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

on 6/13/02 9:27 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:

> I disagree, as it is simply an inherent property of the image/media, just
> like a CD.  By "your" thought, you'd say that the image isn't on the film
> unless you're viewing it.  If the image exists, it's inherent properties
> exist, whether it's being viewed or not.


Well I'm not one to go that far, though some might as Laurie illustrated. I
guess what I'm saying is, at a minimum, how you measure or observe something
will determine the quality of your results. The real persnickety among us
might want to know what instruments were used to measure the characteristics
of the objects or systems we are looking at. For instance I'd imagine
different densitometers might yield different results, especially if they
use different light sources, or if the substrate they are reading is
sensitive to UV illumination or metameristic and one device exacerbates that
relative to another.

If I told you I took my film density measurements by shining a flashlight
through it and reading it with my spot meter would you feel I captured it's
absolute inherent properties?

Anyway, this IS getting obscure so I'll drop it, but I think we do observe
things relative to our methodology. We only accept things as "truth" when we
collectively agree on the approach. While I believe there may be an absolute
reality I don't feel we as mere humans have the capability to ascertain or
comprehend what that may be.

I only wish Dickbo were here to call me Rabbi Flashner...


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.