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 6/14/02 10:16 AM, Austin Franklin at darkroom@ix.netcom.com wrote:

>> Julian wrote:
>> There it is in your agreed formula.
> Yes, we are agreed as to the WORDING of the formula, but I do NOT agree with
> your misuse of the term "smallest discernable signal".  PLEASE go look up
> the meaning of the word "discern(able)".


I looked up "discernible" in the closest handy dictionary (American Heritage
Dictionary; a popular and reputable book in the States) and the definition
supports Julian's usage, as much as yours.

The definition is "Perceptible, as by the faculty of vision or the
intellect." So it's arbitrary as to whether it means that something *is*
seen or *can be* seen. Since the event and the viewer together are required
to discern, the use of the word discernible as the smallest signal that by
Julian makes sense in the context of the DR discussion. And a sensible
reader will take the ambiguity into account, so there no point in hammering
away about this. Your story is not made clearer by your position.

BTW--you misspelled discernible. But I'm sure that Julian knows what you
mean :)

As a side topic, I could use some more explanation of the term noise in this
DR context. Is the noise level an absolute level at which signal can no
longer be discerned? Or a level below which there is some uncertainty as to
the the signal. I've heard of a technique of using dither to allow recovery
of a signal below the noise level...


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.