"Hemingway, David J" wrote:
>
> Arthur,
> I don't think it is as much an issue of manufacturers "misrepresentation" as
> much as it is we just don't talk to each other. I know Polaroid is usually
> conservative in their specs, much to the consternation of our sales folks. A
> good example of this is the OD spec. In side by side lab comparisons with a
> competitors scanner spec'd at 3.6 we are statistically the same and we spec
> at 3.4.
> I just don't think it is an "evil empire" kind of thing.
> Phil has very good connections with some of the higher end scanner companies
> and I am not aware of them trying to force the issue. At least for film
> scanners it may be it is a relatively small industry.
> David
I don't disagree that creating objective industry tests is both time
consuming and even costly. But it is also typically disadvantageous for
all but the true winners in these tests. As a result, with few
exceptions, manufacturers have to brought screaming and kicking to the
table to discuss objective testing. In general, objective tests put an
end to a lot of the "truth stretching" which goes on in most
industries. Of course, then the lies about other non-tested aspects
come, or the products are sold using psychological methods (sex,
prestige, guilt, or whatever).
In a larger market, like that of cars, or audio electronics or video,
either manufacturing consortiums or private labs (paid for by either
manufacturers or second parties, like media (magazines, television,
etc)) develop and pay for testing. The scanner market (and particularly
the film scanner market) is so small that there simply isn't enough
consumer demand for private labs. Heck, I doubt if one could even
convince Consumer Reports to take on something like this. Some
specialty magazines have taken a stab here and there with this, but
talk about useless test results...!
Anyway, as a result, we have individuals designing amateur test
results. They may prove inaccurate, but probably no less so than what
the manufacturers feed us. If nothing else, these web sites warn
consumers that we should take little of the information we receive at
face value. Further, there is such a wide quality control issue with
film scanners, that I'm not sure there is any such thing as an average
unit. Again, manufacturers get away with this, because to a large
extent, users are so isolated that we do not have the opportunity to do
A-B comparisons. Having been through 3 Photosmart scanners, I can tell
you that each had unique results (same operator, some computer).
So my question to you, David, as someone involved in the thick of this
(and I say this with all due respect)
how is the consumer supposed to:
1) Know which product to buy for their needs, when the demo model (if
one even exists) is not necessarily representative of the final unit
purchased
2) Know that his/her product is working correctly relative to the
manufacturer's tolerances
3) Know when the problem is software/firmware/mechanics versus the
user's own inabilities or lackings
I come up against this constantly. I buy a product. As I become more
knowledgeable in using it, I recognize a seeming "defect" in it. If I'm
lucky, I realize this prior to the manufacturer's warranty expiring. I
am then left trying to determine if the "defect" is just "the nature of
the beast" (hey, what do you expect for a measly "$700"!), my misuse or
misunderstanding of the product (hey, don't buy something you don't know
how to use), a conflict with something else in the set up I am using
(hey, it's not our fault you decided to by that SCSI card, software,
video card, CD writer, etc. which conflicts with our product), a defect
that has developed over time (hey, what do you expect, you got 6 months
use out of it before it broke), etc, etc.
Please understand, I am not pointing my finger at you, nor at Polaroid,
but at an industry wide problem which is only getting worse.
Yesterday, after weeks of frustration trying to determine what was
causing my 16 bit/channel scanned images to posterize during Photoshop
4.01 levels adjustment, without success or without much help from the
suppliers or the potential problem components, I loaded a LE version of
Photoshop 5 on my system, and discovered the problem I was encountering
disappeared with Photoshop 5. This is after several emails with Diamond
about their card, and the drivers, and changing drivers, etc, and
finally Diamond suggesting I upgrade my card.
So, I spent over 2 hours last night at Adobe's web site trying to see if
this was a known problem in their knowledgebase, and if they had a patch
for it. Well, I found a lot of other interesting stuff (more about that
in another message) but noting about my problem.
Now, I know one answer is to upgrade to Version 5 or 5.5 or 6 of
Photoshop, but I shouldn't be required to do that to fix my version of
Photoshop 4.01. The Diamond card and Photoshop 4 are both around the
same vintage. They should work properly together. The problem was
obviously addressed somehow via the version 5 Photoshop (which still
doesn't prove that the problem was in Photoshop). Somehow, however, I,
as the consumer of these products, is assumed to be at fault, as either
company expects me to shell out more money to "fix" a problem of one or
both of their making.
Adobe, once a company with great customer service, now won't even allow
me to report this bug to them, as their web site won't allow me access
to their tech support, and I am beyond my "free tech support" period on
Photoshop. In other words, I have to pay them to report a bug in their
software, let alone discuss with them if they should upgrade me without
charge due to this problem. Adobe's sales have never been better, BTW.
There stock is at all time highs. Is this the kind of treatment we have
grown to accept as "normal" in high tech companies?
If manufacturers in high tech are wondering why they are losing respect,
why class action law suits are developing everywhere, and why no one
believes the hype they are being tossed, it is because we have been
abused in recent years by what I can only called the "Microsoft"
mentality that no one client is important enough to worry about. And
the more we, as clients, buckle under to demands of the industry to
simply "buy the upgrade" as a temporary fix to the defects, the more
this industry will sell us that bill of goods.
We need to keep in mind that we determine the fate of these companies
through our buying habits and our expectations, and each time we pull
out our cash (or credit card) we vote for or against a product and a
business model. In this business, many of the mighty have fallen due to
poor business practices or poor products. Vote with your wallet!
Art
====================================================================
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.
