With a specified precision.
2 years ago
422
If that's what you believe to be a topic of discussion within the scope and context of the article, that's your perception. Readers can decide that for themselves.
Calling facts "perception" is a known fallacy.
In that case
is totally correct and a fact, not a perception.
You're just rinsing and repeating your earlier posts so the obvious question is "So what?" because it doesn't change anything.
Bits as a measure of precision was never in dispute. This is what happens when you chop words out of sentences and lose all context.
Speaking of context and perception — that was the dispute which I suggest readers decide for themselves. See above.
No rinsing that I can see.
It's a merry-go-round, so hang on; it just keeps going round and round.
Well....we'll just have to disagree on that one because it appeared you clearly disputed that precision of measurements was involved when you said
If anything, you comment seems to be an opinion or perception.
In any case you now saying
you agree that
is true.
Read the article and tell me whether you perceive the topic of discussion regarding levels is their precision or how they are distributed and let me know.
How does precision become the topic of a discussion without ever mentioning the word precision at least once?
Chopping words out of sentences to alter their context is a well-worn tactic.
We're getting way off topic now. Perhaps start your own thread if you want to discuss further.
I posted earlier why we'll just have to disagree on this one 🙂
Getting off topic was precisely the context for my remarks. It's that context which you appear to have missed.
He was complaining that there was limited quantizing density in the midtones and shadows because of the use of a linear ADC. Never mind that that is a red herring because of noise, but that's one of his points, and a reason he advances for ETTR. ETTR is a good thing, but that's not the reason.
If you think that 64 bits is not sufficiently dense quantization for some shadow level, but want to stick with linear ADCs, then the obvious solution is to increase the precision of the ADC. That's what many people who bought Bruce's bogus quantization density argument clamored for, and one of the reasons we ended up with silly levels of precision in some Hasselblads, which ended up allowing them to more finely digitize pure noise.
The thrust of his argument about quantizing levels points towards a solution that doesn't work.
Another clear sign that he was confused was his talking about shadow posterization arising from a 12-bit ADC. The CCD sensors of the era had so much noise that that wasn't going to happen.
Bruce said this:
"Film mimics the eye’s response to light, which is highly nonlinear. Most of our human
senses display a significant compressive nonlinearity—a built-in compression that lets
us function in a wide range of situations without driving our sensory mechanisms into
overload"It is not, in general, true.
Slide film has a expansive, not a compressive, nonlinerity.
Negative film developed to N has a compressive nonlinearity.
Negative film developed to N+x can have an expansive nonlinearity.
Negative film optically printed on paper is approximately linear when you get away from the toe and shoulder regions.Bruce said this:
"Note that the on-camera histogram shows the histogram of the in-camera conversion to JPEG: a
raw histogram would be a rather strange-looking beast, with all the data clumped at the shadow
end..."That's not true at all, as a few minutes spent with RawDigger will demonstrate. There's no reason why a raw histogram has to use a linear x-axis, and for many purposes, it's better to use a nonlinear one.
Nice, and now we are presented with a challenge to make it linear, because in Nature eyes are presented with a linear distribution.