Digital BW, The Print

> I ask because if they were't, according to you, that would allow us to
> get a smooth, longer histogram out of the same d-range negative.

For raw data, yes...but of what use, I still don't know.

> > > The dynamic range of sound does not relate to the intensity (volume)
> >
> > Actually, it does.  It's typically measured just below
> clipping.  Dynamic
> > range is very simple.  It is the largest signal over the smallest
> > discernable signal.
>
> That doesn't mean they are the same.

Yes it does.  That's like saying two apples are a different "two" than two
oranges!

> > > Who says they have to be integers?
> >
> > See above, and that's the way they are designed.  What
> advantage would you
> > get by not using integer density ratio values?
>
> So that we could scan a negative of 3.2 d-range into a 12 bit space
> (something you can't do with scanner capable of 4.0, 12 bits)

But a dynamic range of 3.2 DOES fit in a 12 bit space.  I don't understand
your issue here.  12 bits can hold an integer density ratio value dynamic
range of 3.6.

> > > > > then
> > > > > a normal negative's range would have to fit into a much
> smaller space
> > > > > than 12 bits.
> > > >
> > > > For that particular scanner, IF that scanner was designed to
> > > operate that
> > > > way, that could be true.  Perhaps the scanner could expand the
> > > data to fit
> > > > the entire 12 bits.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Wouldn't this be something we would want?
> >
> > No, not if YOU wanted to manually set the setpoints.
>
> But it wouldn't be clipping,

How do you know.  If you haven't defined the setpoints, then you MAY be
clipping.

> so I would always like it to fill more of
> the histogram and get more tonality.

Again, to what avail?

> > > > > Which would mean that, with that negative, that scanner
> > > > > would actually capture less information than a 3.3
> d-range, 12 bit,
> > > > > scanner.  Does this make sense?
> > > >
> > > > Only if the scanner was designed to operate that way.
> > >
> > > I am thinking that this would be true with the scanners on the market
> > > now, yes?
> >
> > No.
>
> why not?

I don't see the original point I was responding to, and I'm getting to worn
out to really do any work to find out...just suffice to say I stand by my
original answer ;-)

> ideally, to get a smooth, full, 16bit histogram from a negative with
> less dynamic range than 4.8 or whatever it would take using current
> methodologies.

What advantage would this have?  You couldn't make tonal moves, without
losing data.  That's the WHOLE POINT of having headroom!

Also, what good would those tones do?  You can't print them, even if you
could, you could not see them!