If this thread continues any longer, I will put all of the participants in my killfile. That would be a shame because I think you all appear to be the kind of people that I would normally like to read the comments of. This isn't like a Usenet group where I can easily ignore a thread. Instead my Inbox is continually bombarded. Can we not take this offline, please?
Don At 08:49 PM 12/06/2002 -0500, you wrote: >Here I go again. I understand what both of you are saying; and you are both >right except you are approaching the topic from two different points of view >and philosophies. It is almost like the tree that falls in the forest >question at if it makes an noise if no one is there to hear it or not. In >short if one assumes a phenomenological approach to the philosophy of >science and to the nature of knowledge and reality, one says their is not >any reality apart from that which is conceived, perceived, or experienced. >Truth is the coherence between reality and knowledge of it and not a >one-to-one correspondence. However if one assume a logical positivist >philosphopy of science and approach to knowledge and reality, one assumes >that their is an objective reality apart from our conception, perception, or >experience of it which is knowable and measurable independent of us and to >which our theories and knowledge correspond if they are true. Anthony, I >believe is asserting something closer to the former, while Austin seems to >be assering somthing closer to the latter. > >Austin, Anthony's assertion is similar to your saying that there is no >useful density range below the noise for any or all practical purposes - >even if it may or may not exist theoretically beyond our ability to >experience it. This discussion brings to mind the Einstein versus >Heisenberg dispute over the uncertainty principle. > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin >Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2002 5:17 PM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: [filmscanners] RE: Density vs Dynamic range > > > >> > ... if your luminosity range contains a 6 stop >> > range, which is within the tolerance of slide >> > film, and you shoot the scene on slide film and >> > neg film, of the two frames of film I believe >> > the slide frame would be the one with the higher >> > dynamic range. >> >> No passive system has dynamic range. Slides and negatives do not, in >> themselves, have dynamic range. Only the combination of a slide >> or negative >> with some sort of active process--such as viewing, scanning, exposure, or >> development--can have dynamic range. > >Anthony, > >That's absolutely wrong. Film, in and of it self, has dynamic range. There >IS noise in film, it exists whether it's being viewed or not. There is also >a range of density that is recorded on the film, and that's all that is >needed to determine dynamic range. > >Of course, you do have to do something "active" to measure the noise, just >like music has to be played to measure the noise, but that doesn't mean the >content doesn't have inherent noise, and range in it. It seems like you are >claiming an audio system has no noise, because it's not turned on, which is >entirely different than the noise inherent in the media, which exists even >when it's not being "used". > >> Slides and negatives have >> only density >> ranges inherently, not dynamic ranges. > >So you claim film has no inherent noise, in and of it self, unless you are >"viewing" it? Does the noise of music recorded on a CD not exist until it >isn't being played? > >I think you're being really obscure here... > >Austin > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------ >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title >or body > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- >------------ >Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe >filmscanners' >or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title >or body ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body