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

["" <peter@softwell.co.uk>]

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 did not specify a time frame, but I do remember you
agreeing that you would write up what you have been saying in a single
document.  It is clear that a number of us disagree with your definitions
and assumptions and it would clarify things for all if you could put it
all together.

> > Until you do this and circulate it, off forum,
> > to those of us who offered to do a peer review I suggest you keep
> > quiet.
>
> I find your "request" unquestionably arrogant and completely out of
> line.
> I'll discuss what I want, within the guidelines of this newsgroup.
>
I am not trying to gag you, however you are rapidly losing the respect of
the group by not even accepting that you /might/ be wrong. It is you who
is arrogant by continually pushing your beliefs and not considering that
may be right.  I suspect you are in more "kill" files than most. If you
give us some foundation for your arguments then we might stand a chance of
even agreeing with you.

> > I don't want to get into a further debate until you verify your
> > assertions.
>
> I don't need to verify anything on this subject.  What the purpose of my
> proposed paper was, was simply to provide all the information that I
> have
> already posted on this subject, as well as any other information I may
> have,
> plus possibly some diagrams explaining concepts further.  As you somehow
> believe there is something wrong with my understanding of dynamic range
> (which I know are correct, and the ISO spec backs up my understanding as
> well), I suggest it is you who should "verify" his assertions.
>
This emphasises /your/ arrogance. I believe that you *do* need to verify
things as it it you who is in the minority in much of this discussion. If
you are an engineer/scientist of any merit you should at least be prepared
to go back to fundamentals and work it out again, as many of us have tried
to do on a number of occasions. The problem with debates in a forum such
as this is that there is no way to force another contributor to answer a
specific question. If you write it down as you go then you should be able
to convince others that you are correct and we are wrong. Alternatively,
someone else may spot the error in your reasoning and prove you to be
wrong. This possibility, I suspect, is the reason you have not taken what
I and others would consider to be the professional route.

It is entirely possible (and indeed probable) that one or more of those
who have been involved in this debate has the facts wrong. It is also
possible to interpret new information in a way that fits the current
understanding. I clearly remember you changing from not knowing anything
about the ISO spec, to saying it was wrong, now to saying it supports you.

I still look forward to seeing the paper; I hope it will clear up the
misunderstanding that exists somewhere. I suspect that it all derives from
a mis-interpretation of definitions somewhere down the line.  Please not
that I am not, at this stage, saying that it is you who has made the
mistake. You may be right, but the rest of us need convincing and
repeatedly shouting "I'm right and you're wrong" is not the way to do it.

Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland

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