Yes, Herb. I agree that the term "dynamic range" is used in all sorts of places where the word "dynamic" is being abused (my opinion). Similar linguistic travesties are happening in my disciplines as well. Yes, I'm aware nothing can be done about it.
When the term "biodegradable" came on the scene, I was appalled. From it's roots, it actually means capable of degrading, abasing, humiliating or wearing down life. Now we're stuck with it. The term was generated by Madison Ave. We should be able to do better. Again, All sorts of things have range. What ranges are dynamic, what ranges are not, and, more importantly, why? What's the principle for applying the adjective "dynamic"? Why would we ever name something that is actually static, dynamic? Just because it's a spatial analog of something that is actually dynamic? This is a philosophical discussion, Herb. Not an argument about what is. I have a Dalmatian. He has spots. The pattern is very much like "noise". I wonder, what the dynamic range of his coat is. Regards, Bob... ---------------------------------------------------------------- They call it PMS because Mad Cow Disease was already taken. From: "Herb Chong" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > you've heard of spatial frequency response? doesn't involve time. otherwise > known as lens resolution. > > From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > Ah... Are all ranges dynamic? So what ranges are dynamic, and, more > > importantly, why?
