> 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.
I may be wrong, but isn't this a figure of merit that existed for drum
scanners, even before there were scanners at all for consumers? I know that
books compare this figure of merit for commercial drum scanners vs. home
and office ones with this being one of the biggie differences.
Further, I think it's a reasonable named spec, even if odd, when taking into account
the name of a spec should be shorter than an explanatory paragraph. Talk about
lawsuits over un-understandable technical gibberish by the mfgr (in U.S., consumers
can't even understand how to work a punchcard ballot and will sue as a result). The
spec
spec's (AFAIK) resolution of density (whether linear or not...).
The term "resolution" is already used (and has the similar faults: "input?",
"output?", "optical?" etc.), so something else is needed to eliminate (ha!)
confusion. :-)
Although the spec dynamic-range/Dmax spec may be foo-foo'd by some here, I'll bet
everyone here wants their scanner to have this number be high on their unit!
I know I do.
Mike K.
