Hi Pete,
At 10:11 13/01/01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>And nobody, as far as I've read, is arguing that bit depth DOES define Dmax..
What I understood from Ed's and others' original point was that
manufacturers were stating their Dmax (or dynamic range or density range)
based only on their D/A bit depth. That was the point of this whole
discussion for my part.
>The original argument was that ANY old density range could be squeezed
>into any
>number of bits, wasn't it?
Yes that is where I started from, but after reading the posts from the last
time this was discussed, I now know this is wrong - rather it is one-way
thing. You can have a density range which is anything you like so long as
it is worse than that implied by the number of bits, but you can't have a
density range that is better than implied by the number of bits.
It is this last point that is the bone of contention - manufacturers are
saying "ours is 14 bits so our density range is 4.2 wow isn't that a good
figure", and that is probably crap in the case of the consumer level
scanners we are talking about. It MAY be 4.2 but is most likely is much
less than that - that is all I am saying ... I think.
Cheers,
Julian
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
