> Yes, your log numbers make total sense, as usual. :-) > > But, as you imply, the theoretical numbers don't completely correspond to > "Real World" performance. Other factors literally enter into the picture. > Noise, for example, and the light/dark "star" (halo) aberations > for another. > > I guess my question is whether these relate to the function of > the CCDs or > the mechanical optics of the scanner. Or for that matter, both? I believe they relate to everything! One big issue for me, is A/D converters always lose the bottom bit, it's just the nature of the beast...so the bottom bit can be off by 1/2 the value of that code.
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief densi... Lynn Allen
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND br... Dave King
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AN... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND brief ... Dan Honemann
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AND br... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light - AN... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of light ... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification of l... Austin Franklin
- RE: filmscanners: Magnification ... rafeb
- RE: filmscanners: Magnificat... Austin Franklin