On 25/3/05 17:33, Berry Ives [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Still waiting for the right DSLR for me...
Berry
What will make a DSLR the one for you?
Just curious.
Brad
Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL
So, is that full frame 35mm or full frame 645? 25 mp full frame
35mm size is a tall order. How long do you expect to have to wait for
such a thing?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
For me, the color mask has to go. Some sort of Foveon like technology is
needed. I'd like to see the pixel spacing
That would be 35mm if I did the math right. I'm guessing more than 5
years and less than 10. When my old 35mm developed a shutter timing
problem which I deemed not worth the money to fix (about a year or so
ago), I looked at the DSLR market and decided I just wouldn't be happy
with the results, so
Hi Brad,
I think I would be satisfied for a while at least with 200ppi on the largest
prints I can make on a 2200 printer, let's say 12 x 16, which works out to
about 8 megapixels. Since Olympus has an 8 megapixel CCD on the E300
Evolt already, I am waiting for them to put it on an E-3, or
It's been several years, but I seem to remember that when I got my
Nikon 4000ED filmscanner they were claiming a Dmax of somewhere
around 3.5 to 4.0, but I measured it (by scanning a Kodachrome IT8
target slide and examining the greyscale separation) at around 2.1
to 2.9 (don't remember the exact
Hi Berry,
Austin, with respect to your last sentence, isn't the point
really that the
contrast range of negative film is greater than slide film?
I'm not sure what contrast range is, but I know what density range is.
Slide film has less exposure latitude, and records on a higher density
When you scan negative film, the histogram is narrow. So I would say
negative film has a low dynamic range.[Yeah, I know slide and negative
film is really the same.]
I think I see the confusion here (or specmanship). The dynamic range of
a dataconverter is related to the number of bits, since the
From: Andrew Skretvedt
In evaluating a film scanner, one should consider its dynamic range. How
deep can a scanner reach in and pull out shadow details from a very
contrasty slide, for example. What about one that might have been
underexposed a bit as you tried to keep from blowing out
But ignoring valid points is precisely
what you do, and if you disagree I will happily repost many
items you have
never answered. Would you like me to do that?
Julian
I kinda would. I'd like to see exactly where you each stand at this point.
Damn, Toddyou REALLY want to talk
]]On Behalf Of Austin Franklin
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 11:59 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: dynamic range discussion
Bill,
An unfortunate analogy, perhaps. Whereas I only get to delete 1 or 2
Viagra ads a day, this list, like others before it, has recently
been taken
You are right it is not hard to delete or skip. I skip most messages on
lists, and only choose to read the ones with subjects that interest me.
There is very little overhead in doing this and I don't really understand
why people get so upset about it. The funny thing is that the people who
do
Roy,
All the stuff about number of levels and resolution are
artifacts of the
digital process and not part of the DyR concept which existed
way before
the word digital was even coined.
...
I believe the concept of resolution is inherent in the concept
of dynamic
range. Whether
on 9/2/02 12:20 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy,
I see how size can have a merit (which is a relative ratio),
and range, as
they apply to dynamic range. Size in the fact that the largest
signal is N
times larger than the smallest...and range in that you can say
all
At 08:37 PM 9/1/2002 -0700, Bruce wrote:
Please, enough already with the dynamic range argument. I want to learn
about scanners.
Thanks.
-bruce
Bruce,
You've made a common mistake.
Once upon a time, scanners were the focus of this list.
However, it has now become the domain for the all
Roy,
Gee, Austin, here again you snip totally out of context. I DIDN'T
say the following quote. Vincent said it and I explicitly cited
him as the author.
Dynamic range is the ability to distinguish tonal differences.
I thought that this was what YOU were quoting, as it has double
their bitching somewhere else and then
leave the list for those of us who want to learn and
further the discussion about scanning.
From: JimD [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2002/09/03 Tue AM 08:18:39 GMT+12:00
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: dynamic range discussion
At 08:37 PM 9/1
what is
important to them.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, September 02, 2002 8:39 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: dynamic range discussion
If I Knew anything about running a list I'd
I agree. This _is_ the place to discuss dynamic range with respect to film
scanners. I don't think anyone can reasonably complain about it, as long as
it's labeled as such in the subject line. It's no harder to hit Delete on
something that says Dynamic Range in the subject than it is to hit
]
Subject: [filmscanners] Re: dynamic range discussion
At 08:37 PM 9/1/2002 -0700, Bruce wrote:
Please, enough already with the dynamic range argument. I
want to learn
about scanners.
Thanks.
-bruce
Bruce,
You've made a common mistake.
Once upon a time, scanners were
Hi Paul-
An unfortunate analogy, perhaps. Whereas I only get to delete 1 or 2
Viagra ads a day, this list, like others before it, has recently been taken
over by an endless stream of going-no-where tit-for-tat back-and-forth,
involving only a few list members. As in all of the similar diatribe
Roy,
Here's a small example: we have a voltage of 9.37 volts.
But then how do you even have a voltage of 9.37V in the first place? How
did you measure it at that?
First the quantization situation, we have a digital volt meter that
measures to the nearest volt. The quantization error or
Bill,
An unfortunate analogy, perhaps. Whereas I only get to delete 1 or 2
Viagra ads a day, this list, like others before it, has recently
been taken
over by an endless stream of going-no-where tit-for-tat back-and-forth,
involving only a few list members. As in all of the similar
...
Of course, the number of bits LIMITS the dynamic range, I've always said
that...but BTW, that contradicts Roy's last round, as he claims that 8 bits
has the same dynamic range as 16 bits...
Yes, I don't agree with Roy on this point.
Julian
Hi Julian,
I'm curious whether we're
Hi Roy,
With your arguments a 1 bit file has the same dynamic range as a 16 bits
file because value 0 in a 1 bit file represents the same black level as
value 0 in a 16 bits file and value 1 in a 1 bit file represents the same
white level as value 65335 in a 16 bits file. This is of course not
Hi Roy,
I was talking about your context so we are discussing the same thing. You
have already got a response from Vincent which puts that case in terms of
resolution, here's my quick take from the dynamic range point of view - the
two arguments are otherwise essentially the same.
The
Julian,
I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
GUARANTEE you
it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution. I am
sure that you,
Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
You probably should have read the paper before
Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(Julian)
So in the first case, the DyR is : max/MDS = (4096 steps) / (1 step),
and
in the second 256/1. i,e, DyR 4096 vs 256.
Looking at it another way, with an 8 bit file, the bottom step is the same
level as step 16 was in the 12-bit case. So
on 8/30/02 3:17 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Back to your interpretation of the DynRange definition/formula. You are
transforming the denominator from smallest discernible signal into
smallest discernible signal increment.
Whether it's the increment or not is determined
I thought to post this yesterday, but decided not to because much of it is
redundant to what has been discussed here lately, and it is long. However,
I've decided to post it now because Roy cites some DyR definitions from
audio that I think will help us move away from the fixation of bits that
Austin wrote:
Reference this diagram:
http://www.darkroom.com/Images/DynamicRange01.jpg
largest is shown on this diagram to be the maximum signal level minus the
minimum signal level, and is the largest range or absolute range that the
signal can go from = to. Example, maximum signal level is
Julian
This sounds like an amazingly lucid explanation. Thanks for clarifying that.
I know I've looked at a lot of audio references and have yet to see a
density range specification within them. Electrical components just don't
seem to have density ranges, they have dynamic ranges, which is a
Gee, thanks Todd.
One last thing, we are all getting frustrated by the redundancy,
Sigh...yes.
This was Roy's first post to the max-noise list:
And I want to note, that I never saw this post, as I was not a participant
in this list...choosing family time and vacation over arguing about
Austin,
I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
GUARANTEE you
it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution. I am sure that you,
Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
You probably should have read the paper before commenting...
Julian,
At 19:26 29/08/02, David wrote:
But what do you mean when you say that dynamic range is a range?
Dynamic range is _always_ a ratio. If it's not, it's something different.
Yes, the number is a ratio. As I have said many times, this is because
this is the ONLY way you can quantify
on 8/30/02 8:28 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy,
All the stuff about number of levels and resolution are artifacts of the
digital process and not part of the DyR concept which existed way before
the word digital was even coined.
I don't know if that is true or not,
Hi Austin,
Sorry, one more post.
on 8/30/02 8:28 AM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy,
All the stuff about number of levels and resolution are artifacts of the
digital process and not part of the DyR concept which existed way before
the word digital was even coined.
...
Austin,
I have never read whatever paper you are talking about, but I
GUARANTEE you
it does not SAY that dynamic range is a resolution. I am sure that you,
Austin, INTERPRET it to say that, but it will not actually say that.
You probably should have read the paper before commenting...
on 8/29/02 5:26 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
but do you realize that the range that Austin is using as
his Dmin for the ISO formula is the ENTIRE density range of the scanner?
Austin's explained this: in any dynamic range calculation, the maximum
signal level can be seen as corresponding
At 14:53 30/08/02, David wrote:
Does that mean you claim that density range and dynamic range are equivalent
measurements of the same physical quantity?
Well yes and no. Density range is normally a property of a slide or piece
of film, or an image on a film. Dynamic range is normally a
Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I suppose if one is convinced that DYR is a resolution that is the way
they'd have to approach it as such, but David, tell me, have you seen a
cited reference that supports that approach?
http://www.chipcenter.com/dsp/DSP000329F1.html
The dynamic
Todd Flashner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Yes, I suppose if one is convinced that DYR is a resolution that is the way
they'd have to approach it as such, but David, tell me, have you seen a
cited reference that supports that approach?
David replies:
Todd,
My primary point was that with DyR defined as Dmax - Dmin, as it is by the
ISO, it is the range between the minimum discernable signal (which is what
the ISO calls Dmax) and the maximum signal before clipping (which is what
the ISO calls Dmin). Period.
But what do you mean when you say
Hi Todd,
This paper appears to speak to many of the issues discussed in
this thread:
http://www.analog.com/library/whitepapers/dsp/32bit_wa.html#3
I had a chance to look over that paper. The diagram you mention (I believe
you were referring to the sinusoidal wave +-5V signal...) that
on 8/29/02 5:42 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Roy,
I can't figure out why you and Austin have such a mental block about
ranges and ratios.
And I can't figure out why you want to argue about this. Every reference
I've cited (and others have cited) agrees with me
Julian Robinson [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
... It is not hard to understand - 1dB is a small range (about 1.26 to 1),
100dB is a big range (100 to 1). The range we are discussing is the
range from MDS to max signal, which in scanner case is Dmax to Dmin.
There are _two_ ways to talk
There's a large number of ways you can write down numbers to define a
range. There is only one way in common use to express a range in a single
number that is independent of gain and other things that are irrelevant -
as a ratio.
You can express that ratio in a number of ways, dimensionless
To David and Austin
Austin replies to me:
Let me repeat, this paper says DyR is: if noise is present, the difference
between the loudest (maximum level) signal to the noise floor.
This is in contrast to Austin who says DyR is: (maximum signal level -
minimum signal level) / noise)
They
Hi Todd,
I thought what determined the DyR of a scanner was its ability to
accurately
read into dense film. IOW, to discern low voltages (readings through high
density film) from noise. IOW, how far from clear film into density it can
distinguish -- not how finely the image gets chopped.
Hi Paul,
Distance is only one part of the equation, how finely one can
discern over that distance is the other part.
I don't think that's an issue, because it's trivially easy to use enough
bits in the A/D converter that you're limited by noise _throughout_ the
range, not just at the
You can't really base dynamic range specifications on the
numbers, because
there's no guarantee that the numbers bear any particular relationship
(linear, log, gamma) to the light power. Dynamic range really should be
measured as the (log of) the ratio between the strongest light
power
Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The notion that Dynamic Range is not based on the actual values the data
represents is so ludicrous that I'm just going to have to bow out of this
fruitless endeavor. I had hopes that you might be able to get it but ...
I think we need to retreat to
Roy,
Dynamic range is not based on the actual values the data
represents, simply the discernability of the data.
Austin
The notion that Dynamic Range is not based on the actual values the data
represents is so ludicrous...
Well, the funny part about this is what I said is entirely
on 8/27/02 9:26 PM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
Roy Harrington [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The notion that Dynamic Range is not based on the actual values the data
represents is so ludicrous that I'm just going to have to bow out of this
fruitless endeavor. I had hopes that you might be able
on 8/26/02 3:29 PM, Austin Franklin at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Roy,
When you set the setpoints, these 2000 values are then mapped
out to occupy
the entire range. You then apply your tonal curves to the high bit,
setpointed data.
Ok, Austin, let's go with your numbers.
Is the number
, 2001 11:09 AM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
measurement?
Ken Durling
Photo.net portfolio:
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
measurement?
Ken Durling
Photo.net portfolio:
http://www.photo.net/shared/community-member?user_id=402251
Logarithmic density ratio value (you asked...). 3.2 is 10 to the 3.2 power
or a density ratio of 1585:1.
I can explain in detail if you like.
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
measurement?
Ken
Hi Ken,
Wayne Fulton does a great job of answering your question. Go here:
http://www.scantips.com/basics14.html
Owen
- Original Message -
From: Ken Durling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, October 31, 2001 12:09 PM
Subject: filmscanners: Re: Dynamic range
What
What is the dynamic range figure - i.e.3.2, 3.4 or whatever - a
measurement of? Or maybe I should ask, what is the unit of
measurement?
Two different answers:
1) The units are specs and it is a measurement of how far the manufacture
is willing to push them.
2) There are no units for
Thanks folks- excellent answers. Plus I have ordered and am waiting
for a hard copy of Wayne Fulton's tips. For some reason I can stare
at a screen for hours editing photos (or music) , but when it comes to
reading words I fade in 10 minutes!
Ken
60 matches
Mail list logo
