Austin, This will be my last posting on this as we are (now) broadly in agreement.
One cause of the disagreement has been your use of terms that have had an agreed understanding in the engineering world since long before scanners in a non-standard way. I realise that you may have been "encouraged" into this usage by the scanner industry, but it doesn't make it any less confusing to the rest of us. In engineering terms you are confusing dynamic range with signal-to-noise ratio. I will make one final comment. In the post, to which this is a reply, you said: > > So, where on earth did you get the idea that I believe that I fail to > understand that "increasing the number of bits from the AtoD does not > necessarily increase the dynamic range of the scanner"???????? > OBVIOUSLY > from my four clips above, and ESPECIALLY the last one it should be > bloody > obvious that I completely understand what you believe I do not. However, at 10:32 yesterday, you said: > > However my point is that if you can reduce the noise level then you > > can > > increase the number of steps (by halving the step size) with real > > benefit, but without altering the range. > > Correct, but that INCREASES the dynamic range. Does not the first clip say "no increase of dynamic range" and the second say "increases the dynamic range"? I rest my case m'lud. Peter, Nr Clonakilty, Co Cork, Ireland (To avoid confusion, British born and educated - recent move to Ireland) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body