Pappy, thanks for the link. I don't want to make it sound like I'm posting this to poo-poo your link, but I don't think his analysis was very sound. To me, it seems he cut come cans apart, looked at the contents, and if they appeared to be of high quality construction, he considered it a good filter. Personally, I think he was too keen on the metal end caps and against the paper/cardboard end caps. That really shouldn't matter much. What matters is that the oil goes through the pleats, where the filtering takes place. As long as the cardboard ends keep oil from flowing around the end of the pleats, it should be considered functionally 'good'. What's important is the gluing of the filter element to the end caps, to seal the ends and not let the oil bypass the filter element.
I think he missed the most important part of the analysis -- actual surface area of the filter element. He gave overall dimensions; big whoop. What he should have done is measured the depth of the pleats, the height of the element, and counted the number of pleats, to get the actual surface area. Without doing a much more expensive experiment to find out which brand's element catches more gunk, this would be the best way to estimate how good the filter is. One of the shorter filters had a lot of pleats, and probably does a better job of filtering than some of the taller filters with fewer pleats.
Just my $0.02