Finally got to the point where no new camera holds my interest(waiting for specific offering)

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and
tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to
know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under
the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having
specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.

This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies
that choose not to license its software or services.

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

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.

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.

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

here's mo
https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless
DxOMark controversy is back in the news this week, but the problem
with the mobile camera rating system isn't as simple as manufacturers
'buying' inflated scores.
...
Comment threads suggest something untoward has happened as a result
of OnePlus's recently-announced partnership with DxO

a *partnership* between a camera manufacturer and the company who is
supposedly testing it is very clearly a *huge* problem.

Nothing specific there. Absolutely nothing.

false. it's very specific.

partner with them and you get higher ratings. don't partner and you
don't.

their ratings have little to do with the actual performance of the
camera.

Like a wily student preparing for a standardized test, manufacturers
who partner with DxO, and get access to its hardware and software,
can tune their image processing to ace the firm's synthetic tests
(within the limits of the hardware, of course). As a result, their
review scores are higher when DxO eventually publishes them Ð because
they've had access to the testing hardware all along. Manufacturers
who don't partner with DxO are at an automatic disadvantage in terms
of their score, even though real-world, outside-of-the-lab image
quality might not be substantially worse. When that happens, as it is
bound to, consumers who put faith in comparisons between scores from
partners and non-partners are potentially misled.

There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

On Tue, 25 Dec 2018 02:47:01 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and
tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to
know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under
the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having
specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.

This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies
that choose not to license its software or services.

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

All you have produced is gossip and innuendo. I am quite correct when
I say that you can/will not produce any evidence to support that
statement. That is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.

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.

Your only valid claim so far is as to the existence of innuendo and
gossip.

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.

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

here's mo
https://www.androidcentral.com/editors-desk-dxomark-worthless
DxOMark controversy is back in the news this week, but the problem
with the mobile camera rating system isn't as simple as manufacturers
'buying' inflated scores.
...
Comment threads suggest something untoward has happened as a result
of OnePlus's recently-announced partnership with DxO

a *partnership* between a camera manufacturer and the company who is
supposedly testing it is very clearly a *huge* problem.

Nothing specific there. Absolutely nothing.

false. it's very specific.

It is very specifically open to innuendo.

partner with them and you get higher ratings. don't partner and you
don't.

Do you have a double-blind test to confirm that?

their ratings have little to do with the actual performance of the
camera.

Like a wily student preparing for a standardized test, manufacturers
who partner with DxO, and get access to its hardware and software,
can tune their image processing to ace the firm's synthetic tests
(within the limits of the hardware, of course). As a result, their
review scores are higher when DxO eventually publishes them � because
they've had access to the testing hardware all along. Manufacturers
who don't partner with DxO are at an automatic disadvantage in terms
of their score, even though real-world, outside-of-the-lab image
quality might not be substantially worse. When that happens, as it is
bound to, consumers who put faith in comparisons between scores from
partners and non-partners are potentially misled.

There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and
tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to
know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under
the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having
specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.

This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies
that choose not to license its software or services.

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

All you have produced is gossip and innuendo. I am quite correct when
I say that you can/will not produce any evidence to support that
statement. That is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.

nope. i've provided facts.

it's obvious that your mind is made up and not interested in facts.
you're just playing games and arguing, as usual.



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.

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

it's not just dxo either. sigma claims their cameras can resolve beyond
nyquist, which is also bull****. a few reviewers even agreed, which
demonstrates that they either have zero understanding of what it is
they're reviewing or that they are willing to accept bribes to post
fake reviews, likely a mix of both.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

yes they are.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.

On 12/26/2018 8:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and
tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to
know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under
the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having
specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.

This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies
that choose not to license its software or services.

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

All you have produced is gossip and innuendo. I am quite correct when
I say that you can/will not produce any evidence to support that
statement. That is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.

nope. i've provided facts.

it's obvious that your mind is made up and not interested in facts.
you're just playing games and arguing, as usual.



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.

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

it's not just dxo either. sigma claims their cameras can resolve beyond
nyquist, which is also bull****. a few reviewers even agreed, which
demonstrates that they either have zero understanding of what it is
they're reviewing or that they are willing to accept bribes to post
fake reviews, likely a mix of both.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

yes they are.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.


The support site at DXO makes it clear that they do not support all
hi-res monitors. They don't even have the courtesy to say which ones are
supported. I figure they need me, more than I need them.

--
PeterN

In article , PeterN
wrote:


what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.


The support site at DXO makes it clear that they do not support all
hi-res monitors. They don't even have the courtesy to say which ones are
supported. I figure they need me, more than I need them.

the post to which you are responding has nothing to do with hi-dpi or
nik, which was the app you were originally talking about in the other
thread.

any app that doesn't properly support retina and hi-dpi, something
which has been available for roughly a decade, is automatically garbage
and should be immediately discarded. use competing products which
supports modern standards and respects their users.

On Dec 26, 2018, PeterN wrote
(in article ):

On 12/26/2018 8:13 PM, nospam wrote:
In , Eric Stevens
wrote:

...Products that have received versus not received consultancy and
tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to
know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under
the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having
specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.

This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies
that choose not to license its software or services.

also, their 'tests' claim what is physically impossible, making them
untrustworthy and their scale is whatever they want it to be, with
newer cameras scoring higher and higher.

Suspicion and innuendo. That's not evidence.

the evidence is quite clear that they cannot be trusted *at* *all*.

The evidence appears to be that you can/will not produce any evidence
to support that statement.

false, there is extensive evidence that dxo is a sham, but as usual,
you refuse to acknowledge that and just want to argue, now having
resorted to ad hominem attacks, as usual.

All you have produced is gossip and innuendo. I am quite correct when
I say that you can/will not produce any evidence to support that
statement. That is a statement of fact, not an ad hominem.

nope. i've provided facts.

it's obvious that your mind is made up and not interested in facts.
you're just playing games and arguing, as usual.



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.

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

it's not just dxo either. sigma claims their cameras can resolve beyond
nyquist, which is also bull****. a few reviewers even agreed, which
demonstrates that they either have zero understanding of what it is
they're reviewing or that they are willing to accept bribes to post
fake reviews, likely a mix of both.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

yes they are.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.

The support site at DXO makes it clear that they do not support all
hi-res monitors. They don't even have the courtesy to say which ones are
supported. I figure they need me, more than I need them.

Forget them supporting all hi-res monitors, that is not where they stop. As
far as lack of courtesy goes, I believe that is part of their national
character.

DxOmark is not prepared to test all cameras and lenses. In some cases because
they do not have the ability, in some cases because they have not been
provided any incentive to test. See what DxO has to say about any of the
Fujifilm X-Trans sensor cameras, and surprisingly Fuji still manages to sell
regardless of their conspicuous absence in the DxO reviews.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 20:13:26 -0500, nospam
wrote:

--- snip ---

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

Sensors are linear devices as you say, and it is not necessary that
their output can be scaled to any range or form of digtal output.
Nikon cameras commonly use 12 bits but their top-end cameras can also
use 14. Changing from 12 to 14 does not in any way alter the dynamic
range of which the sensor is capable. All it does is subdivide the
range into smaller intervals. Exactly the same thing is done with
monitors, most of which use 8 bit data with the better monitors using
10 bits.

In any case the 14 bits of image data is further transformed by the
raw convertor and there is no reason why this cannot restore the full
dynamic range inherent in the sensor.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

Have you considered that your understanding of what is being done is
not correct?

--- Sigma cameras snipped ---

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

Well explain more clearly what you think is wrong with lens
manufacturers optimizing their lens so as to perform better when
evaluated by DxO. Does this result in an inferior lens?

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

yes they are.

You live in a strange world.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

I understand you to have university qualifications. Did you, when
confronted with an examination, study all and every topic known to man
or did you focus in very clearly only on those which were relevant to
the examination? If, for the purpose of the examination, you focused
only on topics relevant to the examination, were you cheating?

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.

Please translate this for me. Are you saying that the DxO tests do not
properly reflect the real-world requirements of a lens?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 26 Dec 2018 18:16:57 -0800, Savageduck
wrote:

Forget them supporting all hi-res monitors, that is not where they stop. As
far as lack of courtesy goes, I believe that is part of their national
character.

:-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

Sensors are linear devices as you say, and it is not necessary that
their output can be scaled to any range or form of digtal output.

since it's linear, 14 stops is the theoretical maximum. period.

Nikon cameras commonly use 12 bits but their top-end cameras can also
use 14. Changing from 12 to 14 does not in any way alter the dynamic
range of which the sensor is capable.

the adc doesn't change the physical properties of the sensor, but it
*does* change the dynamic range of the output.

for a 12 bit adc, that is 12 stops, which is why the better cameras use
a 14 bit adc or even 16 bit, to remove that limitation.

All it does is subdivide the
range into smaller intervals. Exactly the same thing is done with
monitors, most of which use 8 bit data with the better monitors using
10 bits.

false all around. ****ty displays are 8 bpc (some 6 even bpc), but
anything that would be used for photography is almost certainly 10 bpc
and possibly 12 bpc.

https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/maximum_display_colors/
An inexpensive LCD monitor will employ an LUT table with eight bits
per RGB color; an LCD monitor designed for color reproduction
applications will incorporate an LUT with more than eight bits (i.e.,
10 or 12 bits) per RGB color and employ internal calculations at 10
or more bits to map input signals to output signals.

os x has always supported 16 bpc (64 bpp), with mac and iphone/ipad
displays 10 bpc or 30bpp and supporting a wide gamut.

note that both the internal display (retina) *and* external display
(non-retina) supports 30 bpc:
https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-4-png.593804/

In any case the 14 bits of image data is further transformed by the
raw convertor and there is no reason why this cannot restore the full
dynamic range inherent in the sensor.

of course there is. you can't put back what isn't there.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

Have you considered that your understanding of what is being done is
not correct?

since it's exactly correct, there is no reason to consider that.

meanwhile, *your* understanding is completely wrong, so it's *you* who
should not only consider it, but take action and learn something.



--- Sigma cameras snipped ---

of course you snipped it, because it further proves you wrong.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

Well explain more clearly what you think is wrong with lens
manufacturers optimizing their lens so as to perform better when
evaluated by DxO. Does this result in an inferior lens?

possibly.

if the tests can be gamed, then the results are meaningless.

they will not represent how a lens or camera or anything else will
perform in real world situations.

samsung detected when a benchmark app was run and disabled cpu
throttling, resulting in misleadingly high scores.

in the real world, with normal every day apps, the cpu *is* throttled
(often quite a bit), so users thinking a given phone would be faster
based on the bogus scores will be in for a bit of a surprise. welcome
to samsung.

volkswagen designed their cars to 'ace' emissions tests. you say
there's nothing wrong. regulators say oh yes there is.

They designed cars to 'cheat' on emission tests. 'acing' and
'cheating' are not the same thing.

yes they are.

You live in a strange world.

indeed i do, given who is president of the usa and the shenanigans that
are going on.

samsung repeatedly gets caught 'acing' benchmark scores by detecting
when a benchmark is being run and turns off all cpu throttling so to
get the highest possible scores, which will never actually happen in
the real world because without throttling, the processor would overheat
and fail. you say there's nothing wrong with that. consumers disagree.

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

I understand you to have university qualifications. Did you, when
confronted with an examination, study all and every topic known to man
or did you focus in very clearly only on those which were relevant to
the examination? If, for the purpose of the examination, you focused
only on topics relevant to the examination, were you cheating?

straw man.

the question to ask is if a student obtained a *copy* of the test to be
given and then *memorizing* the answers, versus studying the actual
material and taking the text without knowing what will be asked.

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.

Please translate this for me. Are you saying that the DxO tests do not
properly reflect the real-world requirements of a lens?

very little of what dxo does has any bearing in reality.

On Thu, 27 Dec 2018 18:50:49 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

they measured 14.4 stops on the d800, also above the theoretical
maximum, but only 14.3 on the d800e. the only difference between the
two cameras is the presence or absence of an anti-alias filter, which
has nothing whatsoever to do with dynamic range. in other words, it
should be the *same* for both variants of the d800.

https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D850
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D810
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Nikon/D800E

it ain't just nikon. pentax k1: 14.6 stops:
https://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Pentax/K-1

Dynamic range is defined as " the dynamic range of a digital camera
can therefore be described as the ratio of maximum light intensity
measurable (at pixel saturation), to minimum light intensity
measurable (above read-out noise)." See
https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...amic-range.htm
That is a function of the device and nothing more. The number of bits
that are used to transmit this to the outside world is a different
matter. How these are interpeted is a function of the raw decoder.
There is absolutely no reason why a dynamic range of (say) 17:1 could
not be encoded by 14 bits, or 5 bits for that matter.

yes there is. sensors are linear devices, therefore a 14 bit a/d has a
theoretical maximum of 14 stops dynamic range, with real world less
than that.

Sensors are linear devices as you say, and it is not necessary that
their output can be scaled to any range or form of digtal output.

since it's linear, 14 stops is the theoretical maximum. period.

Why?

Oh, I see. You are assuming 1 stop per bit. It doesn't have to work
that way.

Nikon cameras commonly use 12 bits but their top-end cameras can also
use 14. Changing from 12 to 14 does not in any way alter the dynamic
range of which the sensor is capable.

the adc doesn't change the physical properties of the sensor, but it
*does* change the dynamic range of the output.

for a 12 bit adc, that is 12 stops, which is why the better cameras use
a 14 bit adc or even 16 bit, to remove that limitation.

All it does is subdivide the
range into smaller intervals. Exactly the same thing is done with
monitors, most of which use 8 bit data with the better monitors using
10 bits.

false all around. ****ty displays are 8 bpc (some 6 even bpc), but
anything that would be used for photography is almost certainly 10 bpc
and possibly 12 bpc.

https://www.eizo.com/library/basics/maximum_display_colors/
An inexpensive LCD monitor will employ an LUT table with eight bits
per RGB color; an LCD monitor designed for color reproduction
applications will incorporate an LUT with more than eight bits (i.e.,
10 or 12 bits) per RGB color and employ internal calculations at 10
or more bits to map input signals to output signals.

So what camera employs an LCD monitor?

In any case, if an LCD monitor can map out input signals to suit its
gamut why cannot a camera sensor map out its ouput data to suit its
dynamic range?

os x has always supported 16 bpc (64 bpp), with mac and iphone/ipad
displays 10 bpc or 30bpp and supporting a wide gamut.

note that both the internal display (retina) *and* external display
(non-retina) supports 30 bpc:
https://forums.macrumors.com/attachments/screen-shot-4-png.593804/

In any case the 14 bits of image data is further transformed by the
raw convertor and there is no reason why this cannot restore the full
dynamic range inherent in the sensor.

of course there is. you can't put back what isn't there.

But why have you lost it?

You can map out a dynamic range of 20:1 with 14 bits if you want to.
You can do just as easily with 12 bits. It's merely that the image
brightness/density intervals are different in each case.

any claim that exceeds the theoretical maximum, as dxo has done, is
simply *not* *possible*.

Have you considered that your understanding of what is being done is
not correct?

since it's exactly correct, there is no reason to consider that.

A slightly circular argument wouldn't you say?

meanwhile, *your* understanding is completely wrong, so it's *you* who
should not only consider it, but take action and learn something.

Even if it is wrong (which I deny) you haven't explained why.



--- Sigma cameras snipped ---

of course you snipped it, because it further proves you wrong.

I don't wish to go from the general to the particular.

You have made a valid comment but all it does is raise questions which
cannot be answered without knowing more about both Nikon's and DxO's
methodology. In other wortds you are currently going off half-cocked.

nope.

i've clearly shown that dxo is fully cocked, as are you.



There is nothing wrong with manufacturers to ace DxO's synthetic
tests. This can only make for a better lens, unless of course you know
of a better system suitable for testing a wide range of lenses.

you can't be serious.

Are you trying to say that they could make a better lens but they
don't because that would give them a lower test score?

not even remotely close.

stop making up ****.

Well explain more clearly what you think is wrong with lens
manufacturers optimizing their lens so as to perform better when
evaluated by DxO. Does this result in an inferior lens?

possibly.

if the tests can be gamed, then the results are meaningless.

they will not represent how a lens or camera or anything else will
perform in real world situations.

Thats twice now you have said that. Please explain.

samsung detected when a benchmark app was run and disabled cpu
throttling, resulting in misleadingly high scores.

That's cheating. Its not a consequence of the nature of the tests.

--- Samsung and Trump snipped ---

That's cheating. I remember when S3 did something like that to enable
them ace a popular graphics card test. But merely optimising something
for a particular test is not cheating.

yes it is.

I understand you to have university qualifications. Did you, when
confronted with an examination, study all and every topic known to man
or did you focus in very clearly only on those which were relevant to
the examination? If, for the purpose of the examination, you focused
only on topics relevant to the examination, were you cheating?

straw man.

A valid analogy.

the question to ask is if a student obtained a *copy* of the test to be
given and then *memorizing* the answers, versus studying the actual
material and taking the text without knowing what will be asked.

ASs far as DxO is concerned the memorizing of tests amounts to
designing a lens which optimizes its DxO test results. I ask yet agai:
what's wrong with that? Does it result in an inferior lens?

what matters is real world use, not detecting and optimizing for a
specific benchmark or regulatory test to mislead people.

Please translate this for me. Are you saying that the DxO tests do not
properly reflect the real-world requirements of a lens?

very little of what dxo does has any bearing in reality.

Yet again; please explain. I know you won't so .... :-(
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens