Digital BW, The Print

> > 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.

That is correct.  There are two possible places of "bunching".  One, in the
actual span of the data in the actual scanner dynamic range (bit depth), and
then if the data is low bit justified, mapping that into a higher bit space.
If the data is high bit justified, then that doesn't add to the "bunching",
it would spread it out.

> 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.

What would you do with those tones?