Digital BW, The Print

> But if that is all it can capture, then why not spread that out?

WHY spread it out?  Why have the scanner do something you may not want it to
do, or do it not optimally?  For 8 bit data, this is done...but you have to
set the setpoints...or you lose data that you may or may not have wanted.

> If you
> want half your histogram empty you can always compress it with levels
> later

I don't want my histograms compressed.  I don't understand why you would
either.  What I want is to set the setpoints, and then expand the data to
fill the histogram.  It can be done automatically, or manually.  This is
just such minutia!  It is something that is just a no brainer little feature
that you want (I'm not saying it's a bad feature...but what is up with
spending so much time on it?)...and I don't get what the big deal is with
it.  It's not like you can't do it in PS!

> and you'll end up with the same thing. Why is the whitest a
> scanner can capture NEVER white in raw scan mode? same with black?

Because it's in the middle of the space.

> Also, there is technology out there that will artificially smooth the
> histogram, which I could see as useful if combined with something like
> that. In 16bits, the difference is probably not noticeable, but still
> the option would be nice. (I don't need a speech on whether or not you
> would ever use something like that)

I don't see how that's useful.  What is it useful for?  How is that going to
make your output any better?