[filmscanners] RE: Dynamic range

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

Julian,

> > > I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
> > > GUARANTEE you
> > > it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution.  I am
> sure that you,
> > > Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
> >
> >You probably should have read the paper before commenting...
>
> But no, that is the point.

I understand.  You believe you know what you're talking about, and I believe
you don't.  It appears you are holding your hands over your ears and
chanting so you can't hear what someone else has to say.  Sigh.

> I am confident that I don't need to look at the
> paper, because I know that no paper will say what you believe.  You are
> mistaken in what you say and still, to this date, after buckets of wasted
> electrons and keyboard hours, you have still not produced a single
> reference that says what you say.

That's why no one can argue with you, Julian.  When you're shown to be
wrong, you simply ignore it, and pretend it never happened, or say that you
didn't see it...or whatever.  That's disingenuous of you, and certainly not
conducive to adult conversation.

> The fact that you have not done so I think proves the point.

The fact that you refuse to read it (or simply don't understand it) surely
prove my point.  You might not understand why it means what I said anyway.

> Now as for the rest of the post, I am in a bind.  If I respond to all of
> yours, you and others will accuse me of being interminable.  If I only
> respond to what I think are relevant points, you will accuse me of being
> selective.

This is very funny, Julian.  You have previously accused me of "ignoring"
stuff in your posts, because I didn't respond to them in some verbose way...

> >Well, here you go again, Julian...and this is why I get pissy
> with you.  You
> >take things out of context and apply them to something else.  I
> NEVER said
> >the MDS was ALWAYS noise.  In the case of the ORIGINAL SIGNAL,
> it is noise,
> >in the case of the digitized signal, it is NOT noise.
>
> Well let me quote one of many interminable exchanges where I was
> tearing my
> hair out because you were insisting that MDS was noise.  Please note
> carefully the contradiction, clear and unambiguous between statement A and
> the statements B1,2,3 :
>
> A)  "I NEVER said the MDS was ALWAYS noise. " - from this post
>
> B1) "The "smallest discernable signal" IS noise." - from post in June
>
> B2) "This is a misunderstanding of the concept of dynamic range.
> It is ALWAYS
> based on noise." - post in June
>
> B3) "Noise and "smallest discernable signal" are EXACTLY the same
> thing." -
> post in June.
>
> I have struggled for months to get you to agree that noise and MDS are not
> the same thing,

That's not true, Julian.  You're making that claim up.  During ALL of these
discussion, for at least the past two or more years, I have called it MDS,
directly FROM THE HIGGINS PAPER and KNOW, and have ALWAYS KNOWN, that noise
is only one of the possible limiting factors to MDS, hence why it simply
isn't called NOISE all the time.  I am the one who introduced the Higgins
paper into the discussion.  You are taking the comments above COMPLETELY OUT
OF CONTEXT, and claiming it means something it does not.  If I said the
limiting factor was noise in a PARTICULAR case, then it was, but that does
not make it the limiting factor in EVERY case.

The fact is in MOST EVERY CASE the limiting factor IS noise.  The cases when
it is NOT noise are not typical, and really have NO bearing on the
conversation at all...since we are talking about film scanners SPECIFICALLY.
But, leave it to you to seek EVERY POSSIBLE AVENUE to find some angle to
somehow claim something I've said is wrong...when it simply isn't, given the
context of the conversation.

> and now you tell me you have always thought this!!

Because I have always KNOWN THIS.  I've been using the SAME understanding of
dynamic range for over 20 years, Julian.

> I am
> pleased that you are coming round, but flabbergasted at the same time.

This, and a lot of this post, are why I get nasty to you.  You deserve it.
You're basically making things up that just were not said, or weren't said
in the context you present them in.

I have ALWAYS, LONG BEFORE YOUR INVOLVEMENT IN THIS CONVERSATION, KNOWN that
MDS and noise were NOT the same thing, though they COULD be, and in SOME
cases/discussions they ALWAYS are the same thing.  All I can guess is that
you have to make things up so you feel like you're "winning".  It's highly
dishonest.

I've caught you doing it almost a half dozen times now.  Why can't you stop
doing that?

Austin

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