[filmscanners] RE: scanner dmax discussion

["Austin Franklin" <austin@darkroom.com>]

Hi Roy,

> I really don't want to get into a big discussion about this, but the
> logarithmic
> issue is of the utmost importance.  It makes ALL the difference.

NOT in the example I gave as to whether the density range is increased or
not, in both instances it is, and that is all I was saying.  The magnitude
of the increase is different, but that doesn't have a thing to do with my
point.

> I thought you just agreed to my little example:

Yes, but you example is not related to what I was talking about.

> If you left out the log you'd get (a) 16-2 = 14 and (b) 8-1 = 7 and
> incorrectly believe that the ranges were different

I didn't incorrectly believe that the ranges were different, in this example
they are the same, as I believe I've already said, and I agreed with your
example for what it was you were trying to give an example for.

> (and as intensity
> ranges, yes, they are different, but as density ranges they are
> identical).

Why are they different for intensity range?  They represent the exact same
intensity range as well.  It all depends on what you are representing by the
numbers.  A 2 represents on one scale the same as the 1 represents on the
other, for both intensity and density (density IS inverse intensity, is it
not?), and 16 represents on one scale the same as 8 on the other...

> This is very counter-intuitive, but nonetheless how the
> physics and math works.

I KNOW how this stuff works, Roy.

Austin

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