Digital BW, The Print

Roy,

> So, how can we here is our niche, talk about coming up with a new idea,
> new concept of what "dynamic range" means?

No one is coming up with any new concepts...  "We" are merely pointing out
that the term has been "misapplied" in this "field", and that it attributes
a different property than, though is loosely related to, density range.

> We a just a part of a large
> community of imaging that long time ago has defined and has commonly used
> this term to mean sometime very specific.

Can you show evidence of this?

> Even contemplating having our
> very own "dynamic range" concept that differs from the rest of the world
> just seems totally crazy to me.

Yeah, just like monitors are talked about in terms of "resolution", which
means something completely different from the use of resolution to the rest
of the world in every other application that uses that term.   Hum.

> It doesn't matter how good the idea is,
> I just can't imagine how it makes sense to use an existing term.  We have
> to talk to other people, use other technologies, read specs, you name it.
> Let's make it easy to communicate with the outside world!

Agreed, but that doesn't mean the term isn't being misused ;-)

Austin