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

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The point is that in the DSLRs under discussion there is no
continuous
time signal. The sensor is exposed and for a fixed time and then
the
charge of each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling as such.

Absurdly, spectacularly wrong.

technically true, as it's not sampling in the time domain.

however, it shows a very major lack of understanding.

Are you prepared to explain what it is?

the last time this came up, *several* people tried to explain it to you
and you kept on arguing, which is what's happening again.

Because you haven't explained. You didn't then and you haven't now.
Asserting is NOT explaining.

wrong. it was explained in detail by myself and others, with numerous
references.

the fact that you think a camera sensor is sampled in the time domain
is proof you do *not* understand what's going on, despite you thinking
you do.

You were the one who introduced sampling. The opening paragraph of the
message to which I am replying is a quote from me where I explain why
such a thing is not happening.

sampling is very definitely happening.

your explanation above is proof you do *not* understand how it works,
and worse, you refuse to learn.

On 10/4/2019 4:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Asserting is NOT explaining.

In that sentence you have succinctly captured the essence of several
posters on this newsgroup. No explanations. No references. Just
assertions and denials with no evidence. Posts from nospam and Lewis are
like statements and tweets from Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, or
Lindsey Graham--no facts, no substance, just insanity.

Filters are your friend.

In article , sms
wrote:

On 10/4/2019 4:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
Asserting is NOT explaining.

In that sentence you have succinctly captured the essence of several
posters on this newsgroup. No explanations. No references. Just
assertions and denials with no evidence.

false. numerous explanations and references are always provided.

Posts from nospam and Lewis are
like statements and tweets from Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, or
Lindsey Graham--no facts, no substance, just insanity.

ad hominem, which is what you do when told you're wrong.

On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:19:56 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


You can feed a much wider dynamic range into the
ADC and the ADC will chop it down to its own limits.

that's what i've been saying all along.

at least you finally figured it out.

But you also long ago denied that it was possible to digitally code an
excessively high dynamic range by scaling it down to suit the ADC?
Aftre all, the ADC is not scaling an actual photon count but only an
analog proxy for the photon count.

nope.

of course it's possible to compress it before the adc, or many other
things, however, that's not done in any of the cameras tested and
unlikely to be done in any future camera.

But it doesn't
affect the dynamic range of the input device.

nobody said it did.

Then why do you think DxOMark are lieing when they attribute dynamic
ranges of 14+ to some cameras?

because it's *impossible* to get more than 14 stops when the adc is 14
bit (or less).

That's only the case downstream of the ADC when the ordinary
definition of the 'stop' is used.

But it is possible to compress a wider dynamic range within a RAW file
without doing anything special and apparently several camera
manufacturers do it. I leave you to find out how they do it for
yourself, as an exercise.

As far as I am concerned this discussion is finished except possibly
for tidying up a few loose ends.

I will say quite clearly that I now know that the aspersions you cast
on the honesty of DxOMark on the basis of their dynamic range
measurements are quite without foundation.

--


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.

On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 20:19:59 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The point is that in the DSLRs under discussion there is no
continuous
time signal. The sensor is exposed and for a fixed time and then
the
charge of each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling as such.

Absurdly, spectacularly wrong.

technically true, as it's not sampling in the time domain.

however, it shows a very major lack of understanding.

Are you prepared to explain what it is?

the last time this came up, *several* people tried to explain it to you
and you kept on arguing, which is what's happening again.

Because you haven't explained. You didn't then and you haven't now.
Asserting is NOT explaining.

wrong. it was explained in detail by myself and others, with numerous
references.

the fact that you think a camera sensor is sampled in the time domain
is proof you do *not* understand what's going on, despite you thinking
you do.

You were the one who introduced sampling. The opening paragraph of the
message to which I am replying is a quote from me where I explain why
such a thing is not happening.

sampling is very definitely happening.

your explanation above is proof you do *not* understand how it works,
and worse, you refuse to learn.

And you refuse to explain.

--


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:

But it doesn't
affect the dynamic range of the input device.

nobody said it did.

Then why do you think DxOMark are lieing when they attribute dynamic
ranges of 14+ to some cameras?

because it's *impossible* to get more than 14 stops when the adc is 14
bit (or less).

That's only the case downstream of the ADC

obviously, and the only thing that matters.

when the ordinary
definition of the 'stop' is used.

nope.

But it is possible to compress a wider dynamic range within a RAW file
without doing anything special and apparently several camera
manufacturers do it. I leave you to find out how they do it for
yourself, as an exercise.

none do.

what you're thinking of is *lossy* *compression* of the raw, *after*
the adc, something entirely separate from what's being discussed.

As far as I am concerned this discussion is finished except possibly
for tidying up a few loose ends.

it was finished long ago, but for some reason, you want to argue about
things you don't understand.

I will say quite clearly that I now know that the aspersions you cast
on the honesty of DxOMark on the basis of their dynamic range
measurements are quite without foundation.

wrong.

what's clear is that you stubbornly insist you're correct even when
your own references show you to be wrong.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The point is that in the DSLRs under discussion there is no
continuous
time signal. The sensor is exposed and for a fixed time and then
the
charge of each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling as
such.

Absurdly, spectacularly wrong.

technically true, as it's not sampling in the time domain.

however, it shows a very major lack of understanding.

Are you prepared to explain what it is?

the last time this came up, *several* people tried to explain it to you
and you kept on arguing, which is what's happening again.

Because you haven't explained. You didn't then and you haven't now.
Asserting is NOT explaining.

wrong. it was explained in detail by myself and others, with numerous
references.

the fact that you think a camera sensor is sampled in the time domain
is proof you do *not* understand what's going on, despite you thinking
you do.

You were the one who introduced sampling. The opening paragraph of the
message to which I am replying is a quote from me where I explain why
such a thing is not happening.

sampling is very definitely happening.

your explanation above is proof you do *not* understand how it works,
and worse, you refuse to learn.

And you refuse to explain.

it's been explained *multiple* times by *multiple* people.

to claim that there's no sampling in a digital camera is hilarious, and
not in a good way.

On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 22:49:19 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

But it doesn't
affect the dynamic range of the input device.

nobody said it did.

Then why do you think DxOMark are lieing when they attribute dynamic
ranges of 14+ to some cameras?

because it's *impossible* to get more than 14 stops when the adc is 14
bit (or less).

That's only the case downstream of the ADC

obviously, and the only thing that matters.

Not where I am concerned. It's what I get out of my printer that
matters to me.

when the ordinary
definition of the 'stop' is used.

nope.

But it is possible to compress a wider dynamic range within a RAW file
without doing anything special and apparently several camera
manufacturers do it. I leave you to find out how they do it for
yourself, as an exercise.

none do.

Oh they do. You will find quite a bit about it if you hunt around the
Internet.

what you're thinking of is *lossy* *compression* of the raw, *after*
the adc, something entirely separate from what's being discussed.

Nope.

As far as I am concerned this discussion is finished except possibly
for tidying up a few loose ends.

it was finished long ago, but for some reason, you want to argue about
things you don't understand.

I will say quite clearly that I now know that the aspersions you cast
on the honesty of DxOMark on the basis of their dynamic range
measurements are quite without foundation.

wrong.

what's clear is that you stubbornly insist you're correct even when
your own references show you to be wrong.

--


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.

On Sun, 06 Oct 2019 22:49:20 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

The point is that in the DSLRs under discussion there is no
continuous
time signal. The sensor is exposed and for a fixed time and then
the
charge of each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling as
such.

Absurdly, spectacularly wrong.

technically true, as it's not sampling in the time domain.

however, it shows a very major lack of understanding.

Are you prepared to explain what it is?

the last time this came up, *several* people tried to explain it to you
and you kept on arguing, which is what's happening again.

Because you haven't explained. You didn't then and you haven't now.
Asserting is NOT explaining.

wrong. it was explained in detail by myself and others, with numerous
references.

the fact that you think a camera sensor is sampled in the time domain
is proof you do *not* understand what's going on, despite you thinking
you do.

You were the one who introduced sampling. The opening paragraph of the
message to which I am replying is a quote from me where I explain why
such a thing is not happening.

sampling is very definitely happening.

your explanation above is proof you do *not* understand how it works,
and worse, you refuse to learn.

And you refuse to explain.

it's been explained *multiple* times by *multiple* people.

to claim that there's no sampling in a digital camera is hilarious, and
not in a good way.

That's no explanation of how sampling is relevant to the dynamic range
of a sensor.

--


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.

On Sun, 6 Oct 2019 18:02:31 -0700, sms
wrote:

On 10/4/2019 4:41 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Asserting is NOT explaining.

In that sentence you have succinctly captured the essence of several
posters on this newsgroup. No explanations. No references. Just
assertions and denials with no evidence. Posts from nospam and Lewis are
like statements and tweets from Donald Trump, Rudy Giuliani, or
Lindsey Graham--no facts, no substance, just insanity.

Filters are your friend.

I'm warming up a new one right now.

--


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.