Digital BW, The Print

> > But they aren't different...they ARE both linear.  One is
> merely part of an
> > equation that represents the actual area of the opening...it's merely a
> > representative number and could have been the actual area for
> that matter!
>
> Are you really going to call that series of aperture numbers
> and the shutter numbers, LINEAR??

Sigh.  I know exactly what linear means.  If you really believe I don't,
then you obviously have a very low belief of my mathematical skills, and why
are you even bothering discussing this?

I believe what would help you out a lot, is if you would try to understand
what is meant.  Obviously a series of numbers 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, or 1, 1.4, 2,
2.8 etc are not linear.   I was not talking about the "series of aperture
number" or the "series of shutter numbers", but what they represent IS a
linear scale.  Their INDICATION, no matter what representational "set" of
symbols you assign to them, is ONE f-stop, and f-stops ARE linear, whether
they are shutter speed or aperture, as well as film speed.  Someone who
would want to understand that (not misapply it and then claim it was wrong)
would have understood that.

The shutter speed AND the aperture are exactly the same...one doubles/halves
the speed of the shutter, and the other doubles/halves the AREA of the
opening that allows the light in, and each doubling/halving is one
f-stop...no matter what representation you assign to them.

And, again, this is ALL a red herring on your part, and merely confuses the
issue...since none of this has anything to do with dynamic range.  Yes, the
shutter speeds and apertures have a dynamic range, and they are NOT based on
"1" as you erroneous claimed.  In a digital system, dynamic range is based
on 1, if your digital representation is integer, but that is not necessarily
true in an analog system...no matter what the representative symbols used
within that system are.

Linear or exponential is ALSO not relevant to dynamic range, providing both
the range and error are both in same "system".

> I can't imagine how a claim like that is helping your cause.

Roy, I don't have a "cause".  What I've said is merely fact, and I am simply
trying to explain it to you, but you aren't getting it (or don't want to get
it, for what ever reason), you are only looking for things to claim are
wrong, that aren't wrong...and when I point out erroneous
statements/understandings you make/have, you ignore them...  I completely
understand what you are trying to claim, and as I've said, it is simply
wrong.  It is a misunderstanding.  You can cite all the examples you
want...but your misunderstanding is crystal clear to me.  I believe you are
having trouble conceptualizing what the real meaning of dynamic range is,
and obviously how it applies to imaging.  Dynamic range has a very important
meaning/understanding, and it is not what you are claiming it is.  And, yes,
it IS very misused and misunderstood, not only by your.

There is apparently no end to this that can be achieved, so it is foolish on
my part to continue this, at least with respect to discussing this any
further with you.  There is nothing new being added.  I don't really want to
continue this off list, so I suggest we drop it.

Austin