I hate it when people mention "orders of magnitude" without specifying what magnitude (base), often assuming base 10.

In base 10, 1,000 is two orders of magnitude greater than 10. But in base, say, 2 (which is often relevant to my interests), 1,000 is 6.6 orders of magnitude greater than 10.

You (or perhaps I) would hope that authors of a book on High Dynamic Range Imaging, which involves math, particularly the base 2 kind, both due to the generally binary nature of computers, and that it is the base used for photographic Exposure Value / F-stops with which dynamic range is measured, would have greater sensitivity to this issue.

I'm currently the eighth most prolific wikipedia editor, working on the HDRI article.

(All numbers are in base 10.)

(Please check my math.)

In base 10, 1,000 is two orders of magnitude greater than 10. But in base, say, 2 (which is often relevant to my interests), 1,000 is 6.6 orders of magnitude greater than 10.

You (or perhaps I) would hope that authors of a book on High Dynamic Range Imaging, which involves math, particularly the base 2 kind, both due to the generally binary nature of computers, and that it is the base used for photographic Exposure Value / F-stops with which dynamic range is measured, would have greater sensitivity to this issue.

I'm currently the eighth most prolific wikipedia editor, working on the HDRI article.

(All numbers are in base 10.)

(Please check my math.)

perspicuitybtw, FAL good, but cannot easily go para-FAL. suck. someay.

in the meantime, i scope out 870 XTC/Nickel.

#