Then will Michael print the results and photograph them so we can view them at 100% on our monitors? That would obviously be pointless as he would then have to convert those photographs of the prints and it would be an endless loop of variables. All I want to know is which converter does the best, and under what circumstances. Just telling me they all look good when printed and it doesn't matter is a waste of my time and Michael's.
Gosh, Tony. I have a lot of confidence that Michael can deliver an expert opinion on the quality of prints. I've seen two of his prints first hand, thanks to a friend of mine who purchased them - they are beautiful prints. I don't need to see the results on my monitor, which would be pointless, to accept his expert opinion as being highly valuable.
If in fact they do all look good when printed, it is hardly a waste of anyone's time. That's great to know. To what size do they look good, what colours are best represented, how much dynamic range is available, at what ISO do they print well. There are many, many variables and the information will be very valuable.
Just posting 100% crops can often be misleading as to how the final result will look. Some of us value the final result. If you don't, that's fine. I'm sure the 100% crops will be made available, too.
Why would you possibly be bothered about someone hoping to get such an opinion, in addition to the pixel level analysis?
Oh, and define best? What look are you trying to achieve? Does workflow factor into the overall equation for you? What about cost of the software, support, availability, cross platform availability and consistency, performance with other file types? We all want a simple answer, of course, but typically it's a rare case when there is one. More information is good.