With capture performance claims of digital imaging devices, one is beckoned by a cacophony of vendor specifications. Loud, confusing (and unregulated), they are, ironically, seductive. For the inexperienced, evaluating these assertions in a consistent, scientific sense is futile. Indeed, even the experienced are disadvantaged without the appropriate tools and guidelines. Let's face it, for the most part, we use these mar-keting specifications, along with brand name and price, as imaging performance guides. Given the competitive state and relatively low imaging performance expectations of today's consumer digital cameras and scanners, this selection paradigm may actually be reasonable - especially for low-demand imaging tasks. However, for serious amateurs and professionals with demanding projects or clients, relying on this formula as an imaging performance indicator is precarious, especially in the context of high productivity workflow constraints. The difference between sampling frequency (dpi), and true resolution, is confusing. Improved "optical" resolution claims remain suspect. Bit-depth alone is far from a sufficient criterion for specifying dynamic range, and the existence of artifacts and noise are dismissed with a shrug. Unlike the world of analog imaging, where one could confidently rely on the history-rich reputation of a few manufacturers for performance integrity, today's digital imaging landscape offers fewer assurances.
展开▼
