Tony, >Number of bits have two main roles. They do indeed represent the theoretical >maximum density that a scanner could have if the electrical components were .up to scratch and could use those bits to their full. More importantly >though the number of bits determine with what resolution the scanner can see >the density levels that it is capable of scanning. Reread that last >sentence again!
Neither of the two points that are made, as I understand them, fits with my understandings. Under ideal conditions all things being equal, my understanding is that the bit depth if all those bits are capable of being used by the device at full capacity do not represent the maximum density that a scanner can have but the maximum ability of that scanner to capture in digital terms the details or discriminate between tonality at along the density range continuum (i.e., the dynamic range which the scanner can capture and digitalize within its desnity range) Namely, whether, in a denisty range from 0 to 100, the scanner can digitally discriminate between 10 discrete steps or 100 discrete steps. With respect to point two, it is not my understanding that the bit depth of a scanner has anything to do with the resolution that the scanner can see or read the density levels unless, of course, you mean by resolution the ability to make qualitative descriminations between different density levels or contrast steps within the contrast range or density range capable of being captured and digitalized by the device. >The number of bits represents the POTENTIAL density range that the scanner >is capable of. Scanner CCDs are linear devices I take issue with the statement that the number of bits represents the potential density range. Dynamic range yes; density range no. Secondly, I am not an engineer so I do not know for certain; but are we really talking about the CCDs or the DC converter when we speak of linear devices in relation to bit depth. Moreover, are either of them really linear devices in actuality? >Let us take our 8-bit scanner then - 8-bits gives us a total of 256 values >that the scanner can use to scan the image Are we really saying that the 8-bits are defining a density range of 256 equal units length from Dmin to Dmax as if this were a dimensional measure or that 8-bits are capable of breaking a density range of any dimensionality into 256 different, discretely defined sections as opposed to breaking the same density range into say 100 different descretely defined sections. For purposes of argument and because I lack the knowledge to say otherwise, I am willing to assume that the segments are identical equal interval segments and not ratio interval or non-equal interval segments of variying sizes, although that might also be theoretically problematic. >It's difficult describing this purely in layman's terms. If you don't >understand anything here then please say so and I'm sure we can >elaborate/simplify further. I understand the gist of your argument and explanation; but I am having trouble following the details or knowing enough to raise appropriate arguments or questions concerning the details or the conclusions you have drawn from them. I must say that the exchange between you and Austin and Austin and others on the subject has sort of gotten beyond my ability to comment on with respect to technical details and arguments. I am going to sit back and listen to the discussion, asking questions or raising issues in an attemt to make sense out of what is being said and why. I apologize in advance if I sound confused or way off base. I do appreciate everyone's help in my attempt to clarify things. -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tony Terlecki Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 7:46 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range - was: RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ? On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 09:43:00AM +0100, dickbo wrote: > Bits equals available grey levels per pixel > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 4:22 PM > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ? > > > >Another misconception...though equally as common...the number of bits the > converter > >has, have nothing to do with the scanners ability to capture any particular > >density range. > > Just out of curiousity and in simple layman's terms, what do the number of > bits that the converter has have to do with if not the density range? How > does it impact on what is captured? > > Austin, I am asking a serious question here out of my lack of knowledge and > sure would appreciate a good discussion in layman's terms so that I can > understand what is being said without having to hire an engineer to > interpret. It has always been my understanding, rightly or wrongly, that the > higher the number of bits the more detailed or refined the informational > date captured from the original that is transmitted as data in the digital > file with respect to highlight and/or shadow detail with the density range > figure representing the range of contrast that can be captured. In other > words, "dynamic range" representing the contrast range of the capture's > capabilities, while the bit depth represented the quality of the data > captured within that range particularly the extremes. If this is wrong, > please explain where and how it is and provide me with a more accurrate > description (but once again, I urge you to try and do it in non-engineering > terms if possible). > The number of scanner bits is a necessary but not sufficient requirement for seeing densities at a scanner's theoretical dmax (i.e. log 2^bit-depth). Number of bits have two main roles. They do indeed represent the theoretical maximum density that a scanner could have if the electrical components were up to scratch and could use those bits to their full. More importantly though the number of bits determine with what resolution the scanner can see the density levels that it is capable of scanning. Reread that last sentence again! Lets take a sample scanner which can only record film density up to a 2.4 dmax. This should be within the realms of even the cheapest modern film scanner hardware. This density limit is imposed by (let's say) the cheap design of the scanner and the manufacturer's requirements to be cost effective. Now lets take this scanner and give it an 8-bit CCD to start with. In a minute we'll give it a 14-bit CCD and see the difference. The number of bits represents the POTENTIAL density range that the scanner is capable of. Scanner CCDs are linear devices - it is important you understand this concept because it determines how well scanners can potentially see into the shadows. With a linear device each doubling or halving of a scanned linear data value represents a doubling or halving of light, or 1 stop, or 0.3 density units. Let us take our 8-bit scanner then - 8-bits gives us a total of 256 values that the scanner can use to scan the image. Let us look at the numbers to see how these data values can be spread out across a density range. I'm going to assume that the operator has placed the scanner's white point (value 255) exactly at the lightest portion of the film/paper. 128-255: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 64-127: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 32-63: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 16-31: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 8-15: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 4-7: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 2-3: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 0-1: 1 stop (0.3 density units) Note that I cannot go any further than this because I need at least two distinct values to represent a change in density. The 8-bit scanner then can scan up to 8 potential stops. It is impossible to see anything denser because it would need more bits. Even now you have so few bits at the shadow end that you would almost certainly have posturization. Let us move now to the same scanner with 14-bits to play with. How do those 8-stops map to the scanner data values? Well 14-bits gives us 16,384 values: 8192-16383: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 4096-8191: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 2048-4095: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 1024-2047: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 512-1023: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 256-511: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 128-255: 1 stop (0.3 density units) 64-127: 1 stop (0.3 density units) Heck we've reached 8-stops here and there's loads of bits to spare! Better still that last stop which, on the 8-bit scanner, could only be represented by either a 0 or 1 can now be represented by 64 distinct values. Undoubtedly you could get better tonal resolution in that last stop of shadow area with 14-bits. What about the values from 0 to 63 I hear you ask? Well as agreed at the start our scanner is only capable of recording up to 2.4 dmax from the film. This is a hardware limitation. What if they came along and created a better scanner which did better at seeing into the shadows? As a 14-bit device, it could use those extra bits to record information for densities greater than 2.4. For the 8-bit device there is nothing that can be done because you cannot halve the number of bits any further - you cannot have fractions of a bit. One other issue here is that I have been dealing with linear data. The norm is then to apply a power transform to this data (usually referred to as a gamma curve) so that the data values are better distributed according to human perception. We do after all interpret light logarithmically rather than in a linear fashion but we are getting beyond ourselves here and should perhaps save that discussion for another time! It's difficult describing this purely in layman's terms. If you don't understand anything here then please say so and I'm sure we can elaborate/simplify further. > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin > Sent: Friday, June 07, 2002 7:13 AM > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ? > > > > > However, it is rated with 3.2 dynamic range, which is a bit low for a 14 > > bit/channel. > > Even though they may call it "dynamic range", it is DENSITY range. Another > misconception...though equally as common...the number of bits the converter > has, have nothing to do with the scanners ability to capture any particular > density range. > > Austin > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title > or body > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- > ------------ > Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe > filmscanners' > or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title > or body > > > -- Tony Terlecki [EMAIL PROTECTED] Running Debian/GNU 2.2 Linux ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body