In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

their 'tests' claim what is physically not possible. that alone makes
them a scam

Example? - assuming of course that you are able to cite one.

of course i'm able. i do not make false claims. period.

--- Claim by nospam: ----

dxo measured 14.8 stops of dynamic range on the nikon d810 and d850,
which is *higher* than the theoretical maximum of 14 stops (14 bit a/d)
and in the real world, it won't actually get 14 stops.

that's not *my* claim.

it's basic sampling theory, something which you clearly do not
understand at all.

What is the frequency of the signal being sampled?

you're confused.

I challenged this comment which lead to an enormous thread which
fanned out in all directions. My contention was (and is) that the
number of bits that are used to code an image have nothing to do with
the dynamic range of the sensor. You can code it with as many bits as
you like with factors other than dynamic range determining the choice.
In particular there is no reason why a sensor should not have a
dynamic range wider than implied by the number of bits with which it's
output is encoded.

your contention is wrong, which you even admitted in the middle of the
thread.

I bet you can't cite the article where I did that.

i could if i was motivated to sift through more than 500 posts to find
it.

At one stage Ron C suggested I should explain my views with diagrams.
With some reluctance I have been getting round to doing this.
Preparing the diagrams so as to be able to deal with nospams of tghis
world is no mean task. In the course of my background research I found
the following thread from dpreview dated Mar 25, 2012.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3170233

If you read that you will see that the maximum number of bits with
which it is worthwhile coding an image is determined by (a) read noise
and (b) pixel well size. DR vs number of bits is touched upon but no
one has suggested that sensor DR is limited by bit number.

the second post in that thread clearly does, further proof that you
don't understand the topic.

You mean where fvdbergh wrote "The dynamic range of a sensor is
typically limited by the signal to noise ratio (SNR), not the bit
depth of the analogue to digital converter (ADC)."?

nope.

i mean this pretty little pictu
https://3.img-dpreview.com/files/g/TS560x560~1835042.jpg
from this post, which is the second post in the thread:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/41016086

it's even marked in evs, although that will no doubt cause you massive
confusion.

I have many times talked about scaling the sensor output to the ADC
and you have repeatedly told me I was wrong.

nope, what i told you is that the sensor output *could* be scaled, but
it isn't, therefore what you've said is not applicable.

have you forgotten about your imaginary camera collection?

I think it it's safe to say you don't know as much of this subject as
you you think you do and you understand even less.

that would be a very unsafe comment.

it actually applies to you.

This hopefully is my last post on this subject.

hopefully, but i suspect not. either way, you haven't learned a thing.