Detail Man
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 17,490
- Solutions
- 11
- Reaction score
- 2,745
Source: Oxford English Dictionary.
Noise:
Definition [2]: technical Irregular fluctuations that accompany a transmitted electrical signal but are not part of it and tend to obscure it.
Definition [2.1] Random fluctuations that obscure or do not contain meaningful data or other information.
From: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/noise
.
Deterministic (being the adjective form of the noun "determinism", which is defined below):
The doctrine that all events, including human action, are ultimately determined by causes external to the will.
From: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/determinism
.
Irregular:
Definition [1.1]: Occurring at uneven or varying rates or intervals.
From: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/irregular
.
JimKasson wrote:
First, in my way of thinking, more than one noise source generates "noise" not "noises".
If you must construct your imaging system model this way, please substitute "deterministic"* for periodic.
Thanks,
Jim
*always producing the same output if the underlying machine passes through the same sequence of states.
From: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/54682753.
.
It seems to me that Jim's stated description of the term "determinism" differs from the definition existing in the Oxford English Dictionary. Wikipedia states the following information:
Determinisic System:
In mathematics and physics, a deterministic system is a system in which no randomness is involved in the development of future states of the system. A deterministic model will thus always produce the same output from a given starting condition or initial state.
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterministic_system
.
Whether one is describing periodic readout components (generated within the imaging device itself) existing within recorded image-data that are unrelated to the scene recorded, or whether one is describing physical scratches existing on a vinyl disc used for reproducing recorded audio sounds producing sounds unrelated to the originally recorded sounds, ...
... both cases of such (aesthetically undesired, and clearly unrelated to the original scene or sounds intended to be represented) phenomena propagating through and to the output of any deterministic system(s) (as defined on the Wikipedia web-page quoted from and linked-to above) represent what may be reasonably considered to constitute undesirable components (arising soley out of the machinery involved in recording, processing, storage, or reproduction).
Both examples presented above are (for most viewers/listeners, anyway) considered to constitute what are undesirable components that are clearly not related to the original scene/sounds intended to be recorded, processed, and subsequently presented to our sensory faculties.
The premise that - rather than incorporating such phenomena into differentiations between that which is in presentation desired and that which is undesired (as in the perhaps simplisticly, but understandably, worded rhetorical categories of "signal" and "noise") - a third category must be created (in order to satisfy a particular individual definition of "noise" as having to necessarily only apply to random components), seems to me to be substantively counter-productive in what (seem to be) reasonably understandable processes of determining (including numerically quantifying) what may amount to components perceived by human beings as being "desired" and "undesired" components existing within representations of scenes/sounds which are output by systems in visual or auditory presentations provided to our sensory faculties.
DM
Last edited:
