sous-évalué
English translation: under-estimated
| GLOSSARY ENTRY (DERIVED FROM QUESTION BELOW) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| 22:23 May 20, 2008 |
| French to English translations [PRO] Tech/Engineering - Photography/Imaging (& Graphic Arts) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||||
|  Selected response from: Tony M France Local time: 04:49 | ||||||
Grading comment
| |||||||
| Summary of answers provided | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 +4 | under-estimated |
| ||
| 5 | ...too high, ...too low (see explanation) |
|
Answers
1 hr confidence: 
...too high, ...too low (see explanation) Explanation: The evaluation (implied) is of the number of particles "counted". Two things occur when one is boosting the sensitivity rating (of a film, a CCD, etc.): the threshold point at which something is detected lowers, and the contrast increases (essentially, one is really boosting the rendition of the higher grays (the medium and lighter grays and the whites while leaving the dark grays and blacks where they are). Minimum Threshold All photo systems (silver nitrate, electronic CCD, hydrogen release, photocopiers), work with thresholds. Below those thresholds, nothing registers. When one is using a more sensitive film or CCD, the luminance level at which the film or CCD detects something is lowered. In your metal test system, it is possible for the lower threshold to cause random noise to appear and register as "false positives". Boosting a system's sensitivity Too compensate the imbalance in the rendition caused by the fact that the film's speed or the gain of the CCD has been increased, and partly to achieve the effect/illusion of boosting the sensitivity, the system (film, CCD, whatever) has to have its overall constrast increased in order to increase the "distance" (the contrast) between the medium and lighter grays, otherwise, all those lighter tones will all end up looking nearly the same. When this boosting is done a little too much, the system will begin registering random noise effects (natural imperfections in the clear film base, for example, and the natural and normal random effects inherent to any digital photo-sensitive system). Either way, you get extra and bigger dots. In your case, the camera system evaluates the number or proportion of inoculant particles either by actually counting the particles that have certain characteristics (size, shape, colour, etc.), their proportion, or both. If the sensitivity is too high, the system registers a high number or proportion than is actually there, and vice versa. Under- and overvalued doesn't quite seem (to me) to be preferable here (because of the qualitative implication of the word "valued") whereas a phrase along the lines of "the number/proportion of particles detected will be too high/low" will certainly be correctly understood. HTH |
| |
| Login to enter a peer comment (or grade) | ||
8 hrs confidence: 
peer agreement (net): +4
peer agreement (net): +4under-estimated Explanation: It may mean under-estimated in the sense of 'not enough get counted', or it might mean 'are not seen as large as they should be', since camera sensitivity setting could either fail to reveal some particles, or might make them appear smaller than they actually are. I'd instinctively have gone for the first reading, except that your second sentence says "some are not even detected at all", which inclines towards the second interpretation. In any event, and in the absence of more detail about just how and what this system does, I would use the direct, literal translation and thereby preserve the same ambiguity as in FR. |
| |
Grading comment
| ||
