Exactly - better expressed than I would have put it. Julian At 01:12 12/01/01, you wrote: >"Colin Maddock" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Won't the 12bit a/d converter allow the information > > between 4mv and the 1mv noise level to be resolved? > >It may, but I think Julian's point is valid which is that for >a given sensitivity from the analog circuitry, changing the >A/D won't make any difference to the density ranges >that the analog circuitry resolves. It only increases the >accuracy with which we read the range of analog values >that the CCD *does* resolve. > >Rob Julian Robinson in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So i... Austin Franklin
- filmscanners: 1:1024 range... Rick Trelles
- Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 r... Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 r... Rick Trelles
- Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 r... Rick Trelles
- Re: filmscanners: 1:1024 r... Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the b... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's ... Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's ... photoscientia
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Ray Amos
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty
- SV: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Ingemar Lindahl
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Viacheslav Zilberfayn