[filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range>AUSTIN(1)

["Austin Franklin" <darkroom@ix.netcom.com>]

> Austin,
>
> There are at least two of us esteemed engineers who disagree with you on
> this list...

Hi Julian R,

That's OK, I've had more ;-)

> 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 majority must necessarily be correct - BUT, I would ask that you
> at least draw the conclusion that it might be worthwhile looking seriously
> at what we (or I) am saying.

I have, and have pointed out what is wrong, and why it is wrong.

> Could you do me a favour and read and respond to the whole post below,
> especially the parts headed  DYNAMIC and SCANNERS?

I have pointed out the basic flaws in your premises and terminology, and
until we come to some conclusion on that, I have a hard time responding
detailedly to your post.  I'll start with the VERY first thing you say:

> Put some numbers to the above.  Let's say max signal is 1000mV and noise
> (or min signal in this case) is 10mV at first.  Then you reduce the noise
> level by half.  So min is now 5mV.

But you are making an assumption that the min is now 5mV.  The NOISE is 5mV.
You have stated NOTHING about the min.

We need to come to a common agreement with respect to what the terms of the
formula mean.  Assumptions can not be made without being stated.  If you are
stating above that both the minimum signal level is 5mV AND the noise is
5mV, that's fine...but state that.  That changes the range, as well as the
noise.

Can we resolve this first?

Regards,

Austin

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body