Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Todd Flashner <tflash@e...> 
> Further in the same post I stated (Scenario #2):
> 
> Todd:
> >> I believe the reason the histos of the raw scans are bunched up is because
> >> the scanner writes the data out in linear gamma (1.0). As we increase the
> >> GAMMA of the file it stretches out in the histogram,
> 
> Austin:
> > Gamma only effects the midtones, not the endpoints.  Where white and black
> > were, they will still be.
> > 
> > The specific reason the data is "bunched up" in raw scans is because the
> > dynamic range of the film is less than the dynamic range of the scanner....
>

What Todd should have said is in linear fashion, not GAMMA (that threw 
Austin for a loop)

What Austin should have said at the end there is; data is bunched up in 
raw scans because the d-range of the film is less than the d-range of 
the scanner which is less than the 16bit space. It is mostly bunched 
because of the 16bit aspect.


> Your second paragraph  seemingly refutes scenario #1 which you agreed to, by
> stating the histo of a 10 bit file will be the same as that of a 14 bit
> file.
> 

He is saying a 10bit scan and a 14bit scan of the same thing will be 
the same because 14bit scanners are capable of capturing more dense 
negs and therefore the the scan will occupy the same space on the 16bit 
histogram as with the 10bit scanner. 

My argument was for a scanner capable of capturing more tones in the 
same density range rather than more tones because of a larger density 
range.

-mikeH