Digital BW, The Print

on 3/29/02 11:12 PM, Martin Wesley wrote:

>>> Or, if you will consider, that the number of tones is so high that you
>>> eye
>>> cannot distinguish between adjacent tones so as to simulate a continuous
>>> tone.
>> 
>> Well, that isn't hard to do since we already can do that with both inkjet
>> and chemical prints.
>> 
>>> What would that mean in terms of your dynamic range equation?
>> 
>> Your minimum discernable signal is now the limits of your eye.
> 
> Then shouldn't were be looking at the limit of our eyes and not the prints?
> And if the prints all exceed the discernable limit of our eyes wouldn't the
> factor of interest then be the density range?

Martin, isn't the point about noise this: you have to measure it (even if
that measure is a casual visual assessment) to know if it's relevant or not?

I hear and respect the logic of what you are saying IF the condition of
noise is so low as to be negligible, but in some instances that wont be the
case, and if you want to describe the state of negligible noise to a techie
you're going to need a measured value to present. Therefore, once you have
the measured value you might as well stick it into the DyR equation and see
what you get?

I mean I hear what you are saying, that sometimes it will be near enough to
zero that your DyR will be ABOUT the same as your DnR, but that doesn't make
that measure irrelevant, it simply allows one to decide whether it is
relevant or not.

Todd