In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But the digital DR of the output of the ADC is not the same as the
analog DR of the sensor. Nor is there any reason why it should be.

Well that's exactly what I said. If they are publishing the DR of the
sensor, why would any photographer care about that, if the DR is then
limited by the ADC? The usable output of any camera we buy is all we
care about.

There is no reason why the DR of the sensor should not be compressed
to make it fit within the limits of the ADC.

actually there are several reasons, but the only one that matters is
that the sensor data *isn't* compressed or altered in any way prior to
the adc.

arguing about a non-existent camera, one which is likely to never exist
at all, is pointless and actually, rather bizarre.

After all, in processing
it's going to be further compressed (and probably clipped) for viewing
on a screen and even further compressed (and probably clipped) when
output to a display device or printer. I presume the intention is that
the original information be preserved as much as possible as far down
the processing stream as is possible.

no.

DXO's results are at best misleading, whether it's malicious or not.

I suspect that the problem is that they are working in an area which
few people properly understand.

plenty of people understand it.

the problem is you're not among them.

e.g.:

https://corp.dxomark.com/wp-content/...rmationCapacit
y.pdf
and

https://corp.dxomark.com/wp-content/...titative-measu
rement-of-contrast-texture-color-and-noise-for-digital-photography-of-high-dyn
amic-range-scenes_small.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/yaaf4o6s

not relevant, and use on urls so they don't break.