I'm sorry, I did not realize english was not your primary language. In the future you might want to remember that falsehood means the same thing as lie.
You say I IMPLIED. I implied nothing, I made a simple statement that 8 bits = 256 (decimal) steps. You do not seem to understand the concept of limits (might want to take an elementary calculus course). In graphics white, and black, are limits. All the scales measure from white to black. There are no values beyond them. Density is measured on a logarithmic scale of Zero to 4.0. There are 10,000 (linear) values between the two. There are, and by definition can not be, any values less than Zero, nor more than 4.0. The reason white is Zero is simply because these values were measured from the separation negative with a transmission densiometer, opaque (zero transmission) was defined as Zero, and the clear film base as 4.0. Saying you have a density grater than 4.0 is the same as saying you have "a Black that is blacker than Black". Not only is that in error, it is nonsense. That never did hinder ad copy writer's in the past and won't in the future. Similarly your bit depth (a misnomer if there ever was one) is measured from white to black. You do not get a longer range, just smaller steps between those limits, when you increase the number of bits. Ciao, graywolf [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- Original Message ----- From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, January 06, 2002 2:28 AM Subject: RE: Scanning Terminology Questions > > Subject: Re: Scanning Terminology Questions > > > > > > You know what? Even if I was mistaken, you would still be an ass > > for calling > > me a liar. However, I am not mistaken, you just can not read. > > I never said you were lying, I said you were wrong. Big difference, > why would anyone lie about such a thing??????? > > > > > 256 tints of Red x 256 tints of Blue x 256 tints of Green give > > 16.7M tints > > of color. I used the term tints instead of shades because that is a more > > accurate color concept. > > I can read. You didnt write it correctly. > You said, > Quote : > > > > Bit depth is how many tints of color are available. With 8 bits per > > > > color you are limited to 256 tints. More is better. > > You first state bit depth determines how many "tints of COLOR" are > availible, which is true but then you go on to say with 8 bits you > only get 256 "tints" IMPLYING "tints of COLOR" again which is false. > You should have finished by saying with 8 bits per color you are limited to > 256 "tints PER coler" which you didnt. Or if you had first stated > that bit depth is how many "tints PER color" istead of "tints OF > color" then the implication in the second sentence would have been > different and correct. > > > > > Dmax is not exactly the same as Dynamic range, it ignores the > > min-white and > > just tells you what the max-black that can be recorded is. > > Youre probably right about the Dmax analogy term I used but > you said: > > > > > Density range is how much of a scale for pure white to pure > > black can be > > > > recorded on an scale of 0=white to 4=black. Dynamic range is the > > > > difference > > > > between the two numbers. > > The dynamic range of a scanner is not some simple scale from 1 to 4. > It is as I stated the ratio of the highest recordable intensity > to the lowest recordable intensity and the scale is exponential like I > stated. The scale is from zero to infinity. Real world scanners > wouldnt scan at zero and its impossible to achive numbers higher > then 3-4 nowadays. That's doesnt mean some future scanner couldnt > have a dynamic range spec. of 4.5 for example. The way you describe > it with 0=white and 4 = black doesnt make any sense at all. You > can say you just "simplified" it if you like but I dont agree > with that asessment at all. > > JCO > ============================================================================ > > > > Furthermore, Shel asked that this all be explained in simple > > terms ignoring > > the technical details. I tried to do that. I may not have succeeded, but > > you, besides only being half informed, did not even try. > > > > Ciao, > > graywolf > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 8:29 PM > > Subject: RE: Scanning Terminology Questions > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Tom Rittenhouse > > > > Sent: Saturday, January 05, 2002 7:40 PM > > > > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > Subject: Re: Scanning Terminology Questions > > > > > > > > > > > > Bit depth is how many tints of color are available. With 8 bits per > > color > > > > you are limited to 256 tints. More is better. > > > > > > This is the second person to make this false statement so it > > > needs correction REAL FAST. With 8 bits per color you do not > > > have 256 colors, you have 256 CUBED colors which is 16.7 > > > MILLION colors, quite a difference. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Density range is how much of a scale for pure white to pure > > black can be > > > > recorded on an scale of 0=white to 4=black. Dynamic range is the > > > > difference > > > > between the two numbers. You could compare it to the contrast > > > > grade of your > > > > B$W paper. > > > > > > > > > > > Another falsehood. Density range (Dmax) is the ratio between the > > > lightest recorded intenity and the darkest recorded intensity. > > > The number is the exponent using base 10. Thus if Dmax is 1, > > > the range is 10:1 , if Dmax is 2, the range is 100:1, and > > > if the Dmax is 3, the range is 1000:1, and so on. The higher > > > the dmax the better on a scanner as it will be able to capure > > > a much wider range of shades accurately. > > > > > > JCO > > > - > > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > > - > > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . > - > This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, > go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to > visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org . - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
