On Fri, 12 Jan 2001 12:52:47 +1100 Julian Robinson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > If they state an unqualified figure for Dmax, > then when measured by some "reasonable" process it should meet that > figure. With the likelihood that it will not, this would mean that they > are just plain lying, and therefore should be open to action through > consumer protection laws. But they aren't AFAIK claiming a DMax figure, nor even an OD range (DMax-DMin), but a wibbly-wobbly bit of slipperiness called 'dynamic range'. Really this is all horribly reminiscent of output power specs for HiFi amps - 'RMS', 'Music Power', 'Peak' and so on, all gibberish without qualifying terms. Caveat emptor! Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 ... Tony Sleep
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Frank Paris
- filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Rob Geraghty
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Hersch Nitikman
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Mike Kersenbrock
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Julian Robinson
- RE: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Austin Franklin
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Bob Shomler
- Re: filmscanners: Re: So it's the bits? Tony Sleep
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan 120 ... photoscientia
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprintscan... Tony Sleep
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Julian Robinson
- RE: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Austin Franklin
- Re: So it's the bits? (Was: filmscanners: Sprint... Robert E. Wright