06/2002 -0500, you wrote:
>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.
>
>Anthony,
>
>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...
>
>Austin
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
>------------
>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.