Finally!?
- Original Message -
From: Austin Franklin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2001 5:59 PM
Subject: RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 nowon B+H
web
>
> > In other words number of
> > bi
> In other words number of
> bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might
> be.
Absolutely correct! It is but one piece of the system, and the system is
only as good as its worst part.
> > Oh no!
> > Not this again.
> > The answer is one word - linearity.
>
>My reaction entirely :-)
But linearity explains only one half of the issue - that is, that you can't
do BETTER for dynamic range than what is implied by the number of
bits. Linearity doesn't make the most useful point
On Wed, 10 Jan 2001 23:16:57 + photoscientia
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Oh no!
> Not this again.
> The answer is one word - linearity.
My reaction entirely :-)
Regards
Tony Sleep
http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info &
comparisons
Hi Julian.
Julian Robinson wrote:
> Can someone help me here with some basic facts regarding this
> dynamic/density range business?
> ...snip...
> What is to stop me representing this by 4 bits or instead by 40
> bits? The only thing that changes is the resolution.
Oh no!
Not this again.
The