RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 now on B+H web site ...)

[Julian Robinson]

At 02:31 11/01/01, shAf wrote:
>         What you say is true, but you haven't taken into account the CCD's
>response to exposure ... that is, it can't be changed.  This means if
>you overexpose, then you either need a very high value to represent
>the thin area of the film, or you lose the detail in that area (washes
>out).  For 10bits, this pixel value would have to be contrained to
>1023 ... for 12bits, these values can be put between 1024 and 4096,
>therefore extending the range of the CCD's exposure and increasing its
>dynamic range (... or reducing the possibility of no detail in the
>shadows or highlights ...).
>
>shAf  :o)

I understand what you are saying but don't think it contradicts my 
thoughts... you might try wading through my other post and tell me if we agree.

Julian R

Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia