Digital BW, The Print

> The only way I can look at it that might make sense is if the x-axis
> is distance across the image and the y-axis is a varying intensity of
> the R channel. Given that if you go from 0 to 100% intensity 14-bit
> would represent that with 16,384 levels and 16-bit would use 65,536,
> but we cannot distinguish between 16,384 shades of red or gray much
> less 65,536 nor can the film, so it all seems meaningless to the end
> result.

Yes, but the difference would only be 1/2 of what they show it is...since
it's +/-.

> Assuming you did go to 16 or 18-bits in a 24-bit or larger space
> would you see a significant reduction in noise or is it a case of
> getting smaller and smaller improvements with each increase in bit
> depth?
>
> Looking at three factors in a scanner, optical path sharpness, pixels
> per inch and bit depth, which is going to be the biggest contributor
> to a good scan? Assuming that all three are at a least an adequate
> level, which one would you be most interested in improving first,
> then second?

Yes, this is actually a pet peeve of mine.  The current way CCDs/ADs etc.
work, is the value out of the A/D is basically the same as an INTEGER
density ratio value.  Given that, more bits (than 14) don't do you any good,
especially for B&W...   Show me a chrome that has near the dynamic range of
16 bits!  I know of no chromes that have a dynamic range of 4.8!  May be
they exist, but I've never seen them!