I would agree with your comments IF: 1) indeed the competitors spec usage could be PROVEN to be in opposition to either standard practice or was indeed a misuse of terms.
Based upon the "discussion" which occurred here recently regarding the use of "density range", "dynamic range", etc., it seems fairly hopeless. Partially speaking, this is because there have not been agreed upon definitions or standards within the industry. 2) the cost of the "educative" process would be shared among the players within the industry There is more than one way to damage a competitor. You can indeed play with the numbers to make your product spec out better and not play by the same "rules" as you competitors, or you can goad your competitor to spend their advertising budget on trying to prove that their competition is being dishonest... Individual companies lose when they try to prove someone else in their industry is being dishonest, and that is why you almost NEVER see these types of advertising campaigns used and even less often are they successful. And law suits are usually equally unsuccessful, again because the terms are intentionally slippery enough so no one is actually "lying". It ends up sounding like sour grapes, and the "correct" party is often more damaged by it than helped. In almost every case where the public was educated in these matters it was done through either neutral third parties, or by institutes which are specifically developed (and financed by a whole industry sector) to standardize specs because chaos ensured and the public was ignoring all stats and specs, since none could necessarily be trusted to be meaningful. Art Clark Guy wrote: > 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 > > -----Original Message----- > From: Kapetanakis, Constantine [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, August 08, 2002 9:58 AM > To: Clark Guy > Subject: [filmscanners] RE: IV ED dynamic range... DYNAMIC RANGE! > > > You are right. The max optical density of our ss120 scanner as an example is > about 3.6~3.7. We measure this we a slide we made in house on Velvia film. > Each step on the gray scale is .1 density units different and we look at the > point of clipping as the maximum density. > However, when Nikon starts advertising theoretical maximums of 4.2 ( 14 > bits) then we have to start advertising the same way. > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Unsubscribe by mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED], with 'unsubscribe filmscanners' or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or body