On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:22:47 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
> In other words number of
> bits does NOT define Dmax, it only defines what the best possible might
> be.
Odd, 'cos that was the point of the whole original argument :) IE that bit
depth constrains maximum OD ran
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
> > 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
> 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.
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
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
