Julian,
> ...I have witnessed an enormous amount of
> wasted frustration, discussion and confusion over the years resulting
> directly from your mystically complex ideas on this subject. Simply you
> are telling people untruths, and they get confused.
I don't appreciate your sniping comment here. It's uncalled for, and
certainly is NOT conducive of my wanting to participate in any sort of
discussion with you. My understanding is correct and has been thoroughly
verified with noted experts in the field (Kennedy McEwen for one...) as well
as substantiated by the latest ISO proposal. If anyone is providing
confusing information on this, it's you. Personally, I simply don't know
what you really are claiming or believe, but you seem to just want to argue
with me and tell me my understanding is wrong, when it just isn't.
> 1) We choose to focus the discussion. Let's use the single question /
> answer technique. Will you allow me to ask you a single
> question, wait for
> your answer, then ask another etc until you have convinced me of
> your point
> of view, or vice versa, or even...gasp... we reach a common
> understanding?
I just don't believe you could do that...only ask one question, and even if
you could, it would take you pages and pages to lead up to that one
question. The word interminable comes to mind when I read your posts.
> 2) As you are aware, Todd established an entire group just to discuss this
> question. ( ). This
> seemed to be
> an eminently sensible idea given the distress the interminable
> non-converging discussion was causing to some people here. You were
> specifically asked to join max-noise but have chosen not to
> participate for
> some reason.
I was courteous enough to give a reason, and it was posted by Todd, I
believe, or at least I asked him to post it. I was away on vacation with my
family and I did not want to spend my time on this discussion any more than
I already have. It's borderline arrogant that you even bring this up. It's
my business why or why not I do things, and I certainly do not owe you, or
anyone else for that matter, any explanation. It was out or pure courtesy
that I provided one.
> Would you now agree to take this discussion to that group?
I don't believe so. I understand it, and I have tried to explain this to
you as best I can, and you simply don't get it, for what ever reason. Why
do you believe that is going to change?
> Just the same I think most people would find the following interchange
> mildly entertaining or interesting.
>
> Austin I respond to your unnecessarily condescending and arrogant
> post - in
> detail - here...
If it comes across as condescending and arrogant to you, that is because I'm
tired of arguing with you about something that I DO understand and you want
to argue about, for what ever reason. You simply don't address my points, I
point out inaccuracies in your examples, equations etc, and you fail to
address that...you misquote me...it's frustrating and annoying. Bottom
line, is you just don't read what I write, and take too many tangents, not
sticking to the real issue. You just want to argue.
The concept of dynamic range is QUITE simple. Here is YET ANOTHER attempt
using YET ANOTHER VERY CREDIBLE resource (they are a manufacturer of high
performance CCD imaging systems) that 1) KEEPS IT SIMPLE with SIMPLE
EXAMPLES and TO THE POINT and 2) completely agrees with what I've been
saying:
Their dynamic range equation is simply "largest overall signal" (maximum
amplitude what ever you want to call it) divided by noise.
NOTE in their examples they do NOT subtract noise from the well depth then
divide by noise, as you have tried to incorrectly do in your "examples".
Dynamic range is simply, as I've always said, MAXIMIM SIGNAL AMPLITUDE
divided by NOISE, and that dynamic range also defines the resolution of a
system (above noise). I'm sure you'll read something else into what I claim
they clearly say...
Austin
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
