Hi Franc,
> I never said the dynanic range could be improved, I said the accuracy > can be improved and the 74db range can be cut into smaller pieces.
Cutting the 74dB "into smaller pieces" IS increasing the dynamic range. The definition of dynamic range is, in basic terms, the resolution of the device. It can not resolve better than 74dB, 74dB defines the resolution...as in...12 bits. Dynamic range is the total overall range divided by the noise. You can not resolve into the noise, that is the limit. If you read and understand the post I made that contains the dynamic range calculations, this will be apparent. But, dynamic range is not an easily understood concept, which is one of the roots of it being so misunderstood and the misinformation surrounding it (especially with respect to density range).
> I think it would be impossible to advertise 16 bit color and not truely > have it.
Of course it is possible. Scanner manufacturers have been doing it for quite some time. And, their reasoning is that they use a 16 bit A/D and their datapath is 16, even though the sensor used can only resolve to 12. This is commonly known in the scanner industry that the true performance of scanners is misrepresented. There is a discussion about this on scantips.com.
It's also a matter of what one means by 16 bits. They do return the data in a 16 bit word, and they may very well have a 16 bit datapath in the back. But it is misleading to claim the device actually provides 16 bits of *good* data. It's weasel wording, unfortunately.
> I beleive it is there, everything I see tells my logical > brain there is an improvment.
I don't dispute that you are seeing some improvement in what you are looking at, but this improvement is not because the data is 16 bits from the a Hasselblad 39M back (or any other camera or back). You physically can not distinguish between two adjacent colors with 16 bit color data, period. It's a well documented fact that this is far beyond the visual acuity of the human eye.
> Deny it if you like but the proof is in > the pudding.
I don't know what pudding you are referring to, but the fact is, the Hasselblad back can not provide more than 12 bits of usable data. And, even if it did, you could not see it. I would like to know what you are considering the pudding that shows this proof. The pudding I see is the sensor specification.
If you read the article I provided the URL for, there was an experiment where a number of prints derived from 16 bit and 8 bit data were laid out for people to judge. Conclusions was that people could not see any difference.
> I know what I was taught and I know what I beleive to be > true and that is 16 bit color is here and you cannot change that fact,
16 bit color is "here" (and always was, with regard to colorspace and processing), but just not all the bits good from consumer digital cameras or backs, or apparently to output devices either. As was pointed out in the discussion with Jurgen I believe, his instructor stated the monitor was 16 bits. It simply was not. The specs from the manufacturer proved this. Clearly a misunderstanding.
As I've said, there is unfortunately a LOT of misinformation out there (and a lot of people who claim authority that they simply do not have). This is a complicated subject, that takes a lot more than a few digital imaging classes to really understand the base level dynamics (I'm not referring to you or anyone specifically BTW). A lot of EEs even don't understand it, unless it happens to be in their realm of design experience. Now, I'm not saying that people in general have to understand this, on the contrary, but technical points like this are often simply not understood, except by people who are intimately involved in designs that use the technology...and there is simply no need for people in general to understand this stuff...unless they want to.
Film scanners are a whole other kettle of eels ;-)
Regards,
Austin
> I never said the dynanic range could be improved, I said the accuracy > can be improved and the 74db range can be cut into smaller pieces.
Cutting the 74dB "into smaller pieces" IS increasing the dynamic range. The definition of dynamic range is, in basic terms, the resolution of the device. It can not resolve better than 74dB, 74dB defines the resolution...as in...12 bits. Dynamic range is the total overall range divided by the noise. You can not resolve into the noise, that is the limit. If you read and understand the post I made that contains the dynamic range calculations, this will be apparent. But, dynamic range is not an easily understood concept, which is one of the roots of it being so misunderstood and the misinformation surrounding it (especially with respect to density range).
> I think it would be impossible to advertise 16 bit color and not truely > have it.
Of course it is possible. Scanner manufacturers have been doing it for quite some time. And, their reasoning is that they use a 16 bit A/D and their datapath is 16, even though the sensor used can only resolve to 12. This is commonly known in the scanner industry that the true performance of scanners is misrepresented. There is a discussion about this on scantips.com.
It's also a matter of what one means by 16 bits. They do return the data in a 16 bit word, and they may very well have a 16 bit datapath in the back. But it is misleading to claim the device actually provides 16 bits of *good* data. It's weasel wording, unfortunately.
> I beleive it is there, everything I see tells my logical > brain there is an improvment.
I don't dispute that you are seeing some improvement in what you are looking at, but this improvement is not because the data is 16 bits from the a Hasselblad 39M back (or any other camera or back). You physically can not distinguish between two adjacent colors with 16 bit color data, period. It's a well documented fact that this is far beyond the visual acuity of the human eye.
> Deny it if you like but the proof is in > the pudding.
I don't know what pudding you are referring to, but the fact is, the Hasselblad back can not provide more than 12 bits of usable data. And, even if it did, you could not see it. I would like to know what you are considering the pudding that shows this proof. The pudding I see is the sensor specification.
If you read the article I provided the URL for, there was an experiment where a number of prints derived from 16 bit and 8 bit data were laid out for people to judge. Conclusions was that people could not see any difference.
> I know what I was taught and I know what I beleive to be > true and that is 16 bit color is here and you cannot change that fact,
16 bit color is "here" (and always was, with regard to colorspace and processing), but just not all the bits good from consumer digital cameras or backs, or apparently to output devices either. As was pointed out in the discussion with Jurgen I believe, his instructor stated the monitor was 16 bits. It simply was not. The specs from the manufacturer proved this. Clearly a misunderstanding.
As I've said, there is unfortunately a LOT of misinformation out there (and a lot of people who claim authority that they simply do not have). This is a complicated subject, that takes a lot more than a few digital imaging classes to really understand the base level dynamics (I'm not referring to you or anyone specifically BTW). A lot of EEs even don't understand it, unless it happens to be in their realm of design experience. Now, I'm not saying that people in general have to understand this, on the contrary, but technical points like this are often simply not understood, except by people who are intimately involved in designs that use the technology...and there is simply no need for people in general to understand this stuff...unless they want to.
Film scanners are a whole other kettle of eels ;-)
Regards,
Austin
