Bruce wrote: > The same could be said for the PC's. What he is comparing is what he > has and uses. I don't see much, if any difference. Only that you > like Macs and I like 67's. Both made a real world test that measured > the things that they do and use. As such, both are valid tests. > Neither test is necessarily indicative of the best that can be > offered. That is the weakness to tests - they can be devised to show > just about whatever you want.
The first thing one should do before performing a test is to formulate what you want to find out. Then figure out how to best design a test that gets you the answer. The weakness with many tests are that they don't do this. The test in question starts with two mediums. Medium A has significantly higer resolution, more visible noise and lower accutance than B. The first step in this test is to take medium A through a process that reduces its resolution to the level of medium B while retaining the original medium negative aspects. Then both medium goes through another bottleneck which reduce resolution further and still keeping medium A weak sides, but don't do much with the accutance; medium Bs force. What this test tells us is that the process is better suited for medium B than A. Hower, for most of us this is nothing new; we did, after all, suspect that dgitial was better suited for digital processes and manipulation. P�l
