Digital BW, The Print

Hi Greg,

> Sorry Austin but you seem like someone with a special axe to
> grind here.

Well, in a way, you are right.  I don't like BS, hype and misinformation.  I
have no axe to grind against real technology advances...and accurate
representations.

> ...but your
> comments go a bit too far overboard to be taken seriously or
> without suspicion.

I am merely stating facts.  It is the claims I am disputing that are not
factual.  If you are able to, please show me where any of my facts are
wrong, or can be challenged.  If not, then you really have no business
making some of the statements you are making here, and the tone with which
you make them.

I have been designing digital imaging equipment for over 20 years, and have
credentials that fully qualified to evaluate this technology (in fact people
pay me TO evaluate technology and companies) and say what I have said.  I am
giving a totally objective evaluation based on my many years of experience
in the field...I am not a marketing person, and I have nothing to gain...or
lose, I only seek the truth of an honest evaluation and representation.

> I'm not sure why YOU expect to get a personal reply from a major
> company when you demand to know exactly what camera took which photos.  I
> have a hunch that unless you contacted just the right person,
> most employees probably don't have any idea which camera was
> used.

That's an interesting statement.  Why would you expect them NOT to be able
to answer that easily?  They are supposedly scientists and engineers.  I
take it you don't know much about engineering?  I can't imagine anyone in
any of the companies I have worked for providing test/evaluation data and
not writing up how the tests were conducted.  It's standard operating
procedure for ANY published tests.

> If
> you approached them with even half the tone I read in this post,
> my guess is that you
> were dismissed as some crackpot without much further thought.

I've been at this for a long time, I know how to ask the questions, and what
questions to ask.

> As for your 25 plus years of experience with digital imaging?  I
> bet that is a bit of a stretch.

No, not a stretch at all.  In fact, I developed the first commercially
available digital visual inspection system in the world, the AI416, for a
company named Automatix (which I was one of the founding engineers of).
That was in 1978/9.  I developed the image capture and processing board for
it.  For two years before that I spent my time developing a robotic vision
system for "intelligent" robot navigation.  Yes, I HAVE been at digital
image processing since 1976.  It's a fact, not a stretch at all.

> Geez, that pre-dates most solid state computers as
> we know them.
> Were you using tubes and relays?

Well, you're obviously not in this industry, nor have any grasp of the
technology timeline.  Semiconductors were around for quite a few years
before I started, in fact, before I was born!  Semiconductors were first
developed in the late 40's (1947 to be exact) and were commercialized in the
50's, and microprocessors based on the Intel 8080 were available in the mid
70's...as well as the LSI-11 from Digital. Perhaps you have just lost track
of time, and realize 25 years ago was 1977!!!

> We all know that marketing types stretch the facts. They
> manipulate them to make sure their product is presented in the
> best light possible.

The things I mentioned were not a manipulation of facts, but a
misrepresentation of information.  Plain and simple.

> It's
> our job as consumers to
> sort through these layers of BS.

I doubt that.  Most consumers have no clue what they are talking about when
it comes to digital imaging.  Most people do NOT even understand the Bayer
pattern sensor, and the fact that camera manufacturers have been
misrepresenting the details of these cameras for some time, that detail
being the difference between sensor elements and pixels.  My guess is it's
something you may not understand either.

> IMHO maybe
> even bordering on the edge of legal accountability yourself.

Well, Greg, nothing I've said is at all bordering on any legal edge.  I
merely stated facts, and will gladly stand behind any of my claims.  You
can't bring suit against someone for simply stating well known facts.

If you can't debate me on technical merits, then please give your tack a
rest please.  I haven't been disrespectful to you, and I don't understand
what your need is to be so of me.

Austin