You posted """no scanner or DSLR Shel's been looking at have SNRs appreciably less than the theoretical maximum at their lowest ISO.""
Maybe I misunderstood you, What exactly did you mean by that if you think I somehow twisted it into meaning something else?? Curious, JCO -----Original Message----- From: Herb Chong [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 11:14 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: USAF target and resolution tests JCO, you take any statement and twist it so that it opposes or is wrong from any point of view you believe in. how you can live in such paranoia is beyond me. we are talking about implemented hardware and that imposes lots of assumptions that i am not going to enumerate every time. Herb... ----- Original Message ----- From: "J. C. O'Connell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, November 06, 2004 10:56 AM Subject: RE: USAF target and resolution tests > Wouldn't the theroretical SNR be infinity??? when noise = ZERO! > > If you mean the therotical SNR of the physical sensor than there is a > noise level to deal with and the number of bits required is not > irrelavant.
