Camera quality of output summary scores for the top 50 as rated by individually detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 08:46:12 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews

they haven't reviewed the 11 yet, but more importantly, their scores
have an arbitrary scale and are completely meaningless. they claim
cameras can do what is physically impossible, in particular, nikon slrs
with a higher dynamic range than the adc limit.

You keep saying that, but you miss the point that there is no direct
connection between the dynamic range of the ADC (Analogue to Digital
Convertor) and the dynamic range of the camera sensor.

go back to that thread from a year or two ago when this was explained
to you in great detail by several different people.

Several different people consisting of you. Your explanation consisted
of you repeating your original claim.

myself, alan browne and a couple of others.

OK. Lets vote on it. That's the way these things are decided.

no, that's not how things are decided in sampling theory, but even with
a vote, you would lose since you're the only one making the claim.

The ADC is digitising not the light value captured by a sensel but the
magnitude of the voltage or current output of the circuitry measuring
the charge in the sensel. The output of this circuitry is anywhee
between 0% and 100% of its possible range and the the ADC chops this
into steps the size of which depends on whether the ADC is using 8,
10, 12, 14 or even 16 bits. This has nothing to do with with the range
over which the sensel can capture light. For all we know 0% output
might represent half the light capture of 100% output. Alternatively
it could represent 1/4000 of the light capture of 100% light capture.
You cannot determine this by the number of bits which the ADC uses to
code the data.

put simply: you don't understand sampling theory.

I do and this is not a question of sampling.

you clearly don't, and it very definitely is. you also don't understand
dynamic range.

I'm only going over this (yet again) because you are persisting in
using your misunderstanding to accuse DxO of cheating.

it ain't me who is misunderstanding anything.

dxo is claiming what is mathematically and physically impossible, plus
they can be bought.

I didn't expect you to change your mind.

because what i (and others) said is correct.

Nevertheless the ADC is digitising the range of whatever it is that
converts the photon charge of each sensel to an analogue of some kind
(amps, volts). It is the magnitude of that analogue that is being
digitised, not the charge in the sensel.

completely missing the point.

The point is that they dynamic range of the sensels is something
different again.

like i said, you're completely missing the point.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews

they haven't reviewed the 11 yet, but more importantly, their scores
have an arbitrary scale and are completely meaningless. they claim
cameras can do what is physically impossible, in particular, nikon
slrs
with a higher dynamic range than the adc limit.

You keep saying that, but you miss the point that there is no direct
connection between the dynamic range of the ADC (Analogue to Digital
Convertor) and the dynamic range of the camera sensor.

go back to that thread from a year or two ago when this was explained
to you in great detail by several different people.

Several different people consisting of you. Your explanation consisted
of you repeating your original claim.

myself, alan browne and a couple of others.

OK. Lets vote on it. That's the way these things are decided.

no, that's not how things are decided in sampling theory, but even with
a vote, you would lose since you're the only one making the claim.

The ADC is digitising not the light value captured by a sensel but
the
magnitude of the voltage or current output of the circuitry measuring
the charge in the sensel. The output of this circuitry is anywhee
between 0% and 100% of its possible range and the the ADC chops this
into steps the size of which depends on whether the ADC is using 8,
10, 12, 14 or even 16 bits. This has nothing to do with with the
range
over which the sensel can capture light. For all we know 0% output
might represent half the light capture of 100% output. Alternatively
it could represent 1/4000 of the light capture of 100% light capture.
You cannot determine this by the number of bits which the ADC uses to
code the data.

put simply: you don't understand sampling theory.

I do and this is not a question of sampling.

you clearly don't, and it very definitely is. you also don't understand
dynamic range.

I'm only going over this (yet again) because you are persisting in
using your misunderstanding to accuse DxO of cheating.

it ain't me who is misunderstanding anything.

dxo is claiming what is mathematically and physically impossible, plus
they can be bought.

I didn't expect you to change your mind.

because what i (and others) said is correct.

Nevertheless the ADC is digitising the range of whatever it is that
converts the photon charge of each sensel to an analogue of some kind
(amps, volts). It is the magnitude of that analogue that is being
digitised, not the charge in the sensel.

completely missing the point.

The point is that they dynamic range of the sensels is something
different again.

like i said, you're completely missing the point.

Denial is a river in Egypt.

one in which you swim in every day.

you still refuse to admit you don't know what you're talking about and
have no interest in learning anything.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


5 stop underexposure, with a nikon d750, which is a 5 year old camera.
more recent cameras are even better:
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/10/d750review28.jpg
the above image adjusted in photoshop:
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/10/d750review29.jpg
and a b/w conversion:
https://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/10/d750review31.jpg

nikon d850 @ iso 10,000:

https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/u...-in-low-light-
high-ISO-challenge1.jpg
nikon d850 @ iso 20,000:

https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/u...-in-low-light-
high-ISO-challenge2.jpg
nikon d850 @ iso 102,400:

https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/u...-in-low-light-
high-ISO-challenge3.jpg

there's a little noise at iso 102k, but it's still a very usable image,
one which would have been impossible with film.


And here is one I took with a a 1/4 plate Graflex camera in about
1958. ISO 45,000. Ilford HPS developed in hot Kodak (something fast -
I can't think of its name).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v8dl3y0n9...20ASA.jpg?dl=0

further proving just how much better digital is, and with a lot less
effort.

On 9/22/19 7:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


snip

And here is one I took with a a 1/4 plate Graflex camera in about
1958. ISO 45,000. Ilford HPS developed in hot Kodak (something fast -
I can't think of its name).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v8dl3y0n9...20ASA.jpg?dl=0

further proving just how much better digital is, and with a lot less
effort.

I am reasonably certain that Mr Stevens' 1958 film image is better than
any 1958 digital camera image, and was a lot less effort than "ASCII
art"- which, technically, wouldn't be possible until 1963 when the ASCII
character set was defined. (There are examples of "text art" going back
to ancient Greece.)

The first digital camera didn't come until 1975, invented by Steven
Sasson at Kodak. He is also credited with the first digital image, when
he scanned a photograph of his son in 1957. But that was a digital image
of a film photograph, and not very good.

--
Ken Hart

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

And here is one I took with a a 1/4 plate Graflex camera in about
1958. ISO 45,000. Ilford HPS developed in hot Kodak (something fast -
I can't think of its name).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v8dl3y0n9...000%20ASA.jpg?
dl=0

further proving just how much better digital is, and with a lot less
effort.

I am reasonably certain that Mr Stevens' 1958 film image is better than
any 1958 digital camera image,

whoosh.

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:45:24 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
wrote:

In message Ken Hart wrote:
On 9/22/19 7:28 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


snip

And here is one I took with a a 1/4 plate Graflex camera in about
1958. ISO 45,000. Ilford HPS developed in hot Kodak (something fast -
I can't think of its name).
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v8dl3y0n9...20ASA.jpg?dl=0

further proving just how much better digital is, and with a lot less
effort.

I am reasonably certain that Mr Stevens' 1958 film image is better than
any 1958 digital camera image, and was a lot less effort than "ASCII
art"- which, technically, wouldn't be possible until 1963 when the ASCII
character set was defined. (There are examples of "text art" going back
to ancient Greece.)

The first digital camera didn't come until 1975, invented by Steven
Sasson at Kodak. He is also credited with the first digital image, when
he scanned a photograph of his son in 1957. But that was a digital image
of a film photograph, and not very good.

Well, that was a waste of electrons. Do you honestly think anything you
posted was in anyway relevant? At all?

More relevant to nospam's article than nospam's was to mine.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

And here is one I took with a a 1/4 plate Graflex camera in about
1958. ISO 45,000. Ilford HPS developed in hot Kodak (something fast -
I can't think of its name).

https://www.dropbox.com/s/3v8dl3y0n9...2C000%20ASA.jp
g?dl=0

further proving just how much better digital is, and with a lot less
effort.

I am reasonably certain that Mr Stevens' 1958 film image is better than
any 1958 digital camera image, and was a lot less effort than "ASCII
art"- which, technically, wouldn't be possible until 1963 when the ASCII
character set was defined. (There are examples of "text art" going back
to ancient Greece.)

The first digital camera didn't come until 1975, invented by Steven
Sasson at Kodak. He is also credited with the first digital image, when
he scanned a photograph of his son in 1957. But that was a digital image
of a film photograph, and not very good.

Well, that was a waste of electrons. Do you honestly think anything you
posted was in anyway relevant? At all?

More relevant to nospam's article than nospam's was to mine.

it's not relevant to anything, actually.

what *is* relevant is you're avoiding the topic, as usual.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 05:06:39 -0000 (UTC), Arlen Holder wrote:

Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews
(as of 9/18/2019)
https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/


FACTS:
Here's the current DXOMark summary of very detailed tests as of today.

TOP TEN:
[1] Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)
[2] Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (117)
[3] Huawei P30 Pro (116)
[4] Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (116)
[5] Honor 20 Pro (113)
[6] Huawei Mate 20 Pro (112)
[7] OnePlus 7 Pro (111)
[8] Xiaomi Mi 9 (110)
[9] Huawei P20 Pro (109)
[10] Samsung Galaxy S10+ (109)

ALL THE REST:
[11] Apple iPhone XS Max (106)
[12] HTC U12+ (103)
[13] Samsung Galaxy Note 9 (103)
[14] Xiaomi Mi MIX 3 (103)
[15] Google Pixel 3 (102)
[16] Apple iPhone XR (101)
[17] Google Pixel 3a (100)
[18] LG G8 ThinQ (99)
[19] Samsung Galaxy S9+ (99)
[20] Xiaomi Mi 8 (99)
[21] Google Pixel 2 (98)
[22] OnePlus 6T (98)
[23] Apple iPhone X (97)
[24] Huawei Mate 10 Pro (97)
[25] Lenovo Z6 Pro (97)
[26] OnePlus 6 (96)
[27] Apple iPhone 8 Plus (94)
[28] LG V40 ThinQ (94)
[29] Samsung Galaxy Note 8 (94)
[30] Sony Xperia 1 (94)
[31] Xiaomi Pocophone F1 (91)
[32] Asus ZenFone 5 (90)
[33] General Mobile GM9 Pro (90)
[34] Google Pixel (90)
[35] HTC U11 (90)
[36] Vivo X20 Plus (90)
[37] Xiaomi Mi Note 3 (90)
[38] Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge (89)
[39] Apple iPhone 7 Plus (88)
[40] Samsung Galaxy A9 (86)
[41] Crosscall Trekker-X4 (85)
[42] Nokia 9 PureView (85)
[43] LG G7 ThinQ (83)
[44] Samsung Galaxy A50 (83)
[45] LG V30 (82)
[46] Motorola Moto Z2 Force (82)
[47] Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge (82)
[48] Motorola Moto G7 Plus (80)
[49] Apple iPhone 6 (73)
[50] Google Nexus 6P (73)
[51] Meizu Pro 7 Plus (71)
[52] Lava Z25 (70)
[53] Samsung Galaxy S5 (70)
[54] Motorola Moto G5S (69)
[55] Apple iPhone 5s (68)
[56] Nokia 8 (68)
[57] Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro (2018) (65)

In article , Arlen Holder
wrote:


TOP TEN:
[1] Huawei Mate 30 Pro (121)
[2] Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G (117)
[3] Huawei P30 Pro (116)
[4] Samsung Galaxy S10 5G (116)
[5] Honor 20 Pro (113)
[6] Huawei Mate 20 Pro (112)
[7] OnePlus 7 Pro (111)
[8] Xiaomi Mi 9 (110)
[9] Huawei P20 Pro (109)
[10] Samsung Galaxy S10+ (109)

as usual, you're ignoring the detailed tests you accuse others of doing.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/9/17/2...11-pro-max-rev
iew-camera-battery-life-screen-midnight-green-price
...the iPhone 11 Pro cameras are an enormous improvement over the
XS, and they beat the Pixel and Samsung¹s Galaxy Note 10 Plus in
most of our side-by-side comparisons. In fact, I think the iPhone 11
Pro is the best smartphone camera on the market right now.
....
So the iPhone 11 camera does better in bright light than the Pixel 3
and Note 10, and Night mode beats the Pixel 3 more often than not.
If the deep fusion update improves medium-to-low light performance
as much as Apple says it will, the iPhone 11 will take better photos
than the competition in every lighting situation.

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 19:10:44 -0400, nospam wrote:

as usual, you're ignoring the detailed tests you accuse others of doing.


Hi nospam,

I'm going to bring up an observation that I expect adults to comprehend.
o This is, verbatim, the summary of those tests you refer to, nospam.

FACTS

Here is the article's ENTIRE SUMMARY for the iPhone 11 Pro Max:
https://i.postimg.cc/3WMXPgtL/iphone11promaxsummary.jpg

FACTS

And here is the ENTIRE SUMMARY for the iPhone 11 Pro:
https://i.postimg.cc/8PPfzX6h/iphone11prosummary.jpg

FACTS

There are no omitted details whatsoever in the text reproduction below.

FACTS

Apple iPhone 11 Pro Max:
o GOOD STUFF
- Excellent camera
- Terrific battery life
- Beautiful display

o BAD STUFF
- iOS 13 is buggy
- Expensive
- No headphone jack or dongle in the box
- The garden is beautiful, but the walls grow ever higher

Apple iPhone 11 Pro:
o GOOD STUFF
- Excellent camera
- Terrific battery life
- Beautiful display

o BAD STUFF
- iOS 13 is buggy
- Expensive
- No headphone jack or dongle in the box
- The garden is beautiful, but the walls grow ever higher

FACTS:

If you're an adult, nospam, we will expect you to comprehend that
TheVerge's summary for the latest astronomically priced iPhones is
"excellent camera", which would likely equally well apply to the top 10
Android cameras also, so the summary lacks comparative value with ALL the
available Android cameras, nospam.

FACTS:

For comparative value, we can both anxiously await DXOMark future tests.
o Until then, the best iPhone tested yet, is not even in the top ten.

Where, historically, the most expensive iPhone is usually in the bottom of
the top ten - where for very brief moments in time, these astronomically
expensive iPhones temporarily score above the top five (but rarely).

If you do not "like" those facts, then take it up with the editors at
DXOMark since they're the ones providing the summary scores for their
detailed comprehensive tests - I simply report them as fact.

FACTS

You may not like these facts - but the fact you don't like these facts
o Doesn't change the fact of facts being facts - even if you hate facts

--
It's kind of typical that Apple Apologists love to cherry pick since the
summary is too clear for them - which they hate - since it assesses facts.