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

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

Peter,

Your entire post has absolutely nothing to do with filmscanners.  It is
simply your belief and critique about me, and appears to be an attempt to
throw dispersion on my credibility.  If you want to comment on me
personally, as opposed to something technical, I believe you should keep it
OFF LIST, or not say it at all.

> > > 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.

And how do you know I'm "rapidly losing respect of the group", Peter, do you
speak for "the group", or am I right, you are simply doing this, since you
can't argue technically on the subject, to throw dispersion on my
credibility?  What makes you so arrogant that you can take on the voice of
everyone else?

It's my field of expertise, and I've been doing it for 25+ years, and with
no one in my field ever questioning my understanding of it.  Have YOU ever
actually use dynamic range professionally, as in, while working with other
people who know this stuff inside and out?

> It is you who
> is arrogant by continually pushing your beliefs and not considering that
> may be right.

I am merely correcting what is a very prolific misunderstanding, that you,
and others, seem hell bent on adding to.

> If you
> give us some foundation for your arguments then we might stand a chance of
> even agreeing with you.

There was PLENTY of foundation given, as well as corroboration...as in from
the ISO to name the latest one...but since it all goes against YOUR
understanding, you don't want to consider it foundation.

> > > 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.

It is only YOUR belief (and probably Julian's) that I'm "in the minority".
I have FAR more people supporting that I am correct, than you and Julian
disagreeing with me.  I HAVE verified my understanding with many other very
prominent people throughout the past 25 years, and they agree with my
understanding.  I don't need to go RE verify this.

> Alternatively,
> someone else may spot the error in your reasoning and prove you to be
> wrong.

I've posted MANY examples, as well as CLEAR definitions.  Everything is out
on the table.  No one has spotted any "error in [my] reasoning".

> This possibility, I suspect, is the reason you have not taken what
> I and others would consider to be the professional route.

Professional route for what?  I do this for a living, Peter.  I AM taking
the "professional route" EVERY DAY, and have been for 25 years.  This
certainly appears as simply your way of trying to case unwarranted
dispersion on my credibility simply because you can no longer argue this on
any technical merit.

> 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.

Sigh.  The term "dynamic range" has been around for a while.  There is no
"new information" that will re-define it.  It is what it has been for many
years.

> 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 was unaware of the ISO spec at first, and once I read it, said that
certain assumptions had to be made for it to be right.  I read it very
carefully and figured out what those assumptions were, and they are correct
in the context, which given that, made the ISO proposal entirely correct.

> 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.

Sigh...again.  Read the ISO spec.  Try to understand what it says and go
back and try to see how it matches exactly what I've been saying.  All the
information you need is in front of you, if you choose to look at it.  And,
please stop your little game of trying to case dispersion on my credibility.
It is unwarranted, and is simply cheap.


Austin

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