Re: filmscanners: Minolta Scan Multi Pro REVIEW???

[Arthur Entlich <artistic@ampsc.com>]

Thanks for reminding me the light at the end of the tunnel is probably a 
train coming straight at me! ;-)

BTW< I only buy stereo equipment which has a creamy centre, or center, 
depending on which brand of english one spells with... that way, all my 
CDs sound like muzak.

The Mad Magazine parody on Consumer Reports which I must have read 35 
years ago still sticks in my mind.  They were supposed to be testing 
clothes irons, and gave an "unacceptable rating" to a toaster which they 
stated "tended to scorch the fabric..." "has obscurely labeled 
adjustment for dark to light which seems to relate to the color of the 
material one is ironing, but all positions burned fabric regardless" and 
"uncomfortable design and awkwardly large on/off slider which tended to 
randomly hold or disengage"

Art

Wire Moore wrote:

> I also feel the Imaging Resource scanner reviews are weak. The scanner
> operator seems to have no consistent methodology, no particular depth of
> understanding of how features relate to performance, 'corrections' or
> adjustments are performed with the scanner interface that make no sense from
> the standpoint of obtaining good results, no sort of reference scans are
> provided, the images look kind of bad, so much so that it would be hard to
> judge a good scan.
> 
> Compounding matters is the nature of the market environment: consumers have
> little to no leverage, so reviewing style and content is driven by an odd
> combination of purveyors advertising money and those who pursue it. This
> gives the content the funny quality of mostly representing purveyors
> concerns, yet in a fashion that purveyors often don't like. Purveyor
> motivation is low and participation driven only by the concern to match the
> presence of any competitors in the forum.
> 
> Independent labs are the way to go for consumer oriented reviews. But who
> will fund and run them?
> 
> And there is some kind of weird market pressure at work even in the
> "publicly funded" forums.
> 
> Consumer Reports has begun to look like a catalog/lifestyle magazine.
> They've taken to superficially comparing such segments as luxury compact
> sports wagons, and other essentials of modern life. "The ride was firm with
> a pronounced rocking when fully loaded" and other important details are
> reported. The Mark 9 has strong acceleration and lively handling. Or "189
> home theatre speakers compared!" "The Panasonic XQJ-37 was a best buy!" by
> often arbitrary criteria. It sounded rich and filling, with a creamy center.
> 
> Over the last 10 years, public broadcasting in the USA has started to look
> like every other corporate lifestyle brand: "If PBS doesn't feed to the head
> of your child, who will?" we're admonished at regular intervals, provided
> with the generous support of Exxon and ADM. Then it's on to Antiques
> Roadshow to review some 'older' products.
> 
> Our culture is weird.
> 
> Wire
> 
> on 10/24/01 5:25 PM, markthomasz@ozemail.com.au at
> markthomasz@ozemail.com.au wrote:
> 
> 
>>Thanks for that Petru - I must have missed that wonderful Tony Sleep
>>contribution :)
>>
>>I too have grave doubts about the Imaging Resource reviews - as Tony says,
>>their comments about never having seen a >2800 dpi scanner and the fact that 
>>
> 
> .
> 
>