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

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.

you're *really* confused.

your printer is far more of a limitation than the camera.

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.

they do not.

what they actually do is unrelated.

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

Nope.

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.

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

further demonstrating that you don't understand sampling theory.

On Mon, 07 Oct 2019 00:16:57 -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.

you're *really* confused.

your printer is far more of a limitation than the camera.

If you can can claim that the sensor dynamic range is constricted by
one down-stream device then I can make the same complaint about
another.

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.

they do not.

what they actually do is unrelated.

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

Nope.

wrong.

You mean I really was thinking about that? Are you a mind reader?

--


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 Mon, 07 Oct 2019 16:27:14 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

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.


Done.

Peace will descend upon the news group. :-)

--


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.

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

you're *really* confused.

your printer is far more of a limitation than the camera.

If you can can claim that the sensor dynamic range is constricted by
one down-stream device then I can make the same complaint about
another.

it's not a complaint.


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.

they do not.

what they actually do is unrelated.

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

Nope.

wrong.

You mean I really was thinking about that? Are you a mind reader?

there's no need to read minds. you specifically mentioned it numerous
times.

On 10/7/2019 2:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Filters are your friend.

I'm warming up a new one right now.


Done.

Peace will descend upon the news group. :-)

LOL, between filtering out the numerous nyms of "Arlen Holder," as well
as "nospam," "Lewis," and Rod Speed, the quality and accuracy of
newsgroup content increases exponentially. As long as others can control
themselves and refrain from follow-ups, there is some small hope for
Usenet to survive and remain useful.

On 10/7/2019 9:39 AM, sms wrote:
On 10/7/2019 2:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:

snip

Filters are your friend.

I'm warming up a new one right now.


Done.

Peace will descend upon the news group.Â* :-)

LOL, between filtering out the numerous nyms of "Arlen Holder," as well as
"nospam," "Lewis," and Rod Speed, the quality and accuracy of newsgroup content
increases exponentially. As long as others can control themselves and refrain
from follow-ups, there is some small hope for Usenet to survive and remain useful.


I've been on a few groups where replying to a killfiled poster would get you
killed file too.

On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 02:06:34 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 5 October 2019 00:29:06 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 08:00:49 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave

You could try buying one and testing it yuorself by taking photos :-0
I know it sounds a bit extreme.

I suppose that's how you ended up with seven different cameras and
only use one of them.

Where did yuo get that information from ?, and which 7 cameras are they
and over what time period I'd be interested to know how you got this info.

I suppose if you relly liked the first camera you bought that would be
the end of it. But you did say "You could try buying one and testing
it yuorself ... " so if you didn't like the first one you have to buy
and try the second one .. and posibbly a third one ... and a fourth
one ... ?

--


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 Mon, 7 Oct 2019 02:19:30 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Saturday, 5 October 2019 00:47:15 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
rOn Fri, 4 Oct 2019 02:57:09 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave

Nothing to do with colour managment.
It's back to you understand almost nothing about technology.

So when he describes images as having a "****ty colour" the problem
will not be (for example) that he is watching them on a 25 year old
CRT television?

I have never seen him describe pictures as a "****ty colour"
and I thought you were comparing actual figures rather than images anyway.

My apologies. He actually wrote "****ty photos with hideous color."

I get confused with these technical terms.

and considering you adjust your monitors whether it's needed or not makes no sense to me.

Still? Even 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.

On Tue, 8 Oct 2019 01:59:30 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:

On Tuesday, 8 October 2019 03:40:03 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 7 Oct 2019 02:06:34 -0700 (PDT), Whisky-dave
wrote:


Where did yuo get that information from ?, and which 7 cameras are they
and over what time period I'd be interested to know how you got this info.

I suppose if you relly liked the first camera you bought that would be
the end of it.

Why would it ?
And can you list the 7 cameras you've claimed I've bought.


But you did say "You could try buying one and testing
it yuorself ... "

Where did I say that, yuor halucinating again.

In Message-ID:
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Oct 2019 15:00:50 +0000
.... in reply to Ken Hart
Begin quote ---------------------------
But without testing by a commercial enterprise, how can you know that
the Fuji cameras are good?

You could try buying one and testing it yuorself by taking photos :-0
I know it sounds a bit extreme.
End quote -------------------------------

so if you didn't like the first one you have to buy
and try the second one .. and posibbly a third one ... and a fourth
one ... ?

But I've never said anything like that.

See above.

--


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.