AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
Austin,
> > No! I don't! Please read. I say it is "usually" determined
by
> > noise, because noise is what USUALLY determines the smallest possible
> > signal. WHat I
Hi Julian,
> > > No! I don't! Please read. I say it is "usually"
> determined by
> > > noise, because noise is what USUALLY determines the smallest possible
> > > signal. WHat I actually say is dynamic range is based on
> > > largest possible
> > > signal and smallest possible signa
Austin,
> > No! I don't! Please read. I say it is "usually" determined by
> > noise, because noise is what USUALLY determines the smallest possible
> > signal. WHat I actually say is dynamic range is based on
> > largest possible
> > signal and smallest possible signal. I thought t
Hi Julian,
> In your example above, *IF* your 100v and 98 v etc were AC signals (and so
> the 98V is the noise level), then the dynamic ranges are exactly as you
> disparagingly calculate them, 1.02 in the first case and 3 in the second
> case. That is correct, and that is what the definition f
n discussion
on mathematics !
- Original Message -
From: "Don Marcotte" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2002 5:54 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
If this thread continues any longer, I will put all of the partici
>experience it. This discussion brings to mind the Einstein versus
>Heisenberg dispute over the uncertainty principle.
>
>-Original Message-
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
>Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:17 PM
>To: [EM
Austin,
There are at least two of us esteemed engineers who disagree with you on
this list...
At 03:06 12/06/02, Peter wrote:
>Julian,
>
>I am in total agreement with you.
>
>Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland
I point this out not to score a point, and I would never say or believe
that the
Austin - of course RMS measurement applies to dynamic range. I think the
fact that you say this points to where your view differs from the rest of
the world, but I'm damned if I can work out how...
Remember the definition from the book *you* posted and *you* agree with:
>the Dynamic Range equat
Austin,
Here is a labored sequence of points to which I would appreciate your
response - maybe it'll help things.
For others, this is about Dynamic Range or "DR" below.
Here we go.
Previously you promoted a definition of Dynamic Range by saying:
"the Dynamic Range equation out of "Digital
ehalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:17 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range
> > ... if your luminosity range contains a 6 stop
> > range, which is within the tolerance of slide
> > film, and you shoot the scene on slid
>> Slides and negatives have
>> only density
>> ranges inherently, not dynamic ranges.
>
> So you claim film has no inherent noise, in and of it self, unless you are
> "viewing" it? Does the noise of music recorded on a CD not exist until it
> isn't being played?
>
> I think you're being really
on 6/12/02 9:33 AM, Austin Franklin wrote:
> Which is true...as he says "as seen by the scanner"...and, some people take
> that to mean that slide film has more dynamic range, but the slide film in
> fact has less dynamic range than negative film, though slide film does have
> a higher density r
at doesn't
mean some vendor can't make their own equation ;-)
Regards,
Austin
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Julian
> Vrieslander
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:44 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subje
> I think the rest of us non-techies will settle for
> Wayne Fulton's explanation at
> http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html
>
> Gus
Hi Gus,
Wayne and I have had a few conversations on this (and other) issue(s). He's
changed a few things on his web site due to our discussions, so I am
familia
Austin and Peter,
I don't know which of you wrote this quote below, but it threw a big light
bulb on above my head as to where part of the confusion comes from. If
either of you really thinks this then it must be a complicated business to
get into bed at night! ...
This post has 3 sections, h
MAIL PROTECTED]
>[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Anthony Atkielski
>Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 3:11 AM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
>
>
>"Resolution" can refer both to the ability to distinguish between
>different
> Woah, Peter...what non-engineering standards are you talking about?
> What I
> specifically quoted as the formula for dynamic range is straight out of
> an
> engineering Bible for signal processing. I've also been an engineer in
> this
> VERY field for more than 20 years, so I don't understand
Austin,
This will be my last posting on this as we are (now) broadly in agreement.
One cause of the disagreement has been your use of terms that have had an
agreed understanding in the engineering world since long before scanners
in a non-standard way. I realise that you may have been "encourage
Julian,
I am in total agreement with you.
Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriat
> If the term, "resolution," is not designated the same thing as
> indicated by
> ppi, dpi, line pairs, and numbers of pixels but is being used
> differently
> or to designate something entirely different then knowing this is the
> case
> would reduce my confusion and clarify the comments for thi
At 08:52 AM 6/11/2002 +, you wrote:
>Group -
>
>I couldn't agree with Geoff more, and have commented about dickbo's toxic
>mouth in the
>past. I wonder why he is still allowed to be on this list at all. One
>doesn't have to be
>from "the Antipodes" to be offended by a living cesspool.
>
>Rodg
y
way that suits me.
Amen
- Original Message -
From: "Major A" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 8:46 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
Dickbo,
> A man of God speaks...and having spoken speaks yet agai
-
From: "dickbo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2002 5:28 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: Density vs Dynamic range
A man of God speaks...and having spoken speaks yet again and no doubt in due
course will perform a miracle which mig
Dickbo,
> A man of God speaks...and having spoken speaks yet again and no doubt in due
> course will perform a miracle which migh, with any luck at all, include
> keeping his mouth well and truly shut more often than before
>
> Now sod off you jerk
Can you stop this please? This is an email
t; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 9:16 PM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range
Yeah, but Dickbo...obviously you don't understand what it means. It's got
errors in it...but corrected, it's saying exactly what I&
> >Dynamic range is, in our case, (dMax - dMin) / noise. Density range is
> >simply dMax - dMin. Dynamic range is the number of discernable values
> >within a density range (in our case). Density range is simply the max
> >density value you can get minus the minimum density value you can get.
>
>
> On 6/10/02 6:30 AM, "Julian Vrieslander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > The signal could have been anything between (x + 0.0005) and (x +
> > 0.0005).
>
> Woops. This is what I tried to type:
>
> The signal could have been anything between (x - 0.0005) and (x +
> 0.0005).
>
I knew what you me
Austin,
I think we may have some fundamental problems regarding some of the
terminology. I'll try to explain my understanding of it. As an aside, you
have stated that you design scanners for a living - perhaps you could
explain where in the team you fit as it must be a multi-disciplined
environme
Hi Laurie,
> >Dynamic range is, in our case, (dMax - dMin) / noise.
> I guess I tend to want to stay away from that definition in part because I
> am not really able to visualize it very well
http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg
> Alas, you are beginning to lose me because of my li
> You could help yourself by forgetting all about dynamic range, which is a
> term pertinent to thos who manufacture and design CCD type devices.
> If you are a photographer all that should concern you is density range,
> because that is the range that carries visual information from
> the origina
> > It's (my initial statement you disagree with) hardly an
> over-simplification,
> > in fact, it is about as complete and accurate as you can get.
> It is a plain
> > and simple fact that a dynamic range of 5000:1 requires 13 bits
> to represent
> > that full dynamic range. Again, 1 is the fir
On 6/9/02 11:02 PM, "Austin Franklin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It's (my initial statement you disagree with) hardly an over-simplification,
> in fact, it is about as complete and accurate as you can get. It is a plain
> and simple fact that a dynamic range of 5000:1 requires 13 bits to repre
ssage -
From: "Laurie Solomon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 10, 2002 5:07 AM
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range
>Dynamic range is, in our case, (dMax - dMin) / noise.
I guess I tend to want to stay away from that defin
meanings.
Nevertheless, I really appreciate the time everyone is taking to nurse me
along in my attempt to decipher the discussion.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 10:15 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subj
> > Plain and simple, do you agree that a dynamic range of 5000:1 REQUIRES
> > 13
> > bits to represent every integer value between 1 and 5000? If so, then
> > where's the problem? If not, then plain and simple, why not?
> >
> > Austin
> >
Hi Peter,
Sorry if I sounded a bit surely in my last r
Hi Laurie,
> The first point of confusion in your discussion with Austin appears to be
> that what you are referring to as "dynamic range" he is referring to as
> "density range" or that you are using the two terms synonomously
> while he is
> using them as naming two different concepts.
Dynamic
xercise in clarification for my own benefits
and not as a criticism or assertion that mu understandings are truth.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2002 12:05 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [fi
> Plain and simple, do you agree that a dynamic range of 5000:1 REQUIRES
> 13
> bits to represent every integer value between 1 and 5000? If so, then
> where's the problem? If not, then plain and simple, why not?
>
> Austin
>
I think where we differ is the assumption the a 5000:1 dynamic range
Peter,
> > CCDs, in and of them selves, don't have anything to do with number of
> > bits,
> > as they are analog devices, but their dynamic range does... If the CCD
> > has
> > a dynamic range of 5000:1, it will require a 13 bit A/D to be able to
> > extract the full dynamic range of the CCD.
>
>
> CCDs, in and of them selves, don't have anything to do with number of
> bits,
> as they are analog devices, but their dynamic range does... If the CCD
> has
> a dynamic range of 5000:1, it will require a 13 bit A/D to be able to
> extract the full dynamic range of the CCD.
>
> Regards,
>
> Au
. 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]
S
L PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2002 12:18 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range - was: RE:
opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ?
> Hi Tony,
>
> > Number of bits have two m
> I find this conversation fascinating and hope you will stay the
> course with all
> my (possibly naiive responses.) I'm no expert at all but I have
> ideas that I
> thought were true and I'd like to work them through with you whatever the
> outcome...
Hi Tony,
I'll do my best ;-)
> On Sat, Ju
Austin,
I find this conversation fascinating and hope you will stay the course with all
my (possibly naiive responses.) I'm no expert at all but I have ideas that I
thought were true and I'd like to work them through with you whatever the
outcome...
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 01:18:17PM -0400, Aust
Tony,
> 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
On Sat, Jun 08, 2002 at 10:42:39AM -0700, M. Denis Hill wrote:
> "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."
>
> Wouldn't that be an 8- (or 14) bit A/D converter, rather than CCD? In other
> words, are not CC
ans anything in terms of the content of the
discussion; but it does help keep clear who was posting to whom and when.
:-)
-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: [film
"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."
Wouldn't that be an 8- (or 14) bit A/D converter, rather than CCD? In other
words, are not CCDs analog devices providing voltages that are converted to
digital repre
: Saturday, June 08, 2002 6:42 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range - was: RE:
opinions? Reviews? of Primefilm 1800 ?
Hi Laurie,
> In so far as my use of the two terms in the mistatement, "dynamic
> range" and
> "density range
> Hi 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.
>
> Not true. You can represent ANY density by any numbe
Hi 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.
Not true. You can represent ANY density by any number of bits. I can
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 Pr
Hi Laurie,
> In so far as my use of the two terms in the mistatement, "dynamic
> range" and
> "density range" tend to be used in the literature and manufacturer's specs
> synonymously as denoting the same thing (ie. the contrast range),
Yes, I know...(heavy sigh). Marketing people tend not to r
Austin,
> That is correctproviding the system can actually take
> advantage of those
> bits. If you have a 24 bit converter, and 12 bits of it is
> useless (noise),
> then what good are the 24 bits?
Yes, that is a given (I understand that and accept that as a limiting
condition).
As for the
54 matches
Mail list logo
