SV: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits?
I'm not sure which thread or topic this really is, but since I really need help, I'll ask from my confused heart: Julian wrote: Now, let's unplug the 8 bit D/A, and plug in a 12 bit D/A instead, to the same circuit. My point is - NOTHING CHANGES. Then Ray Amos wrote: Is there anyone out there other than the participants who has any idea what they are saying? For us who think we understand some of it, but lately have started to doubt our earlier pictures of bits and stuff, is there any good place on the web where someone gives a thorough explanation of how D/A converters work - preferably with graphics? Like: what does "linearity" really mean in this particular context? Do more bits really mean finer discrimination between levels? What I think I need is a place that starts from basics but keeps on going to qualified definitions. Not yet hopeless, but lost Ingemar Lindahl
SV: filmscanners: Digest version, was:ADMIN: Please read
Just a reminder, based on whinges received . (2)Please QUOTE SELECTIVELY. There is no need to quote entire preceding msgs including headers. Just quote enough to make your msg. clear. This may be off-thread, if not fully OT: After a somewhat unfortunate start I've been following the list for some months now, becoming more and more impressed by the vast amount of knowledge flowing through. With not time enough to sort through all messages, I now have 1334 unread mails in the inbox. I realize that the digest version is the road to go in the future, but is there a way to read earlier postings in the digest format aswell? Or is there a site with the threads moderated/organized in some way where I can catch up? Any FAQ place? (maybe this should be sent directly to Tony, but he seems to be busy with other problems we cause him unwittingly). Thanks to this list, I've managed to get my school to invest in an Epson 1640! Ingemar Lindahl
SV: filmscanners: GIMP and Vuescan in Linux
Maybe someone already mentioned it: GIMP is available in a Windows version aswell. I have not used it much, but my son who does a lot of picture manipulation - on a very low budget - finds it quite good! Ingemar Lindahl - Original Message - From: Jim Linch [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 4:32 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: GIMP and Vuescan in Linux At 06:52 AM 11/21/00 +, you wrote: If you could consider an alternative windows program, you should try Picture Window. SNIP This is a superb, competent and stable program, little known but much recommended. SNIP I was using the Beta 3.0 also, and it is in my opinion the best Photo manipulation package available and the price is unbeatable. Unfortunately I have converted to Linux, and although Gimp is great, I miss the ease and power of PW. PS wait for the 3.0 release it is great strides ahead of the 2.5 version.
filmscanners: SV: filmscanners??: Resolution??. Scientific method??
I just joined the list. Give me one good reason to stay on! Where is the generosity? Where is the wish to explain what you really mean? Where is the touch of humbleness before the fact that most of what you claim is based on your own, by definition narrow, personal experience? And where is the real wish to share hard-found knowledge, practical or theoretical? Ingemar Lindahl - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, November 17, 2000 4:49 PM Subject: RE: filmscanners: Chemical Film Resolution. The comment about the current digital standard being adequate is totally wrong. I have over 13 years experience in designing high end digital audio recording and playback equipment. I know what I said was not wrong. Sony for instance has developed a new audio recording standard which has a higher sampling rate and 24 bits. The AES standard has always been 24 bits. If you knew what 24bits really meant in terms of audio 'quality', then you would know that 24 bits is useless. There are also several competing systems that offer 24 bit 96kHz sampling rates. Why are they spending all this money? Higher data rates (not sampling rates, there is a difference) means a far less analog filter system is required on the back end, and therefore costs less. 24 bits is not relevant. You don't understand the mechanisms involved here apparently. I won't even go into the reasons why the current standard is inadequate. I don't have that kind of time. And you don't have any real facts to back up any assertions you make because what you stated is completely wrong. Do you have any REAL experience in designing or testing digital audio equipment, or are you just parroting what you hear and read? I would appreciate if you want to discuss this further, we take this off list.
