[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-10 Thread Arthur Entlich
be a great scanning discussion group but I get these kind of post cluttering my mail box. Makes me want to unsubcribe right now!!! - Original Message - From: Austin Franklin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, August 09, 2002 10:35 AM Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-10 Thread Austin Franklin
Basically, what it comes down to is that if you want more signal and less noise, then contribute signal, not noise. If you are here to watch and listen you are certainly welcome, but you cannot dictate policy or content. Hi Arthur, I agree with what you said, and I'm sure you know

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-09 Thread
This is going to be my last on-forum comment on this. I HAVE provided definitions, clear, concise definitions. I have also clearly provided my assertions etc. I said I would write-up something, I never made any PROMISE to do so, nor stated any time frame for doing so. I accept that you

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-09 Thread Austin Franklin
Julian, Julian now replies: Hmmm. Here is the draft ISO spec, from http://www.pima.net/standards/iso/tc42/wg18/WG18_POW.htm . It is entitled Photography — Electronic scanners for photographic images — Dynamic range measurements. Perhaps there is another ISO spec from which you are

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-09 Thread Austin Franklin
---direct quote from Proposed ISO standard--- 7.2 Scanner dynamic range The dynamic range is calculated from the Scanner OECF by: DR = Dmax - Dmin(7.2) DR = Scanner Dynamic Range Dmax = Density where the Signal to noise ratio is 1 Dmin =

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-09 Thread Todd Flashner
on 8/9/02 10:29 AM, Austin Franklin wrote: You will notice, it is exactly as I have described it, a RANGE. I do not see ANYWHERE where it says dynamic range is a range. It shows the RESULT of a calculation WITHIN A RANGE (Dmax), divided by the noise (Dmin), but the result is NOT a range.

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Kapetanakis, Constantine
the media under test, while a scanner captures light entering through its lens aperture. -Original Message- From: Clark Guy [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 3:08 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! HI

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Austin Franklin
Hi Toodd, Ouch. Sigh. Dynamic range: 1. The difference, in decibels, between the overload level and the minimum acceptable signal level in a system or transducer. snip 5. The difference between the maximum acceptable signal level and the minimum acceptable signal level.

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Austin Franklin
Peter, Some time ago you promised us a paper setting out your definition, derivations and sources. I HAVE provided definitions, clear, concise definitions. I have also clearly provided my assertions etc. I said I would write-up something, I never made any PROMISE to do so, nor stated any

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Arthur Entlich
Message- From: Kapetanakis, Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:58 AM To: Clark Guy Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! You are right. The max optical density of our ss120 scanner as an example is about 3.6~3.7. We measure

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Austin Franklin
Hi Arthur, Based upon the discussion which occurred here recently regarding the use of density range, dynamic range, etc., it seems fairly hopeless. Partially speaking, this is because there have not been agreed upon definitions or standards within the industry. Actually, that's not true.

[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Laurie Solomon
: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! Hi Laurie, The whole damn thing turns on the phrase, acceptable signal level. Austin, if I read him correctly, holds that acceptability is defined as being above the noise level at the low end; If you read the definitions used, both terms

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Arthur Entlich
Arthur Entlich wrote: Partially speaking, this is because there have not been agreed upon ^^ definitions or standards within the industry. That was supposed to read Practically speaking... Art

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Julian Robinson
I am only posting two replies to what has been posted during my overnight. This one is a short response to the nitty gritty of Austin's argument. The other includes replies in a single post to other points by everybody. There are two points I am addressing in this post: 1. Dynamic range is

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread David J. Littleboy
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1. Dynamic range is a range, not a resolution No, it's a ratio; a value measured in dB. As such, it implies a resolution, namely the number of divisions it makes sense to divide (quantize) the range into. 2. Dynamic range is the range that the

[filmscanners] Re: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

2002-08-08 Thread Julian Robinson
This is composed into a single post because I know that this topic is overexposed and frustrates many people. It frustrates me too, but it would be wrong not to try to correct misinformation which is propagated with such authority that it has succeeded in hijacking the moral and technical high