David Hemingway wrote:
> I am skeptical about tests using multiple operators with various
> levels of knowledge and ability. Essentially lack of control.
But hopefully with testing of the same films on different machines
using vuescan helps. The protocol used relies on a single version
of vuescan, and it's the program doing the adjustments for the main
scan. The operators have very little effect on the result in this
instance.
> The best example of this is Tony Sleep's experience in his scanner
> testing effort. When he started he had users send him scans of a
> Q60 target and based his results on those scans. When he reviewed
> the SS4000 I was very insistent he base his review on him doing
> the scans himself.
And I'm sure everyone on the list has great respect for Tony's
abilities and expertise. However, Polaroid is the only vendor
(I know of) contributing to the list, and it's unlikely we could
get the co-operation of all the vendors.
Rigorous testing with one scanner wouldn't really be fair unless the
same methods were applied to all the scanners in the exercise.
> I think the ongoing "anti-aliasing" thread is a good example.
> The originator of the thread though he was seeing silver
> grains when in fact he was not.
I don't know if it's me you're speaking of here. I know enough
about film chemistry to know that the only place I'm likely to
see silver grains is in classic B&W film. Otherwise we're
looking at dye clouds. The word "grain" is used in the
discussions in the dictionary sense for an effect in the image
rather than the literal sense of silver grains in the film.
English is difficult sometimes because of its tendency for
misinterpretation.
I feel I should also point out that the theory of "grain aliasing"
is just that - a theory. I happen to believe it's correct, but
as far as I know, there's been no scientifically valid testing
to prove it. I think everyone is working on the basis that it's
intuitively obvious that the theory matches the results, therefore
the theory is correct.
> As I am from a manufacturer I am/was a litle apprehensive in
> writing this. Hope you will not think it is "sour grapes".
> Give the level of control I think you need to be very careful
> in the conclusions drawn.
David, I don't think Polaroid will lose any sales over the
information in the group scans investigations. The SS4000
really doesn't have any competition in the marketplace at
the moment - other than from the Artix 4000 which is almost
identical except for the critical firmware and software.
For me at least, the group scanning exercise is an opportunity
to see the same films scanned on my scanner and others in a
reasonably consistent way, so I can see details my scanner
may miss. Knowing what is and isn't possible gives me some
idea of how much effort to spend on trying to improve scans.
FWIW I was going to buy a SS4000 before I decided on the LS30,
and the *only* reason I was forced to change my mind was cost.
I still believe that in it's price bracket, the SS4000 is the
best scanner I know of on the market. Unfortunately, we can't
all afford it.
Rob
(buttering up? No, just stating the facts as I see them)
Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://wordweb.com
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
