Mike wrote:
> Jibe accepted, Bruce, but I still think there is one crucial difference: > Michael admits his parameters, Rob Galbraith doesn't. He is testing his scanner compared to digital capture whereas he conclusions are significantly more far reaching. > If you'll notice, several people here are objecting to Michael's > conclusions. We are objecting to his concusion because he is concluding something very different from what he is testing. >But this is because he has given sufficient honest explanation > of his testing procedures and parameters to _allow_ people to draw different > conclusions, or to critique his assumptions, or suggest possible > shortcomings in his methods. That is the mark of a good test. An fundament for a good test is that you're testing what you claim to be testing. The problem with the test in question is that with the same digital camera and the same film camera you can get wildly different results, say, in two years from now with different paraphernalia. P�l P�l
