Digital BW, The Print

Hi Truman,

> I believe that. Even the best digital recievers only use about 3/4s of
> the dynamic range. Even at that we are taking 11 or 12 bits. If you scan
> a 8 bits you probably get 6 bits dynamic range.

Actually, if your scanner is, say a 12 bit scanner, and you scan at 8 bits,
it still scans at 12 bits...then takes the setpoints and curves you apply in
the scanner interface software, and gives you adjusted 8 bit files, that are
actually full 8 bits of dynamic range.

> But 876 to 2982 in your example is 11 bits quantization and is much
> better than most photgraphic papers and inkjet printers are capable of
> separating. So I would think that compressing the max amout of detail
> into the dynamic range of the negative is still the way to go.

Yes, you are absolutely correct!  That's one of the issues I have always had
with discussing things like this.  We humans can only see between 100 to 200
distinct tones, but...as has been mentioned, you really need some larger
number of tones to get smooth tonal transitions...though you can't
"distinguish" them, they are still visible, and give that "smoothness" to
the image.  Now, how many is debatable ;-)

Regards,

Austin