At 01:09 13/01/01, Tony wrote:
>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!
No, they are claiming even more specifically ... and I quote from
http://www.klt.co.jp/Nikon/Press_Release/ls-4000.html
...
Density range 4.2
...
Contrary to the view put by others (that I am being naive in expecting some
vague truth in advertising and that there is no way any action would be
successful), there have been some landmark successes in recent times in
which advertisers were prevented from lying, some even had to repay
money. I am talking Australia here and have no idea what goes on in
litigation-central USA or the UK.
Since usable density range is one of the single most important
characteristics of a scanner, and hence a characteristic which is (or
should be) involved in everyone's decision making process when buying,
consumers have more than the usual right to know a vaguely defensible (by
measurement) figure.
I will write to Nikon - whether or not they listen to me I really doubt
that this claim will remain for long in these litigatious
"truth-in-advertising" times, unless it can be substantiated. I am sure
you and others will disagree, but no harm in hoping.
Of course there is always the possibility that the useful density range of
this scanner _is_ 4.2, in which case I will be very pleased to have Nikon
let me know this fact, and be one of the first to line up and buy, even if
I have to sell my ... um ... ... house?
I remember the Peak Music Power days and used to indulge in a bit of hi-fi
salesman baiting on this topic. Often good fun on a hot Saturday
afternoon, hi-fi shops being air-conditioned. Anyone want do discuss the
crystal clarity of music if you use oxygen-free speaker cables? You know
of course that in "ordinary" speaker cables the oxygen molecules get in the
way of the electrons, causing them to slow down and rattle around, so the
music comes out "muffled". I LOVE hi-fi salesmen.
:)!!
Julian
[This PS is relevant and is copied form another post I just wrote after
having a Revelation.]
PS There is another issue that comes up here - I have assumed that Dynamic
range (which until now I would say is the same thing as density range) is
Dmax - Dmin where you measure Dmax and Dmin _with_the_same_setup_ - that
is, during the one scan.
Nikon may argue that their Dmin is measured with the exposure set low, and
Dmax with the exposure set as high as possible. This means that they can
get up to another 2 to 4 stops(!!!) into their claimed DENSITY
RANGE. Which might explain why they use the term Density Range and not
Dynamic Range - Dynamic Range certainly means the range that can be covered
without changing the setup i.e. the range available at one instant.
So I can see it is quite possible that Nikon MAY be able to argue that they
cover a Density Range of 3.6 for the LS2000 or 4.2 for the LS4000, although
you have to do a couple of separate scans to see it, which is not quite
what you would want and certainly not what people are assuming when they
read the spec.
The mere presence of exposure controls on the Nikon scanner tends to
support this idea.
So the LS2000 MAY in fact have a density range of 3.6, but it's Dynamic
Range could still be 2 (or is it 4) stops less than this - i.e. 3.0 or
2.4. Is it coincidence that most the measurements I have seen are in this
range, from memory about 2.6? (I assume people have been measuring Dynamic
Range, not Density Range).
Julian Robinson
in usually sunny, smog free Canberra, Australia
