A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » General Photography » Advanced Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

What are accepted figures for signal/noise (SNR) and dynamic rangefor CRT? LCD? Film? Human eye?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old February 23rd 05, 05:42 PM
Jerry Avins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jim wrote:

...

If your next question is - Is it spelled "grey" or "gray"? I don't know
:}


...

Both are used, but "grey" is used less. The disappearance of "gaol" in
favor of "jail" is now nearly complete :-)

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #22  
Old February 23rd 05, 06:01 PM
Don Stauffer in Minneapolis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Jerry Avins" wrote


I recall that the contrast between printer's ink and glossy paper is
about 10:1 and B&W prints on glossy paper are a bit better (but on


Correction: 30:1.



Photographic paper can get to 2.0 od reflected, a range of 10 ^ 2 = 100:1.

I just took a measurement from a printed page on coated stock, it
yielded 1.27 = 1.3 = 10 ^ 1.3 = 20:1.

Unless print paper has changed in the twenty-five years since I made
some of those measurements, paper doesn't quite get to 100:1. I have
seen papers with blacks at 2% (50:1). Most papers have about 3% black
reflectance, however (33:1)

At one time I worked on a project finding black coatings for cameras and
other EO sensors. It is amazing how hard it is to get a truly black
black. Even the famed 3M Black Velvet was a 2% reflectance. The only
thing we found was a coating by Martin Marietta that was close to 1%.

The emulsion itself in photographic paper is what creates that
reflection, regardless of how much black silver it has in the emulsion.
I would assume in inkjet ink it would be the binder that holds the
pigment or dye to the paper. With laser printers the toner has some wax
in it.
  #23  
Old February 23rd 05, 08:32 PM
Jerry Avins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Don Stauffer in Minneapolis wrote:
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Jerry Avins" wrote


I recall that the contrast between printer's ink and glossy paper is
about 10:1 and B&W prints on glossy paper are a bit better (but on


Correction: 30:1.




Photographic paper can get to 2.0 od reflected, a range of 10 ^ 2 =
100:1.

I just took a measurement from a printed page on coated stock, it
yielded 1.27 = 1.3 = 10 ^ 1.3 = 20:1.

Unless print paper has changed in the twenty-five years since I made
some of those measurements, paper doesn't quite get to 100:1. I have
seen papers with blacks at 2% (50:1). Most papers have about 3% black
reflectance, however (33:1)

At one time I worked on a project finding black coatings for cameras and
other EO sensors. It is amazing how hard it is to get a truly black
black. Even the famed 3M Black Velvet was a 2% reflectance. The only
thing we found was a coating by Martin Marietta that was close to 1%.

The emulsion itself in photographic paper is what creates that
reflection, regardless of how much black silver it has in the emulsion.
I would assume in inkjet ink it would be the binder that holds the
pigment or dye to the paper. With laser printers the toner has some wax
in it.


I once got down to about 0.2% edge-on to a stack of single-edge razor
blades with the backs removed. (I was puzzled at first by poor
performance, but it worked like a charm after being degreased.) That's
about what one gets with a Tyndall tube*. I still have a can of 3M's
Nextel Velvet Black, but as far as I know, they don't make it any more.
(Nextel now means something else.) Kodak's Brushing Lacquer was pretty
good, too, but I think that's also a thing of the past. I'm almost out
of Edmund's flock paper, but that's still available.

Jerry
__________________________________
* I found no web reference to a Tyndall tube, so I figure a brief
description is in order. Tyndall needed a good light absorber for his
ultramiscrope, http://tinyurl.com/66e63 He drew a piece of glass tubing
-- a side tube on his specimen chamber -- to a cone that curved like the
toe of a jester's shoe. The outside of the tube was coated in soot from
a candle flame. Light entering the tube is reflected deeper and deeper
into the small end, suffering a small loss at each reflection.
Eventually, a ray turns around and starts out, again reflecting many
times. By the time it emerges, all those slight absorptions have pretty
well attritted it to zilch.
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #24  
Old February 23rd 05, 10:52 PM
Nicholas O. Lindan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" wrote
Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:
Photographic paper can get to 2.0 od reflected, a range of 10 ^ 2 = 100:1.

Unless print paper has changed in the twenty-five years since I made
some of those measurements, paper doesn't quite get to 100:1. I have
seen papers with blacks at 2% (50:1). Most papers have about 3% black
reflectance, however (33:1).


It is a non-specula measurement. 2.0 isn't hard to get to. However,
2.0 is not a good value for making prints with any shadow detail as
it is up on the shoulder. 1.8 OD is a better max value, closer to
2%, as you indicated.

At one time I worked on a project finding black coatings for cameras and
other EO sensors. It is amazing how hard it is to get a truly black
black. Even the famed 3M Black Velvet was a 2% reflectance. The only
thing we found was a coating by Martin Marietta that was close to 1%.


Not only isn't it black, it's yellow, or blue or red ... Black, like
white seems to be an imaginary concept.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
To reply, remove spaces: n o lindan at ix . netcom . com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/
  #25  
Old February 24th 05, 12:42 AM
jeff miller
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jeff miller wrote:
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

This thread is providing some very useful information about SNR of
media and human eyes... keep it coming!




See:
Notes on the Resolution of the Human Eye
How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?
The Sensitivity of the Human Eye (ISO Equivalent)
The Dynamic Range of the Eye
The Focal Length of the Eye:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Contrast thresholds data:
http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1/index.html

Roger


Great resource. Based on that data, I'd conclude that images captured
from my microscope might benefit for 65K x 65K resolution, so I'll use
16 bit D/A's to drive my scanning coils. Of course that kind or
resolution can only be rendered in print. And represents an 8GB file
size. And will take 2 hours to collect.... but might as well build it in.

The figure of 10,000:1 dynamic range in any "one view" corresponds to
about 12 bits. That's pretty much exactly the nominal dynamic range I've
heard quoted for the front end of an SEM.

But it might seems no current reproduction technology acheives quite that.

-Jeff



Ooops, 10K:1 is more like 13.5 bits.

But I'm finding a wide range of figures online for dynamic range of the
human eye.

I visited Barco's website in hopes of finding contrast figures for CRTs
and in a white paper comparing CRT and LCD displays, I think they tossed
out a figure of 100:1 for the human eye. 1,000 to one has been mentioned
here as well. The site referenced above so far holds the title for
claiming the widest range.

The white paper also tossed out a contrast figure for CRT's of 3,000 to
one, about 11.5 bits.

The human eye figure of 100:1 is the most surprising. The low contrast
of film is also surprising. I guess it (re film) shouldn't be, I know
that MgO is the most reflective substance as far as diffuse reflectors
go. I forget the figure.

-Jeff
  #26  
Old February 24th 05, 02:22 AM
Jerry Avins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jeff miller wrote:

...

The human eye figure of 100:1 is the most surprising. The low contrast
of film is also surprising. I guess it (re film) shouldn't be, I know
that MgO is the most reflective substance as far as diffuse reflectors
go. I forget the figure.


Photographic paper is often coated with barium sulfate -- baryta --
under the emulsion.

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #27  
Old February 24th 05, 07:08 AM
Steve Underwood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

jeff miller wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

jeff miller wrote:

This thread is providing some very useful information about SNR of
media and human eyes... keep it coming!




See:
Notes on the Resolution of the Human Eye
How many megapixels equivalent does the eye have?
The Sensitivity of the Human Eye (ISO Equivalent)
The Dynamic Range of the Eye
The Focal Length of the Eye:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...esolution.html

Contrast thresholds data:
http://www.clarkvision.com/visastro/omva1/index.html

Roger


Great resource. Based on that data, I'd conclude that images captured
from my microscope might benefit for 65K x 65K resolution, so I'll
use 16 bit D/A's to drive my scanning coils. Of course that kind or
resolution can only be rendered in print. And represents an 8GB file
size. And will take 2 hours to collect.... but might as well build it
in.

The figure of 10,000:1 dynamic range in any "one view" corresponds to
about 12 bits. That's pretty much exactly the nominal dynamic range
I've heard quoted for the front end of an SEM.

But it might seems no current reproduction technology acheives quite
that.

-Jeff



Ooops, 10K:1 is more like 13.5 bits.

But I'm finding a wide range of figures online for dynamic range of
the human eye.

I visited Barco's website in hopes of finding contrast figures for
CRTs and in a white paper comparing CRT and LCD displays, I think they
tossed out a figure of 100:1 for the human eye. 1,000 to one has been
mentioned here as well. The site referenced above so far holds the
title for claiming the widest range.

The white paper also tossed out a contrast figure for CRT's of 3,000
to one, about 11.5 bits.

The human eye figure of 100:1 is the most surprising. The low contrast
of film is also surprising. I guess it (re film) shouldn't be, I know
that MgO is the most reflective substance as far as diffuse reflectors
go. I forget the figure.

-Jeff


Do you mean the contrast ratio of film or of photographic paper?
Photographic paper, especially colour paper, is quite limited. The
contrast ratio of film can be phenomenal, depending on its type. Slow
black and white film reversal processed into slides can have extreme
contrast, and usually has to be bleached down to the point where it
looks reasonable to our eyes.

When considering the contrast ratio of the eye, remember this is an
instantaneous figure. Our pupils are constantly adapting as we scan
around a scene, and the overall constrast we perceive after flitting our
eyes around a scene can be far higher.

Regards,
Steve
  #28  
Old February 24th 05, 05:29 PM
Jerry Avins
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Steve Underwood wrote:

...

Do you mean the contrast ratio of film or of photographic paper?
Photographic paper, especially colour paper, is quite limited. The
contrast ratio of film can be phenomenal, depending on its type. Slow
black and white film reversal processed into slides can have extreme
contrast, and usually has to be bleached down to the point where it
looks reasonable to our eyes.

When considering the contrast ratio of the eye, remember this is an
instantaneous figure. Our pupils are constantly adapting as we scan
around a scene, and the overall constrast we perceive after flitting our
eyes around a scene can be far higher.


I understood that the accommodation to light levels provided by pupil
size is a rapid but small part of the overall range, and that most of it
is provided by light's bleaching of the photoreceptors. Was I wrong?

Jerry
--
Engineering is the art of making what you want from things you can get.
ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ ŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻŻ
  #29  
Old March 9th 05, 03:48 AM
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

"Don Stauffer in Minneapolis" wrote

Nicholas O. Lindan wrote:

Photographic paper can get to 2.0 od reflected, a range of 10 ^ 2 = 100:1.


Unless print paper has changed in the twenty-five years since I made
some of those measurements, paper doesn't quite get to 100:1. I have
seen papers with blacks at 2% (50:1). Most papers have about 3% black
reflectance, however (33:1).



It is a non-specula measurement. 2.0 isn't hard to get to. However,
2.0 is not a good value for making prints with any shadow detail as
it is up on the shoulder. 1.8 OD is a better max value, closer to
2%, as you indicated.


At one time I worked on a project finding black coatings for cameras and
other EO sensors. It is amazing how hard it is to get a truly black
black. Even the famed 3M Black Velvet was a 2% reflectance. The only
thing we found was a coating by Martin Marietta that was close to 1%.



Not only isn't it black, it's yellow, or blue or red ... Black, like
white seems to be an imaginary concept.


Carbon lamp black is probably the darkest diffuse
reflector. It's reflectance in the visual range is
about 1.6%:

http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-395/ofr-03-395.html
specifically:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2003/ofr-03-...gds68.1533.gif

Spectralon is the brightest:
"Spectralon reflectance material gives the
highest diffuse reflectance of any known material
or coating over the UV-VIS-NIR region of the spectrum."
It is 99% in the visual range.
http://www.labsphere.com/products.as...=187&catId=188

Roger


  #30  
Old March 9th 05, 07:57 AM
Roderick Stewart
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark) wrote:
At one time I worked on a project finding black coatings for cameras and
other EO sensors. It is amazing how hard it is to get a truly black
black. Even the famed 3M Black Velvet was a 2% reflectance. The only
thing we found was a coating by Martin Marietta that was close to 1%.



Not only isn't it black, it's yellow, or blue or red ... Black, like
white seems to be an imaginary concept.


Carbon lamp black is probably the darkest diffuse
reflector. It's reflectance in the visual range is
about 1.6%:


The BBC's Test Chart No 57 included (includes?), for the purpose of setting
the flare-correction circuitry, a "superblack" rectangle that is actually a
box a few inches deep, lined with black velvet. A small rectangular aperture
at the front opens onto the surface of the test chart. Any light striking
this rectangle enters the dark box and has to undergo several successive
reflections by the black velvet before emerging, thus giving the rectangular
opening an effective reflectance much lower than would be achievable by any
actual surface.

Any value of the output signal above dark current level corresponding to this
part of the chart is deemed not to have come from the chart at all but from
light scattered in the lens, and the circuitry is adjusted accordingly.

Rod.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What are accepted figures for signal/noise (SNR) and dynamic rangefor CRT? LCD? Film? Human eye? jeff miller Digital Photography 40 March 11th 05 12:03 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:03 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright İ2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.