[filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!

["Clark Guy" <guy.clark@sbt.siemens.com>]

HI, Austin!

My comment was only that Polaroid should try to stay on the high road and
advertise REAL numbers, not theoretical ones (derived simply from the number
of bits per sample).   To do the latter would be misleading, and should be
pointed out when used by the competition.

I think an ISO standard would be a good thing in this case!

Thanx!!!

Guy

-----Original Message-----
From: Austin Franklin [mailto:darkroom@ix.netcom.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 10:51 AM
To: Clark Guy
Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE!


Hi Clark

The ISO has basically opined on a standardized test for specifying the
dynamic range of a scanner.  Hopefully, manufacturers will use it...

BTW, I believe what Constantine is discussing is dMax, not dynamic
range...they aren't (typically) the same.  Either way, it is good to
actually test these things (dMax, dMin and dynamic range/noise in the
system), not simply add more bits to the A/D and claim a higher range etc.
...because the bits may not be "good" (as in real information...could simply
be noise).

Regards,

Austin

> HI, Constantine!
>
> I disagree--- if the competition insists on using bogus specs, you should
> stay above that, and point out the fact that the competitor's specs ARE
> bogus, and why.
>
> Educate the consumer, don't try to BS us!   It's been tried before by all
> sorts of industries, with generally bad outcomes in the long
> term.  (look at
> the High Fidelity Audio community for example!)
>
> Thanx!
>
> Guy Clark
>

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body