[filmscanners] Re: Dynamic range

["Julian Robinson" <jrobinso@pcug.org.au>]

Austin this is getting beyond a joke.

1)  You are accusing me if being dishonest.  That is one thing I am not.  I
really do not appreciate this libel. If you have trouble answering  a
point, that's fine, but would you back off from the libelous and
unsupportable accusations, or give evidence so we can do something about
what must presumably be a pretty big misunderstanding.

I quoted you where you said :   <<<Noise and "smallest discernable signal"
are EXACTLY the same thing. >>>

by the simple means of searching for mention of this topic in past
posts.  The post I found was one in which I was trying to convince you that
your equation for dynamic range was wrong.  Your equation was:

"DR = ((max - min) / noise) "

You said:

"that's the correct equation for DR, and it can be differently written
substituting a single term "maximum absolute signal" for "(max - min)".

and: "... THE equation for dynamic range IS ALWAYS based on noise."

I most explicitly disagree with all the above quoted statements of yours,
now as much as I did then.

None of this is negated by any "context".  I was arguing that your equation
was only correct when specific to a particular situation and based on
assumptions.  You were unambiguously contradicting and saying in black and
white that DyR is ALWAYS based on noise.  This isn't correct as you now
agree, but I fail to see any "context" that removes your contradiction.  By
all means explain - have a look at your post.  This is a valid question, so
please take some time out and provide clarification.  Don't waste your time
in the insults, just the clarification - what WERE you talking about?

If you want to lambast me with accusations of dishonestly taking you out of
context, I'd appreciate it if you would support the accusation, not just
make them as you have time and again, with no support.

2) Regarding the paper that I haven't read and which you believe agrees
with your theory that dynamic range is actually a resolution.    Without
getting snaky, ALL I AM ASKING YOU TO DO IS GIVE ME THE QUOTE FROM THAT
PAPER THAT SAYS THAT DYNAMIC RANGE IS A RESOLUTION. A very straightforward
request which should resolve much of this whole argument.  The fact that I
am not reading the paper before giving you this simple challenge results
from my confidence that your assertion is incorrect, and no paper would say
that.  As I said last time, you should be grateful I am giving you the
chance to belt me around the ears with quotes that support you.  Please go
ahead.

If you *can't* do this, please reflect on why you can't and act accordingly.

And please do not repeat your particularly gratuitous insults suggesting
that I am unable to understand this document, unless you have evidence to
indicate that I am intellectually challenged by comparison with yourself.

More below...

At 05:28 02/09/02, you wrote:
>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.

It seems that at least one of us is holding their hands over their ears and
chanting.  Why do you assume it is not yourself?  It is a simple matter to
prove, just find an expert who agrees with you that dynamic range is not a
range and is a resolution, and quote them saying that.  But you don't,
because you can't, because they don't say this -  no knowledgeable person
thinks this.  Why this does not cause you to pause for a moment and remove
your hands from the ears and look at the situation objectively, I don't
know.  If you provide the quote to support your argument, I will instantly
re-examine my whole view of this.  Stop arguing now and just do this simple
thing.

> > 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,

But Austin, where have you shown me to be wrong? This seems to be a
critical flaw in your outburst.  Especially in this context, where am I
wrong? I haven't even said anything, except that dynamic range is not a
resolution, and asked you to provide the quote that you claim supports your
opposing view.  That's all I've asked.

>  and pretend it never happened,

What never happened?  When did I pretend that something never happened?

>or say that you
>didn't see it...

What have I said I didn't see?

>or whatever.

What are the whatevers?

>  That's disingenuous of you, and certainly not
>conducive to adult conversation.

You have made a number of straightforward accusations above with no
qualification.  They are abusive and in my view unjustified.  Would you
please support each of them or withdraw.

Austin I have never ignored anything that you wrote of substance. That is
why I end up with these excruciatingly long and boring posts, to prevent
you from making this accusation. But ignoring valid points is precisely
what you do, and if you disagree I will happily repost many items you have
never answered.  Would you like me to do that?


> > 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...

It is not particularly funny.  I have offered you BOTH - a quick answer and
a detailed one, so how do you make that into a failing?  Do you want the
detailed answer?  It's already written.  The real situation is that YOU
don't respond to many of my difficult points at all.  I have never asked
that you make your response verbose, so don't throw this piece of abuse
into the equation.  All I asked was that you answer my points at all -
which you haven't done, as you well know.  Again, do you want me to post a
few points that you have never responded to?

I invite you to provide me with your points that I have not responded to.

Similarly you would be a lot better off and do more for your standing if
you quit with the unsupported accusations and just gave me the points that
you are objecting to.  Don't whine that I am dishonest, just provide the
example of the statement where I lied.   It helps the debate and shows that
you are being straightforward.

> > >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.

But you were NOT limiting your discussion to a particular case, that is
exactly what I was objecting to.  Go and have a look at your post.

>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.

Someone must be lying here.  Either I made up something you didn't say, or
you are lying in saying I have done this.  All the posts are available, pls
support your accusation.

>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.

You may think you have always known this, or you may actually have always
known this.  In either case your writings must be at fault and don't always
reflect what you think.  This is easy to happen in passing in an
impassioned argument, but not so easy when you are as absolute and
repetitive as you are in your statements.  How else is a reader supposed to
take the statement:  <<<.. THE equation for dynamic range IS ALWAYS based
on noise.>>>?   The emphases are yours. Seems pretty absolute to me.   I
have asked you to explain the contradiction between this and current
statements, and apart from insults, you have not yet done so.  I invite you
again to do this.

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

See above.  Our discussion would be half the length if you expended your
energy on responding with evidence and supporting argument rather than abuse.

Julian

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