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

[Arlen Holder]

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

o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116
o 4 Honor 20 Pro 113
o 5 Huawei Mate 20 Pro 112
o 6 OnePlus 7 Pro 111
o 7 jXiaomi Mi 9 110
o 8 Huawei P20 Pro 109
o 9 Samsung Galaxy S10+ 109
o 10 Apple iPhone XS Max 106
o 11 HTC U12+ 103
o 12 Samsung Galaxy Note 9 103
o 13 Xiaomi Mi MIX 3 103
o 14 Google Pixel 3 102
o 15 Apple iPhone XR 101
o 16 Google Pixel 3a 100
o 17 LG G8 ThinQ 99
o 18 Samsung Galaxy S9+ 99
o 19 Xiaomi Mi 8 99
o 20 Google Pixel 2 98
o 21 OnePlus 6T 98
o 22 Apple iPhone X 97
o 23 Huawei Mate 10 Pro 97
o 24 Lenovo Z6 Pro 97
o 25 OnePlus 6 96
o 26 Apple iPhone 8 Plus 94
o 27 LG V40 ThinQ 94
o 28 Samsung Galaxy Note 8 94
o 29 Sony Xperia 1 94
o 30 Xiaomi Pocophone F1 91
o 31 Asus ZenFone 5 90
o 32 Google Pixel 90
o 33 HTC U11 90
o 34 Vivo X20 Plus 90
o 35 Xiaomi Mi Note 3 90
o 36 Samsung Galaxy S7 Edge 89
o 37 Apple iPhone 7 Plus 88
o 38 Samsung Galaxy A9 86
o 39 Crosscall Trekker-X4 85
o 40 Nokia 9 PureView 85
o 41 LG G7 ThinQ 83
o 42 Samsung Galaxy A50 83
o 43 LG V30 82
o 44 Motorola Moto Z2 Force 82
o 45 Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge 82
o 46 Motorola Moto G7 Plus 80
o 47 Apple iPhone 6 73
o 48 Google Nexus 6P 73
o 49 Meizu Pro 7 Plus 71
o 50 Lava Z25 70
o 51 Samsung Galaxy S5 70
o 52 Motorola Moto G5S 69
o 53 Apple iPhone 5s 68
o 54 Nokia 8 68
o 55 Samsung Galaxy J2 Pro (2018) 65

[Incubus]

On 2019-09-19, Arlen Holder <arlen...@arlinghlder.edu> wrote:
> Factual summary scores for detailed DXO Mark Mobile Reviews
> (as of 9/18/2019)
><https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>
>
> o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
> o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
> o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116

That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results than the
Note 10 Plus.

[nospam]

In article <qlv2cv$vnf$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@arlinghlder.edu> 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.

[nospam]

In article <qlvelt$n4d$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus

<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> ><https://www.dxomark.com/category/mobile-reviews/>
> >
> > o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
> > o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
> > o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116
>
> That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results than the
> Note 10 Plus.

further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

[Incubus]

For the avoidance of doubt, photos taken with my old D300 are far superior to
anything the Note 10 Plus can do to my eyes. However, the Hasselblad X1D-50c -
a medium format sensor - scores 102 in the camera section. Presumably, the
scores use separate scales.

Interestingly, the D600/D610 scores one higher than the D750 (94 vs 93). That
really doesn't make sense.

Their scoring system is great for people who choose a camera based on arbitrary
data. Unfortunately, it doesn't really say a lot about real-world use.

[nospam]

In article <qm00pk$nbg$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus

<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> > o 1 Samsung Galaxy Note 10+ 5G 117
> >> > o 2 Huawei P30 Pro 116
> >> > o 3 Samsung Galaxy S10 5G 116
> >>
> >> That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
> >> than the
> >> Note 10 Plus.
> >
> > further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.
>
> For the avoidance of doubt, photos taken with my old D300 are far superior to
> anything the Note 10 Plus can do to my eyes.

that depends on the subject and type of photo. modern cellphones can do
things slrs cannot, and vice versa.

one example is capturing a depth map so that depth of field can be
changed *after* the photo was taken. slrs can't do that.

also keep in mind that a note 10 fits in a pocket and and slr does not.
as the saying goes, the best camera is the one you have with you.

> However, the Hasselblad X1D-50c
> -
> a medium format sensor - scores 102 in the camera section. Presumably, the
> scores use separate scales.

they do, and they're arbitrary.

also, companies can pay dxo for better scores.

> Interestingly, the D600/D610 scores one higher than the D750 (94 vs 93). That
> really doesn't make sense.

yep.

what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
real world results being a little less.

that means their tests are bullshit.

> Their scoring system is great for people who choose a camera based on
> arbitrary
> data. Unfortunately, it doesn't really say a lot about real-world use.

yep.

[NY]

"Incubus" <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:qm00pk$nbg$1...@dont-email.me...

>>> That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
>>> than the
>>> Note 10 Plus.
>>
>> further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

No, further proof that the laws of physics apply.

A larger sensor will have each pixel larger on the silicon, for the same
number of pixels for a large- and small-format camera. This allows the
signal-to-noise ratio to the better, so less signal-processing is needed to
hide the noise which causes a random coloured speckle on the picture. It is
the signal-processing that causes pictures from a camera with a smaller
sensor to be worse - more blurred and with more ghosting artefacts.

My Nikon D90 DSLR can produce far better pictures even at 3200 ASA than my
small compact camera at a lower ASA, which in turn is better than my Samsung
S7 phone. But the differences are less obvious than they were. My older
Samsung phone took photos with really obnoxious compression and
noise-reduction artefacts, whereas my S7 is considerably better - probably
with a similar size sensor and maybe even with more pixels along each axis.
Something has improved.

I suppose eventually we will reach the stage where *in theory, in laboratory
tests* a large sensor can still out-perform a small one, but the small one
is so good that most people can see very little difference. The "good
enough" test is all that matters in real life ;-)

[NY]

"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:190920191018238452%nos...@nospam.invalid...

> what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
> dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
> the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
> real world results being a little less.

That's one thing where newer cameras do seem to outperform older ones. My
wife's Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (or 8 - I forget) takes better pictures than my
S7 and even than my Nikon D90 SLR. Not in terms of sharpness, noise and
artefacts (where it is worse than the D90), but in terms of dynamic range.
It somehow manages to produce realistic-looking photos (*) which don't have
such noticeable burnt-out highlights or featureless black shadows.

I wonder if we'll ever get to the stage where digital sensors can match film
for tolerance to over-exposure while retaining at least *some* detail in
very over-exposed highlights. Many years ago I took a lot of long-exposure
night-time photos on Ektachrome slide film - lights in city streets, shop
windows etc. And because I hadn't a clue what exposure to use, given
reciprocity failure and the need to use a blue filter to match daylight film
to tungsten light - things that digital doesn't suffer from, I greatly
over-exposed some of them. The slides look almost transparent. But when I
came to scan them with a film scanner more recently, I was amazed at how
much detail could be recovered with suitable brightness and contrast
compensation. But that's a special case. I'm not a film snob by any means:
the ability to see the results of your work immediately (and learn by
mistakes in exposure etc) and the ability to take an infinite number of
photos "for free" (excluding the cost of the camera and of the recharging of
the battery) make digital vastly superior. But I've not seen a digital
camera produce tones that look *quite* as good as an Agfachrome slide. Mind
you, you can wind up the film speed of digital to unheard-of levels with
film, without the flat muddy pictures of high-speed film, or the garish
clipping of highlight and shadow that you get with push-processing slower
film.

One interesting difference between film and digital: with any slide film
(but especially Kodachrome) it was almost impossible to get realistic colour
rendition under (presumably warm-white) fluorescent tubes - no matter what
filter you used, there was always a green cast. Digital doesn't suffer
anywhere nearly as badly - I've had *fairly* similar results under anything
from tungsten, warm-white fluorescent, daylight fluorescent, LEDs (including
a range of colours available with Philips Hue bulbs) simply by
white-balancing off a sheet of white paper. OK, there are some colours like
deep red and violet which reproduce badly under some lights, but generally
digital seems to cope better with weird lighting.


(*) Some HDR techniques produce pictures with good shadow and highlight
detail, but there's something indefinably false about the tonal rendition,
rather like the artificial-looking "colour plates" that you used to get in
books from the 1950s.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, 19 September 2019 16:32:52 UTC+1, NY wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:190920191018238452%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>
> > what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
> > dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
> > the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
> > real world results being a little less.
>
> That's one thing where newer cameras do seem to outperform older ones. My
> wife's Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (or 8 - I forget)

I thought it was a phone, but how well does the nikon D300 (other cameras could be tested too) perform when it comes to making a telephone call, or can it tell me what the state of the london undergroud is in before I leave.

https://tfl.gov.uk/tube-dlr-overground/status/

Of course it is nice to have a good camera on a phone but to spend many 100s or a 1K on a phone because of the camera seems a bit stupid.

Quite a few seem to buy a phone based on it's physical size the display size but I doubt that is linked to the quality of the image stored when a picture is taken.
But one of the biggest/smallest advantages is that most phones can fit in a pocket few if any DLSRs can.

[Incubus]

On 2019-09-19, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
> "nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:190920191018238452%nos...@nospam.invalid...
>
>> what's even more interesting is that they claim more than 14 stops of
>> dynamic range for the nikon d800 and several other nikon slrs, despite
>> the hardware being theoretically limited to a maximum of 14 stops, with
>> real world results being a little less.
>
> That's one thing where newer cameras do seem to outperform older ones. My
> wife's Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (or 8 - I forget) takes better pictures than my
> S7 and even than my Nikon D90 SLR. Not in terms of sharpness, noise and
> artefacts (where it is worse than the D90), but in terms of dynamic range.
> It somehow manages to produce realistic-looking photos (*) which don't have
> such noticeable burnt-out highlights or featureless black shadows.

Some of that could be software-based. For example, Nikon has their "Active
D-Lighting" system. It wouldn't surprise me if mobile 'phone manufacturers are
doing something similar.

> I wonder if we'll ever get to the stage where digital sensors can match film
> for tolerance to over-exposure while retaining at least *some* detail in
> very over-exposed highlights.

I'm not sure how that would be possible give how digital sensors work. Film is
more tolerant to overexposure because the sensitivity of the chemicals
decreases the longer they are exposed. Digital sensors are not logarithmic in
this manner and will effectively clip at their maximum values.

I wonder whether it would be possible to build in some form of limiter that
mimics the effect of film.

> Many years ago I took a lot of long-exposure
> night-time photos on Ektachrome slide film - lights in city streets, shop
> windows etc. And because I hadn't a clue what exposure to use, given
> reciprocity failure and the need to use a blue filter to match daylight film
> to tungsten light - things that digital doesn't suffer from, I greatly
> over-exposed some of them. The slides look almost transparent. But when I
> came to scan them with a film scanner more recently, I was amazed at how
> much detail could be recovered with suitable brightness and contrast
> compensation. But that's a special case. I'm not a film snob by any means:
> the ability to see the results of your work immediately (and learn by
> mistakes in exposure etc) and the ability to take an infinite number of
> photos "for free" (excluding the cost of the camera and of the recharging of
> the battery) make digital vastly superior. But I've not seen a digital
> camera produce tones that look *quite* as good as an Agfachrome slide. Mind
> you, you can wind up the film speed of digital to unheard-of levels with
> film, without the flat muddy pictures of high-speed film, or the garish
> clipping of highlight and shadow that you get with push-processing slower
> film.

I believe digital cameras now exceed the best film when it comes to dynamic
range. I understand slide film has less dynamic range than negative film, and
much less exposure latitude.

> One interesting difference between film and digital: with any slide film
> (but especially Kodachrome) it was almost impossible to get realistic colour
> rendition under (presumably warm-white) fluorescent tubes - no matter what
> filter you used, there was always a green cast. Digital doesn't suffer
> anywhere nearly as badly - I've had *fairly* similar results under anything
> from tungsten, warm-white fluorescent, daylight fluorescent, LEDs (including
> a range of colours available with Philips Hue bulbs) simply by
> white-balancing off a sheet of white paper. OK, there are some colours like
> deep red and violet which reproduce badly under some lights, but generally
> digital seems to cope better with weird lighting.

I suppose if you're shooting raw files, you can apply whatever correction you
need. The same is true for printing from negative film. Slide film is a lot
less forgiving.

>
> (*) Some HDR techniques produce pictures with good shadow and highlight
> detail, but there's something indefinably false about the tonal rendition,
> rather like the artificial-looking "colour plates" that you used to get in
> books from the 1950s.

Using HDR mode on my D750, the lowest setting consistently produces results
that look just as real. With a scene with lots of contrast, it helped with
blown highlights but to get no blown highlights in-camera, it produced
something noticeably artificial. Post-production will give more control over
the process but in general, I'm not a fan of the technique at all.

[Incubus]

I have a nice pocket for my SLRs and DSLRs. It hangs off a strap that I put
around my shoulder.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 09:06:21 -0400, nospam wrote:

> further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.

Hi nospam,

Given you're a well-known charter member of the Apple Apologists...

This statement is hilarious, coming from nospam, for two reasons:
1. All of nospam's claims come from APPLE MARKETING for Christ's sake.
2. Apple never scores well in ANY objective camera QOR tests.

While nospam didn't mention Apple, nospam brazenly denies all facts about
Apple that nospam simply doesn't like.

Such as the fact iPhone camers are almost always in the very bottom of the
top ten for QOR - and that's the MOST EXPENSIVE iPhones on the planet.
o The iPhones most people have are way down on camera quality of results.

Since nospam always fails the adult test of imaginary belief systemss
o Name just one

All we need to do, as adults, is ask nospam for a BETTER review site.
o Name just one

People like nospam can deprecate DXOMark reviews, but what they can't do is
find a BETTER site on this planet that does the builk of mobile phone
camera tests.

Hence, I ask nospam if he can pass the simplest tests of his belief system:
o Name just one

What's a BETTER site for overall mobile phone camera QOR reviews, nospam?
o Name just one

--
HINT: Adult belief systems, which are not imaginary, pass the name just one
test, while childrens' belief systems, which are imaginary, fail every
time.

[Arlen Holder]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:57:46 -0400, nospam wrote:

> 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.

Hi nospam,

You deprecate the best of the best - and yet - you fail the simple test
o Name just one

Nobody on this newsgroup is unaware that you bullshit always
o And that you're sadistic in sending people on wild goose chases

You have absolutely no purposefully helpful intent in ANY post.
o All you wish to do is claim bogus Apple MARKETING bullshit

If you wish to deny that, I'll simply post references proving it.
o You always fail the adult test of imaginary belief systems, nospam.

Constantly, brazenly, consistently - you claim imaginary iOS functionality
o Where you brazenly deny facts out of hand - even facts Apple admits.

Hence, you're even worse than Apple marketing in spewing your bullshit.

What proves that you own a completely imaginary beleif system
o Is that you ALWAYAS fail the simple adult test of belief systems.

Name Just One

Yup. Name just one.
o You fail that test of adult belief systems every single time, nospam.

Name just one mobile phone camera review site that is BETTER than DXOMark.
o Name just one

You deprecate the best of the best - and yet - you fail the simple test

o Name just one

--

An adult can pass the simple "name just one" test of belief systems.

[nospam]

In article <qm05s6$qrm$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> >>> That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results
> >>> than the
> >>> Note 10 Plus.
> >>
> >> further proof that their scores are arbitrary and meaningless.
>
> No, further proof that the laws of physics apply.

they always do.

> A larger sensor will have each pixel larger on the silicon, for the same
> number of pixels for a large- and small-format camera. This allows the
> signal-to-noise ratio to the better, so less signal-processing is needed to
> hide the noise which causes a random coloured speckle on the picture. It is
> the signal-processing that causes pictures from a camera with a smaller
> sensor to be worse - more blurred and with more ghosting artefacts.

that depends on the image processing. these days, it's amazingly
sophisticated.

> My Nikon D90 DSLR can produce far better pictures even at 3200 ASA than my
> small compact camera at a lower ASA, which in turn is better than my Samsung
> S7 phone. But the differences are less obvious than they were. My older
> Samsung phone took photos with really obnoxious compression and
> noise-reduction artefacts, whereas my S7 is considerably better - probably
> with a similar size sensor and maybe even with more pixels along each axis.
> Something has improved.

try a pixel 3 or iphone 11, in particular, night sight mode and also
portrait mode, where depth of field (and sometimes even focus) can be
changed *after* the photo has been taken.

> I suppose eventually we will reach the stage where *in theory, in laboratory
> tests* a large sensor can still out-perform a small one, but the small one
> is so good that most people can see very little difference. The "good
> enough" test is all that matters in real life ;-)

yep.

[nospam]

In article <qm0730$2i8$1...@dont-email.me>, NY <m...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

>
> I wonder if we'll ever get to the stage where digital sensors can match film
> for tolerance to over-exposure while retaining at least *some* detail in
> very over-exposed highlights.

digital has a *much* wider dynamic range than film, which means a much
higher tolerance to exposure mistakes.

[nospam]

In article <qm0925$8mi$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus

<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > That's one thing where newer cameras do seem to outperform older ones. My
> > wife's Samsung Galaxy Note 7 (or 8 - I forget) takes better pictures than
> > my
> > S7 and even than my Nikon D90 SLR. Not in terms of sharpness, noise and
> > artefacts (where it is worse than the D90), but in terms of dynamic range.
> > It somehow manages to produce realistic-looking photos (*) which don't have
> > such noticeable burnt-out highlights or featureless black shadows.
>
> Some of that could be software-based. For example, Nikon has their "Active
> D-Lighting" system. It wouldn't surprise me if mobile 'phone manufacturers
> are
> doing something similar.

*significantly* more sophisticated than d-lighting.

[Savageduck]

On Sep 19, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article <qlvelt$n4d$1...@dont-email.me>):

>
> That's nice. My Nikon D300, discontinued in 2009, gave better results than the
> Note 10 Plus.

My old D300 was capable of making captures few smart phones could dream of,
but 10 years on My X-T3 is far better than the D300, and my iPhone 8+
produces surprisingly good images.

If the iP8+ images were printed at a reasonable size, say 8x10, and shot
under unchallenging light conditions, one would be hard pressed to
distinguish between the iP8+ image and those shot with a dedicated APS-C, or
even FF camera. One would have to go with a larger print before the failings
of the small sensor smartphone camera would be evident.

Here is a D300 image shot in 2009.
<https://photos.smugmug.com/photos/i-PBnNG2T/0/2ab4c25b/O/i-PBnNG2T.jpg>

If I were to shoot the same scene today with a current camera such as an
X-T3, a D500, a GFX50, a D850, etc., and better glass I would expect to get
an image with considerably better IQ, higher resolution, better DR, and the
ability to produce larger prints.

...and who knows, perhaps one of the latest smartphone cameras could do as
well.

Note: X-posts removed.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.23341A0103...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> ...and who knows, perhaps one of the latest smartphone cameras could do as
> well.

they can, in many situations.

[Peter Irwin]

In rec.photo.digital nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> digital has a *much* wider dynamic range than film, which means a much
> higher tolerance to exposure mistakes.

Why this nonsense? Digital cameras have many real advantages, but it is
hard to find a modern negative film with a range of less than fifteen
stops. (tmx in xtol normal development has a range of about 21 stops)

Peter.

[nospam]

In article <qm0rds$tda$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>

wrote:

> >
> > digital has a *much* wider dynamic range than film, which means a much
> > higher tolerance to exposure mistakes.
>
> Why this nonsense? Digital cameras have many real advantages, but it is
> hard to find a modern negative film with a range of less than fifteen
> stops. (tmx in xtol normal development has a range of about 21 stops)

film is very definitely less than 15 stops and prints even less than
that. 21 stops is dreaming, even for digital.

ansel adams' zone system was 10 stops, and that's with a *lot* of work
in the darkroom.

[Peter Irwin]

In rec.photo.digital nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <qm0rds$tda$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
> wrote:
>>
>> Why this nonsense? Digital cameras have many real advantages, but it is
>> hard to find a modern negative film with a range of less than fifteen
>> stops. (tmx in xtol normal development has a range of about 21 stops)
>
> film is very definitely less than 15 stops

Name one negative camera film from a major company and recent times with
less.

Ilford fp2 from 80 years ago had a range of 12 stops. Practically all
modern printed sensitometric curves cut off before the non linear
shoulder.

>and prints even less than that

Prints under normal lighting only have about 5 stops that aren't shades
of black and one or two stops that are barely different blacks and
there is nothing that any technology can do about this.

> 21 stops is dreaming, even for digital.

Doing a simple test with TMX isn't difficult - try it and see.

> ansel adams' zone system was 10 stops, and that's with a *lot* of work
> in the darkroom.

Back in the 1930s films really were limited to 10 to 12 stops. There
was a lot of research and development in the next 50 years or so to
improve matters.

Peter.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 08:57:46 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

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.

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.

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

--


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.

[nospam]

In article <lr88oeh95ds0difch...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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.

> 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'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.

[nospam]

In article <qm0vmi$kb4$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>

wrote:

> >> Why this nonsense? Digital cameras have many real advantages, but it is
> >> hard to find a modern negative film with a range of less than fifteen
> >> stops. (tmx in xtol normal development has a range of about 21 stops)
> >
> > film is very definitely less than 15 stops
>
> Name one negative camera film from a major company and recent times with
> less.

ektachrome.

> Ilford fp2 from 80 years ago had a range of 12 stops. Practically all
> modern printed sensitometric curves cut off before the non linear
> shoulder.

that's a stretch.

film is *much* noisier than digital, so right there, you're losing a
chunk of range in the shadows.

modern slrs can shoot at iso 3200 at light levels where humans can
barely see and still get more than 10 stops of range, with noise that
can only be seen by pixel peeping.

don't even think about isos in that range with film. iso 400 film
started to get grainy, and past iso 1000-1600, it's intolerably bad.

> >and prints even less than that
>
> Prints under normal lighting only have about 5 stops that aren't shades
> of black and one or two stops that are barely different blacks and
> there is nothing that any technology can do about this.

actually, chemical prints are typically 6-7 stops, so whatever film
might capture beyond that is wasted.

> > 21 stops is dreaming, even for digital.
>
> Doing a simple test with TMX isn't difficult - try it and see.

it's nowhere near 21 stops. that's fantasyland.

> > ansel adams' zone system was 10 stops, and that's with a *lot* of work
> > in the darkroom.
>
> Back in the 1930s films really were limited to 10 to 12 stops. There
> was a lot of research and development in the next 50 years or so to
> improve matters.

it was even less back then.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 19 Sep 2019 21:20:28 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <lr88oeh95ds0difch...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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.

>
>> 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.

>
>> 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.

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.

[Whisky-dave]

I know someone with a nice pocket for their bicycle, one of those fold up ones you can take on tube trains.

[Incubus]

I am pretty sure that Kodak Color Plus 200 (sic) and Fuji C200 have fewer than
fifteen stops dynamic range. These are, of course, budget films, but easily
available.

[Incubus]

On 2019-09-20, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <qm0vmi$kb4$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
> wrote:
>
>> >> Why this nonsense? Digital cameras have many real advantages, but it is
>> >> hard to find a modern negative film with a range of less than fifteen
>> >> stops. (tmx in xtol normal development has a range of about 21 stops)
>> >
>> > film is very definitely less than 15 stops
>>
>> Name one negative camera film from a major company and recent times with
>> less.
>
> ektachrome.
>
>> Ilford fp2 from 80 years ago had a range of 12 stops. Practically all
>> modern printed sensitometric curves cut off before the non linear
>> shoulder.
>
> that's a stretch.
>
> film is *much* noisier than digital, so right there, you're losing a
> chunk of range in the shadows.
>
> modern slrs can shoot at iso 3200 at light levels where humans can
> barely see and still get more than 10 stops of range, with noise that
> can only be seen by pixel peeping.
>
> don't even think about isos in that range with film. iso 400 film
> started to get grainy, and past iso 1000-1600, it's intolerably bad.

It's great if you want that look, though. Alternatively, you can spend £2.5k
on a Sony Alpha and achieve the same thing:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/travel_news/article-7472331/Stunning-black-white-pictures-new-teNeues-book-Laurent-Baheux-lions-Africa.html

>> >and prints even less than that
>>
>> Prints under normal lighting only have about 5 stops that aren't shades
>> of black and one or two stops that are barely different blacks and
>> there is nothing that any technology can do about this.
>
> actually, chemical prints are typically 6-7 stops, so whatever film
> might capture beyond that is wasted.

Are chemical prints easily available these days? All the photo labs seem to
scan the negatives and print them.

[nospam]

In article <khk8oedbh9mi3n2s8...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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.

> >> 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.

[nospam]

In article <qm26a5$bhb$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus

<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > actually, chemical prints are typically 6-7 stops, so whatever film
> > might capture beyond that is wasted.
>
> Are chemical prints easily available these days? All the photo labs seem to
> scan the negatives and print them.

yes, although not done via an optical path anymore.

[Ken Hart]

On 9/20/19 5:31 AM, Incubus wrote:

snip

> Are chemical prints easily available these days? All the photo labs seem to
> scan the negatives and print them.
>

Obviously, what is available in your area may not be available somewhere
else.

Some labs scan the negatives and print them via a "light-jet" onto photo
paper that is processed in chemicals. So chemical prints are still
available, but they are not optically printed in the 'old' way: by
focusing light through the negative onto the paper.


--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[Peter Irwin]

In rec.photo.digital nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <qm0vmi$kb4$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
> wrote:
>> Prints under normal lighting only have about 5 stops that aren't shades
>> of black and one or two stops that are barely different blacks and
>> there is nothing that any technology can do about this.
>
> actually, chemical prints are typically 6-7 stops, so whatever film
> might capture beyond that is wasted.

what do you mean by "actually" - The seven stops consist of
5 stops worth of easily visible tonal variation and a couple
stops worth of barely different blacks. A 3 percent reflectance
looks pretty black when viewed by even and diffuse lighting and
anything blacker does not look notably blacker. This is the human
eye/brain system and is not a technological limitation.

Peter.

[Peter Irwin]

In rec.photo.digital Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> fifteen stops dynamic range. These are, of course, budget films, but easily
> available.

Why do you think so? I'm interested if you have evidence for this.

Dynamic range can mean a number of different things. I am talking
about the range useful for exposure latitude purposes. People usually
vastly underestimate the amount of overexposure latitude available
from negative films.

Peter.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 07:24:27 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <khk8oedbh9mi3n2s8...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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.

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

[RichA]

I like DXO. One minute, you have a mediocre lens on a low-megapixel APS camera, next minute (according to them) it's a "Great" lens because they put it on a 45mp FF camera. Ridiculous site.

[nospam]

In article <qm3o81$ph7$2...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>
wrote:

>

> Dynamic range can mean a number of different things. I am talking
> about the range useful for exposure latitude purposes.

that's not what is normally called dynamic range, but again, digital
wins for latitude purposes because of its much wider dynamic range.

> People usually
> vastly underestimate the amount of overexposure latitude available
> from negative films.

people also vastly underestimate the underexposure latitude with
digital, which is far more common than overexposure since dark scenes
are far more common than bright ones, where you can always stop down,
use a shorter shutter speed and/or an nd filter.

also, the metering on digital cameras is more sophisticated than with
film cameras, so exposure errors are *far* less common.

add in computational photography and it's no contest.

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/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-in-low-li
ght-high-ISO-challenge1.jpg>
nikon d850 @ iso 20,000:
<https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-in-low-li
ght-high-ISO-challenge2.jpg>
nikon d850 @ iso 102,400:
<https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-in-low-li
ght-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.

[nospam]

In article <qm3nqs$ph7$1...@dont-email.me>, Peter Irwin <pir...@ktb.net>

wrote:

> >> Prints under normal lighting only have about 5 stops that aren't shades
> >> of black and one or two stops that are barely different blacks and
> >> there is nothing that any technology can do about this.
> >
> > actually, chemical prints are typically 6-7 stops, so whatever film
> > might capture beyond that is wasted.
>
> what do you mean by "actually" - The seven stops consist of
> 5 stops worth of easily visible tonal variation and a couple
> stops worth of barely different blacks.

nope. if it's 'barely different', then it's not a full stop less, which
must be how you get a ridiculous 21 stop range.

> A 3 percent reflectance
> looks pretty black when viewed by even and diffuse lighting and
> anything blacker does not look notably blacker. This is the human
> eye/brain system and is not a technological limitation.

that would not count as a separate stop.

[nospam]

In article <893boedv839m6s7ul...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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.

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

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 08:46:08 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%2C000%20ASA.jpg?dl=0

[Eric Stevens]

On Sat, 21 Sep 2019 08:46:12 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Denial is a river in Egypt.

[nospam]

In article <u1rdoe53l54ue10hv...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

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.

[nospam]

In article <e7qdoetq2k3ls2bgp...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-in-low-light-
> >high-ISO-challenge1.jpg>
> >nikon d850 @ iso 20,000:
>
> >><https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-in-low-light-
> >high-ISO-challenge2.jpg>
> >nikon d850 @ iso 102,400:
>
> >><https://nikonrumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Nikon-D850-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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%2C000%20ASA.jpg?dl=0

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

[Ken Hart]

On 9/22/19 7:28 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <e7qdoetq2k3ls2bgp...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%2C000%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
kwh...@frontier.com

[nospam]

In article <qm7tfr$cf4$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, Ken Hart

<kwh...@frontier.com> 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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%2C000%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.

[Lewis]

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

--
He felt that the darkness was full of unimaginable horrors - and the
trouble with unimaginable horrors was that they were only too easy to
imagine...

[Eric Stevens]

On Sun, 22 Sep 2019 22:45:24 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <qm7tfr$cf4$1...@gioia.aioe.org> Ken Hart <kwh...@frontier.com> wrote:
>> On 9/22/19 7:28 AM, nospam wrote:
>>> In article <e7qdoetq2k3ls2bgp...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
>>> <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%2C000%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.

[nospam]

In article <s29goe95kn6m68cd4...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> 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/3v8dl3y0n9wlp59/Low%20Light%2045%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.

[Incubus]

I'm not talking about exposure latitude. To me, that is a separate term. When
I speak of "dyanamic range", I am talking about the ability to preserve detail
between the light and dark portions of an image. Those films that I mentioned
exhibit less dynamic range than digital cameras at least ten years old.

[Arlen Holder]

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)

[nospam]

In article <qmoo4m$fic$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen Holder

<arlen...@arlinghlder.edu> 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/2019/9/17/20868727/apple-iphone-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 Samsung零 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.

[Arlen Holder]

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.

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 23:01:39 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> I see.
>
> So basically when they say something GOOD about an iPhone: you ignore it.

Hi Alan Baker,

I spend a lot of energy trying to teach you and nospam to be adults.

With adults, analogies sometimes work, where an analogy is Exxon
o Who markets "Premium Gasoline" like you can't believe

Bear in mind, I'm extremely well educated - which means I know chemistry
o Specifically organic chemistry - and the chemistry of "alkanes" ...

Specifically the mix of two alkanes which are used for the AKI rating
o 2,2,4 tri-methyl pentane & n-heptane

Those are the "test fuels" for the "octane rating" on gasoline
o Specifically, octane ratings of "Regular" & "Premium"

There's a HUGE price difference between those two fuels in general, right?
o Why does anyone (with a normal compression engine) pay for the premium?

Essentially Exxon lies - but of course - they're clever about it
o Where ignorant people "BELIEVE" that Premium is "better gas"
(particularly for vehicles that were not designed for premium)
(which is most vehicles except high compression performance engines)

As you may be aware, I gather data on what people "think" is premium
o At the gas pump, I nonchalantly ask people 'what is the difference'

Do you know how few people actually know the difference, Alan Baker?
o In decades of running this survey, fewer than a score I'd assess

Some even say something really stupid, which goes sort of like this:
o "1 out of every 5 refills - I put the premium in - to clean the engine".

Jesus Christ, Alan Baker.
o Do you realize how STUPID people are?

They are TREMENDOUSLY INFLUENCED BY (admittedly clever) MARKETING.
o Which, essentially, is markets wholly imaginary functionality

As an adult, Alan Baker, do you understand the analogy I'm making?

>> Assuming you own an adult mind, not only did TheVerge NOT do a
>> comprehensive review comparing to the top 50 to 100 smartphones, but
>> TheVerge doesn't normally DO comprehensive reviews comparing the top 50 to
>> 100 smartphones against the same metrics for each phone.
>
> What they DID do is give their overall opinion of the new iPhones...
>
> ...and it was very positive.
>
> Rated them 9/10.

Alan Baker,

What you apologists often do is "guess" at what someone said.

As an adult, you need to comprehend what I said, and what I didn't say.
o You need to comprehend context and words and sentences, Alan Baker.

You must realize the TACTIC nospam used - which I was responding to.

At the risk of having to re-state history, essentially what happened was:
1. When I claim Apple iPhones are historically on the bottom of the top 10
2. The apologists brazenly claim otherwise (they parrot Apple marketing)
3. I respond with the simplest test of a purely imaginary belief system

Three words (actually two but it's poetic) DESTROY imaginary beliefs:
o Name just one

As you're likely well aware, apologists like nospam _always_ fail the test
o Their belief system is backed up by exactly zero actual facts

Given the child he is, nospam tried to pull a fast one on us adults
o He knows he can't name even a single comprehensive test site of all
smartphone cameras that shows the Apple iPhones anywhere near the top
historically - he's not actually as stupid as most apologists are.

The fact is nospam KNOWS there are exactly ZERO comprehensive tests sites
on this planet that test the hundred or so mobile phone cameras using an
apples-to-apples detailed test) that historically puts iPhones anywhere
other than in the bottom of the top ten (with rare, temporary, momentary
forays into the top five).

Let me repeat this fact, Alan, because adults comprehend facts.
o Other than Apple marketing
o Nobody who tests the top 100 smartphone cameras
o Consistently puts an iPhone anywhere near the top

The facts are clear to adults, Alan Baker
o The most astronomically priced iPhone is historically on the bottom

Whenever, temporarily, an iPhone momentarily occupies a top-five slot
o The Apple apologists claim a "victory" ... which ... in a way ... it is

But it's a fleeting victory.

Notice though the utter bullshit nospam tried to pull on me when I asked
o Name just one

When I asked for a DXO Mark style test to back up nospam's brazen denials
o He tried to pull TheVerge on me - which even he must know is different

Whenever you apologists pull this childishly ignorant move on me, Alan
o I'm gonna point it out

There are only two possibilities for what nospam pulled on us:
o Either he really doesn't know TheVerge & DXO Mark test completely
different things, or...
o Maybe nospam is really as stupid as what he says indicates.

The facts clearly show NOBODY but Apple Marketing consistently rates
iPhones in any other place but in the bottom of the top ten - and - when an
iPhone ekes it into the top five - it's always temporary.

Those are observations I would expect any adult to comprehend, Alan Baker.
o I spend a LOT of energy trying to edify you apologists

I hope it isn't wasted.

> They're at the bottom when you cherry-pick the timing, you mean.

Alan Baker,

I spend a lot of energy trying to discuss things with you as an adult.

If you make that statement, it shows only one of two things about you:
o Either you really believe iPhones are consistently above the top 5
o Or you are really as ignorant as that statement shows you to be

If either of those two observations are true, Alan Baker
o Then it would be clear to all you don't own adult observation skills.

No other human on this planet, but Apologists would make the claim you did.
o Because you simply made it up.

The facts are clear iPhones are historically in the BOTTOM of the top 10.

You don't like that fact - but the fact you don't like it doesn't change
the fact that it is a fact.

> And where you arbitrarily decide that being at the bottom of the top ten
> is somehow relevant.

This is a completely different discussion of whether the DXO Mark
comprehensive and extremely detailed smartphone tests (of something like
the top hundred smartphone camera QOR) is relevant.

What do you feel is MORE relevant than the DXOMark comprehensive tests?
o Apple Marketing brochures?

--
I spend a LOT of energy trying to discuss facs with apologists as if they
own an adult comprehensive mind...

[Arlen Holder]

On Sat, 28 Sep 2019 20:07:54 -0700, Alan Baker wrote:

> Did you note the large "9" score they gave the iPhone, "Arlen"?

Hi Alan Baker,

I'm going to attempt to reason with you as an adult would.
o By using a well known very similar example to Apple camera QOR

Example:
o Exxon markets "premium" fuel & Chevron markets "techron", right?
o They "claim" all sorts of "performance" benefits, right?

And yet, they're completely imaginary.
o They lied (essentially)

Fact is, there are ZERO reliable cites that back up what people think
o Premium fuel can't possibly benefit a normal car in working order
o Polyetheramines (aka, Techron) are in all top tier fuel (e.g, Costco)

Notice the dynamic I'm attempting to explain to you:
o Exxon & Chevron spend millions of dollars to cleverly market to fools
o Who pay more - for what turns out to be wholly imaginary functionality

There's not a single reliable cite on this planet
o Who could claim that premium is "better" for normal cars in working order
o Who could claim Techron is anything other than normal polyetheramines

I observe that this same concept of marketing to fools
o Is what Apple does with respect to camera quality of output

There's not a single reliable comprehensive test site on this planet
o Which consistently puts Apple at the top of camera quality of results

Not a single one.
o I know that - and nospam knows that - but do YOU know that?

--
I hope I didn't waste my energy trying to reason with you as an adult.

[Incubus]

At least mine is in the top twenty. I can sleep at night.

Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade. I wouldn't want to feel left behind.

[Whisky-dave]

Is your car, watch, TV, misses also in the top twenty ;-)

> I can sleep at night.

So you won't be needing a night mode for your camera then will you ;-P
For me I take more photos/videos at night than during the pay.

>
> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade.

If yuor aim in life is to make sure you stay in the top twenty.....

> I wouldn't want to feel left behind.

Or even end up right behind everyone else.
Whether your behind is left or right it's still just as arse, everyone has one :-D

[Incubus]

I only have the Mrs out of those, unless you count my mechnical pocket watches.
They are quite boring these days as they only tell the time.

>> I can sleep at night.
>
> So you won't be needing a night mode for your camera then will you ;-P
> For me I take more photos/videos at night than during the pay.

I don't use my 'phone camera except for taking pictures of things to put on
Ebay. They should do a mark for how much you get on the 'bay after using the
built in camera.

>> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade.
>
> If yuor aim in life is to make sure you stay in the top twenty.....

All the cool kids have nice toys. I don't want to be the one playing with a
stick with a bit of shit hanging off it :D

>> I wouldn't want to feel left behind.
>
> Or even end up right behind everyone else.
> Whether your behind is left or right it's still just as arse, everyone has one :-D

Not everyone is number 1 on the DXO-mark barometer of technological excellence,
though. I don't feel sufficiently smug and it is affecting my self esteem.

[Lewis]

In message <qmsf5h$f15$2...@dont-email.me> Incubus <incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At least mine is in the top twenty. I can sleep at night.

If you are going to reply to the idiot troll, please trim your replies
instead of including the full brunt of his idiocy.

--
<Athene> we all have our moments when we lose it
<Slyspy> the key is though, to conceal the evidence before the police arrive

[Incubus]

Okay.

[Whisky-dave]

On Monday, 30 September 2019 12:49:19 UTC+1, Incubus wrote:
> On 2019-09-30, Whisky-dave <whisk...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> At least mine is in the top twenty.
> >
> > Is your car, watch, TV, misses also in the top twenty ;-)
>
> I only have the Mrs out of those, unless you count my mechnical pocket watches.
> They are quite boring these days as they only tell the time.

Silly idea just having a watch that can only tell the time. :)

>
> >> I can sleep at night.
> >
> > So you won't be needing a night mode for your camera then will you ;-P
> > For me I take more photos/videos at night than during the pay.
>
> I don't use my 'phone camera except for taking pictures of things to put on
> Ebay.

Most of my phones pictures (excluding cats) are of work related pictures of equipment.

> >> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade.
> >
> > If yuor aim in life is to make sure you stay in the top twenty.....
>
> All the cool kids have nice toys.

You consider them cool, I consider them as idiots. Unless they can use them to good effect of course.

> I don't want to be the one playing with a
> stick with a bit of shit hanging off it :D

who mentioned M$ ;-)

> >> I wouldn't want to feel left behind.
> >
> > Or even end up right behind everyone else.
> > Whether your behind is left or right it's still just as arse, everyone has one :-D
>
> Not everyone is number 1 on the DXO-mark barometer of technological excellence,
> though. I don't feel sufficiently smug and it is affecting my self esteem.

But it's good for bragging about something that isn't of much importance in the real world.

[Ken Hart]

On 9/30/19 7:49 AM, Incubus wrote:

snip

>
> All the cool kids have nice toys. I don't want to be the one playing with a
> stick with a bit of shit hanging off it :D
>

A stick with a bit of shit hanging off it? Luxury!
All I had was a stick. And it was broken, too.

(Any Monty Python fans?)

>>> I wouldn't want to feel left behind.
>>
>> Or even end up right behind everyone else.
>> Whether your behind is left or right it's still just as arse, everyone has one :-D
>
> Not everyone is number 1 on the DXO-mark barometer of technological excellence,
> though. I don't feel sufficiently smug and it is affecting my self esteem.
>

--
Ken Hart
kwh...@frontier.com

[sms]

On 9/30/2019 1:42 AM, Incubus wrote:

<snip>

> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade. I wouldn't want to feel left behind.

Note that these ratings don't include the iPhone 11.

"after a few years of being overtaken by rivals including Huawei and
Google, many experts agree that the iPhone 11 Pro’s triple-lens rear
camera has allowed Apple to retake the mobile camera crown it lost a few
years ago."

[Incubus]

On 2019-10-01, sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 9/30/2019 1:42 AM, Incubus wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade. I wouldn't want to feel left behind.
>
> Note that these ratings don't include the iPhone 11.

Maybe it's so bad they didn't give it a rating.

[nospam]

In article <qmvea6$sjb$1...@dont-email.me>, Incubus

<incubus...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >> Or maybe I should rush out and upgrade. I wouldn't want to feel left
> >> behind.
> >
> > Note that these ratings don't include the iPhone 11.
>
> Maybe it's so bad they didn't give it a rating.

no, it's because the iphone 11 was released less than two weeks ago and
unlike google, apple didn't pay them to have it rated early with a top
score.

the google pixel had a score *before* the phone shipped to customers.

[Incubus]

It's probably worth becoming an "influencer" - lots of free stuff and money
from YouTube ads. You can always threaten companies with a bad review if they
don't give you something for free.

[sms]

LOL. We've seen this leapfrogging in cameras for many years since new
models are not all announced at the same time. DXOMARK has not yet
posted a review of the iPhone 11 cameras.

The Xs Max just missed being in the top ten by one slot. The 11 Pro and
Pro Max will likely be in the top five worldwide, and the top three of
phones sold in the U.S..

I guess the tiny difference matter to professional photographers, but
it's be hard for most people to tell the difference.

[Lewis]

At least the Google score was within the realm of reality. I don't know
how much Samsung paid to have their HORRIBLE photos highly rated, but it
must have been a lot.

Hint: Over saturating the colors so that everything looks like and advert
in an 9-s disco is not even an acceptable photograph, much less a good
one.


--
You are responsible for your Rose

[Incubus]

I don't think Ken Rockwell got that particular memo.

[Savageduck]

On Oct 1, 2019, Incubus wrote
(in article <qmvm43$dsn$1...@dont-email.me>):

> On 2019-10-01, Lewis<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

<<Snip>>

> >
> > Hint: Over saturating the colors so that everything looks like and advert
> > in an 9-s disco is not even an acceptable photograph, much less a good
> > one.
>
> I don't think Ken Rockwell got that particular memo.

Just remember to continue to support, and fund his ever expanding family, but
most importantly, never take anything he writes seriously.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[Arlen _ Holder]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 06:45:59 -0700, sms wrote:

> LOL. We've seen this leapfrogging in cameras for many years since new
> models are not all announced at the same time. DXOMARK has not yet
> posted a review of the iPhone 11 cameras.

Hi Steve,

Your assessment of the facts appears to be similar to what mine is, which
is that the "leapfrogging" happens continuously, where the latest most
horrifically expensive iPhone, at release, occupies a top-five slot, and
then falls back, currently just below the top ten, but usually the most
horrifically expensive iPhone is within the top ten near the bottom.

Having kept abreast of DXOMark scores, my guess is that this same dynamic
will happen with the horrifically expensive iPhone 11 series - where facts
never bother me - they simply bolster my belief system - and if the facts
show otherwise ... I'll change my belief system.

What's interesting though, is that people like nospam hate facts, so what
they do is deprecate the facts, sans a single reliable reference backing up
their belief system (nospam always fails the simple "name just one" test,
which means his belief system is, literally, backed up by exactly zero
facts).

> The Xs Max just missed being in the top ten by one slot. The 11 Pro and
> Pro Max will likely be in the top five worldwide, and the top three of
> phones sold in the U.S..

This is a prognosis, so we have to wait and see, but I think the horrific
price of the top end new iPhones (plus their lack of modern networking
technology) will severely hamper sales of the top end iPhone 11.

Hence, I predict the bottom end iPhone 11 will be the big seller this year.

As in both our predictions, we have rational reasons to make them, where
time will tell on both.
a. Soon we'll have a DXOMark test of the iPhone 11 series
b. Where I predict it will be in the top five for a while (as you do)
And...
a. Soon we'll have sales indicators for the iPhone 11 series
b. Where I predict the lower end will outsell the higher end by a lot.

Time will tell - where we have rational reasons for our predictions.

> I guess the tiny difference matter to professional photographers, but
> it's be hard for most people to tell the difference.

For a few reasons this is a true statement, one of which is that the
summary score is an amalgam of lots of individual detailed specific test
results, where the professionals may care a lot about a particular result
in a specific test.

The great thing about reviews such as what DXO Mark perform is that they're
apple-to-apples comparisons for all the smartphones ... tested in gory
detail - and summarized in the end with a single score - whereas what
nospam has been trying to pull on us is that TheVerge article which isn't.

The fact is that the new horrifically expensive iPhone 11 series camera QOR
"should" be within the top five for a while - at the astronomical price
Apple sets for these things (driven by admittedly brilliant marketing).

It might even assume the "top slot" for a fleeting point in time.

Time will tell. Soon.

[nospam]

In article <qmvokb$ogv$1...@news.mixmin.net>, Arlen _ Holder

<arlen_...@nospam.edu> wrote:

> The great thing about reviews such as what DXO Mark perform is that they're
> apple-to-apples comparisons for all the smartphones ... tested in gory
> detail - and summarized in the end with a single score

completely false.

dxo's tests are *not* consistent. they claim things that are physically
impossible, thereby invalidating their results. worse, they can be
bought.

see dpreview for endless discussions on why dxo tests are a sham.

[Incubus]

On 2019-10-01, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:

Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they show
is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based on
taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only take
photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about how a
lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.

[Arlen _ Holder]

On Tue, 1 Oct 2019 15:08:39 -0000 (UTC), Incubus wrote:

> Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they show
> is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
> resolution section is entirely subjective).

Many armchair quarterbacks cavalierly deprecate the professionals...

Simple test for those armchair quarterbacks...
o Name a _better_ comprehensive mobile phone apples-to-apples test site.

Name just one.

[sms]

On 10/1/2019 8:08 AM, Incubus wrote:

<snip>

> Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they show
> is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
> resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based on
> taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only take
> photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about how a
> lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.

The "specific tests" have a purpose because they are designed to push
the sensor, lenses, and image processing to the max. If a camera does
well on these "stress tests" it has a direct correlation to "real world
circumstances."

An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
over another device.

[nospam]

In article <qn0ngo$3iq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms

<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they
> > show
> > is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
> > resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based
> > on
> > taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only
> > take
> > photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about
> > how a
> > lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.
>
> The "specific tests" have a purpose because they are designed to push
> the sensor, lenses, and image processing to the max. If a camera does
> well on these "stress tests" it has a direct correlation to "real world
> circumstances."

only if the 'specific tests' are relevant to real world scenarios,
which is not always the case.

> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
> over another device.

except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.

the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
clearly something funny is going on.

it is also impossible to give a single numeric value to a device that
can do *many* different things in *many* different situations, with a
myriad of settings.

dpreview fails in this regard by always using default settings, which
is rarely what anyone would use.

[Eric Stevens]

How were you viewing them?

--


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.

[Arlen G. Holder]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 19:37:09 -0400, nospam wrote:

> except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.

Simple question for you nospam... since Apple fares poorly...
o Why doesn't Apple have enough money to "buy" DXO Mark's reviews?

Simple adult test of your imaginary belief system, nospam
o What's your evidence that DXO Mark was bought?

What"?
o You just made it up, again?

The fact is you _hate_ that iPhones don't historicaly have camera QOR
o That the (admittedly brilliant) Apple Marketing fed you to believe.

[Lewis]

In message <qn0ngo$3iq$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> On 10/1/2019 8:08 AM, Incubus wrote:

> <snip>

>> Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they show
>> is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
>> resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based on
>> taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only take
>> photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about how a
>> lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.

> The "specific tests" have a purpose because they are designed to push
> the sensor, lenses, and image processing to the max. If a camera does
> well on these "stress tests" it has a direct correlation to "real world
> circumstances."

No it doesn't. One of their top rated camera phone takes shitty photos
with hideous color.

> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
> over another device.

Their test as bullshit, their scores are worthless, and they take money
to pump scores.

They are worthless.


--
'We'll all be killed.' 'Think of it as the lesser of two evils.' 'What's
the other one?' Vimes drew his sword. 'Me.' --Jingo

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 19:37:09 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <qn0ngo$3iq$1...@dont-email.me>, sms
><scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> > Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they
>> > show
>> > is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
>> > resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based
>> > on
>> > taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only
>> > take
>> > photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about
>> > how a
>> > lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.
>>
>> The "specific tests" have a purpose because they are designed to push
>> the sensor, lenses, and image processing to the max. If a camera does
>> well on these "stress tests" it has a direct correlation to "real world
>> circumstances."
>
>only if the 'specific tests' are relevant to real world scenarios,
>which is not always the case.
>
>> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
>> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
>> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
>> over another device.
>
>except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.

That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.

>
>the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
>clearly something funny is going on.

You are back to that misunderstanding about the encoding of dynamic
range again. Oh dar.

>
>it is also impossible to give a single numeric value to a device that
>can do *many* different things in *many* different situations, with a
>myriad of settings.

Rubbish.

>
>dpreview fails in this regard by always using default settings, which
>is rarely what anyone would use.

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <qn0ngo$3iq$1...@dont-email.me> sms <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> On 10/1/2019 8:08 AM, Incubus wrote:
>
>> <snip>
>
>>> Furthermore, even were their results consistent and infallible, all they show
>>> is how good a lens is at passing a series of specific tests (although their
>>> resolution section is entirely subjective). It's like those reviews based on
>>> taking photos of a brick wall or a bookshelf - possibly useful if I only take
>>> photos of walls or bookshelves but giving me no useful information about how a
>>> lens functions out in the real world in different circumstances.
>
>> The "specific tests" have a purpose because they are designed to push
>> the sensor, lenses, and image processing to the max. If a camera does
>> well on these "stress tests" it has a direct correlation to "real world
>> circumstances."
>
>No it doesn't. One of their top rated camera phone takes shitty photos
>with hideous color.

Can I ask you again: if you have seen these images, how do you view
them.

>
>> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
>> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
>> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
>> over another device.
>
>Their test as bullshit, their scores are worthless, and they take money
>to pump scores.
>
>They are worthless.

--

[Whisky-dave]

But that implies that dpreview is good at what they are doing or is relivant to photographers rather than selfie takers.
perhaps smartphone camera users need a site that rates camera at taking good selfies or a selfie and the moon, now that would be a challenge.
what smartphone would be best at doing that ?

[nospam]

In article <lgr8peltdvgtorbas...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
> >> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
> >> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
> >> over another device.
> >
> >except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.
>
> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.

there's ample evidence, which was provided previously.

> >the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
> >clearly something funny is going on.
>
> You are back to that misunderstanding about the encoding of dynamic
> range again. Oh dar.

the only misunderstanding is your own.

go learn something about sampling theory.

this has been explained to you *numerous* times and you still don't
understand.

> >it is also impossible to give a single numeric value to a device that
> >can do *many* different things in *many* different situations, with a
> >myriad of settings.
>
> Rubbish.

nope.

[Lewis]

In message <lgr8peltdvgtorbas...@4ax.com> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Oct 2019 19:37:09 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:

>>except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.

> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.

No, you have simply ignored it.


--
"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved
of it." - Mark Twain

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 07:42:28 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

>In article <lgr8peltdvgtorbas...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> >> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
>> >> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
>> >> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
>> >> over another device.
>> >
>> >except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.
>>
>> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.
>
>there's ample evidence, which was provided previously.

Like all your evidence: you have already given it and will not cite
the actual article.

>
>> >the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
>> >clearly something funny is going on.
>>
>> You are back to that misunderstanding about the encoding of dynamic
>> range again. Oh dar.
>
>the only misunderstanding is your own.
>
>go learn something about sampling theory.

Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
signal.

>
>this has been explained to you *numerous* times and you still don't
>understand.
>

Your argument is that it is impossible for a camera whose dynamic
range (measured in stops) is greater than than the number of bits used
to encode the signal. I keep pointing out to you that what is being
digitized is the output of whatever circuitry is being used to read
the photon charge which has been received by a sensel and that this
circuitry can scale the photon charge in any way the designer likes.
There is not a one to one correspondence.

In any case you have used the fact that DxO claims to have measured a
dynamic range of the sensor of a Nikon camera with 12-bit raw files as
being over 13, or some such figure. You say that this is impossible
and you have several times cited this as evidence that DxO is lying.
You have gone further and claimed that this evidence that DxO can be
bought.

Recently, after you mentioned that the D70 used compressed RAW files I
looked this up. To my surprise I found confirmation that my thoughts
on the matter were correct. See
https://blog.majid.info/is-the-nikon-d70-nef-raw-format-truly-lossless/
Particularly note:

"To find out which one is correct, I read the C language source code
for Dave Coffin’s excellent reverse-engineered, open-source RAW
converter, dcraw, which supports the D70. The camera has a 12-bit
analog to digital converter (ADC) that digitizes the analog signal
coming out of the Sony ICX413AQ CCD sensor. In theory a 12-bit
sensor should yield up to 2^12 = 4096 possible values, but the RAW
conversion reduces these 4096 values into 683 by applying a
quantization curve. These 683 values are then encoded using a
variable number of bits (1 to 10) with a tree structure similar to
the lossless Huffmann or Lempel-Ziv compression schemes used by
programs like ZIP."

It is clear that in the case of the Nikon D70 the data coding has no
direct connection at all with the dynamic range of the sensor. If
Nikon has done this with the D70 it is more likely that they have used
a similar trick in other cameras, including the ones that have
atracted your ire for their claimed dynamic range. It is much more
likely that you have continued to misunderstand the actual situation
than that DxO takes bribes to report impossible results.

>> >it is also impossible to give a single numeric value to a device that
>> >can do *many* different things in *many* different situations, with a
>> >myriad of settings.
>>
>> Rubbish.
>
>nope.

[nospam]

In article <vbbapep2c2g4flnnr...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:

> >> >> An advantage of the "specific tests" is that they do the same tests for
> >> >> all phones so that no phone can gain an unfair advantage by skewing the
> >> >> results by picking and choosing tests where one device has an advantage
> >> >> over another device.
> >> >
> >> >except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.
> >>
> >> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.
> >
> >there's ample evidence, which was provided previously.
>
> Like all your evidence: you have already given it and will not cite
> the actual article.

reread the thread from a year or two ago.

> >> >the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
> >> >clearly something funny is going on.
> >>
> >> You are back to that misunderstanding about the encoding of dynamic
> >> range again. Oh dar.
> >
> >the only misunderstanding is your own.
> >
> >go learn something about sampling theory.
>
> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> signal.

eh?

sampling theory has *everything* to do with the digitizing of an analog
signal, which is done by *sampling* said signal.

statements like that indicate you know *far* less about this than you
think you do.

> >this has been explained to you *numerous* times and you still don't
> >understand.
> >
> Your argument is that it is impossible for a camera whose dynamic
> range (measured in stops) is greater than than the number of bits used
> to encode the signal. I keep pointing out to you that what is being
> digitized is the output of whatever circuitry is being used to read
> the photon charge which has been received by a sensel and that this
> circuitry can scale the photon charge in any way the designer likes.
> There is not a one to one correspondence.

it's not an argument.

the number of bits limits the dynamic range. period.

this is easily demonstrated mathematically, or just by understanding
what's going on.

> In any case you have used the fact that DxO claims to have measured a
> dynamic range of the sensor of a Nikon camera with 12-bit raw files as
> being over 13, or some such figure. You say that this is impossible
> and you have several times cited this as evidence that DxO is lying.
> You have gone further and claimed that this evidence that DxO can be
> bought.

it is indeed impossible for a camera with a 12 bit adc to have >12
stops dynamic range.

> Recently, after you mentioned that the D70 used compressed RAW files I
> looked this up. To my surprise I found confirmation that my thoughts
> on the matter were correct.

no, your thoughts were that you weren't using lossy compressed raw,
except that you were.

> See
> https://blog.majid.info/is-the-nikon-d70-nef-raw-format-truly-lossless/
> Particularly note:
>
> "To find out which one is correct, I read the C language source code
> for Dave Coffin’s excellent reverse-engineered, open-source RAW
> converter, dcraw, which supports the D70. The camera has a 12-bit
> analog to digital converter (ADC) that digitizes the analog signal
> coming out of the Sony ICX413AQ CCD sensor. In theory a 12-bit
> sensor should yield up to 2^12 = 4096 possible values, but the RAW
> conversion reduces these 4096 values into 683 by applying a
> quantization curve. These 683 values are then encoded using a
> variable number of bits (1 to 10) with a tree structure similar to
> the lossless Huffmann or Lempel-Ziv compression schemes used by
> programs like ZIP."
>
> It is clear that in the case of the Nikon D70 the data coding has no
> direct connection at all with the dynamic range of the sensor. If
> Nikon has done this with the D70 it is more likely that they have used
> a similar trick in other cameras, including the ones that have
> atracted your ire for their claimed dynamic range. It is much more
> likely that you have continued to misunderstand the actual situation
> than that DxO takes bribes to report impossible results.

they do that for lossy compressed raw.

they do *not* do that for uncompressed or lossless compressed.

you're *way* over your head on this stuff.

[Lewis]

In message <vbbapep2c2g4flnnr...@4ax.com> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> signal.

That is the definition of sampling theorem.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem>

"In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a
fundamental bridge between continuous-time signals and discrete-time
signals. It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that
permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information
from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth."

Are you familiar with what digital signal processing is? Hint, it's
about digitizing an analog signal and analoging a digital sample of an
analog signal.

You also might benefit from learning what continuum-time and discrete-
time mean in this field.

--
A marriage is always made up of two people who are prepared to swear
that only the other one snores.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

> Their test as bullshit, their scores are worthless, and they take money
> to pump scores.
>
> They are worthless.

While Eric Stevens takes one approach to ask Lewis to responsd with facts
o i.e., "how do you view them?"

I use another approach which instantly shows apologists are immune to fact.

The Apple apologists (see list below) love to deprecate reliable reviews.
o Yet, none of them can name even a single reliable site - that is better!

Not a single one.

Hence, while Eric is repeatedly and logically asking Lewis to explain:
o "How do you view them?"

I'm asking all the apologists who deprecate reliable smartphone reviews
o Name a site that does a BETTER job of comprehensive smartphone camera QOR

The apologists _always_ fail the simplest tests of adult belief systems
o Name just one

Lewis:

Name a reliable mobile phone comprehensive test site better than DXOMark.
o Name just one

--
The score of Apple Apologists on this ng.
o Alan Baker <nu...@ness.biz>
o Alan Browne <bitb...@blackhole.com>
o Andreas Rutishauser <and...@macandreas.ch>
o Beedle <Bee...@dont-email.me>
o B...@Onramp.net
o Chris <ithi...@gmail.com>
o Davoud <st...@sky.net>
o Elden <use...@moondog.org>
o Elfin <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka Lloyd, aka Lloyd Parsons)
o Hemidactylus <ecph...@allspamis.invalid>
o joe <no...@domain.invalid>
o Joerg Lorenz <hugy...@gmx.ch>
o Johan <JH...@nospam.invalid>
o Jolly Roger <jolly...@pobox.com>
o Lewis <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies>
o Lloyd <elfi...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Lloyd Parsons <lloy...@gmail.com> (aka "Elfin")
o Meanie <M...@gmail.com>
o nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid> (bullshitter par excellence)
o Panthera Tigris Altaica <northe...@outlook.com>
o Sandman <m...@sandman.net> (hates any and all facts about Apple)
o Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
o Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> (aka Michael Glasser)
o Tim Streater <timst...@greenbee.net>
o Wade Garrett <wa...@cooler.net>
o Your Name <Your...@YourISP.com>
o et al.

[Arlen Holder]

On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:34:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:

>>>except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.
>
>> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.
>
> No, you have simply ignored it.

FACTS:

Simple test of imaginary belief systems.... just three words
o Name just one

Name a reliable cite that provides proof DXOMark reviews are 'bought'.
o Name just one

Imaginary belief systems always fail this simple 3-word test.

o Name just one

--

And, why doesn't Apple have enough money to buy the reviews then?

[Eric Stevens]

On Wed, 02 Oct 2019 19:46:40 -0400, nospam <nos...@nospam.invalid>
wrote:

Each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling some and guessing
others. What happens to the data is another matter.

>
>> >this has been explained to you *numerous* times and you still don't
>> >understand.
>> >
>> Your argument is that it is impossible for a camera whose dynamic
>> range (measured in stops) is greater than than the number of bits used
>> to encode the signal. I keep pointing out to you that what is being
>> digitized is the output of whatever circuitry is being used to read
>> the photon charge which has been received by a sensel and that this
>> circuitry can scale the photon charge in any way the designer likes.
>> There is not a one to one correspondence.
>
>it's not an argument.
>
>the number of bits limits the dynamic range. period.
>
>this is easily demonstrated mathematically, or just by understanding
>what's going on.

The dynamic range of the sensor is not determined by or calculated
from the number of bits to encode it. DxOMark actaully measures it-
see https://corp.dxomark.com/about-us/ "HDR Testing" The test uses two
adjustable liht sources. One is used to determine the lowest level of
light that the sensor can detect and the other determines the level
which saturates the sensor. The ratio of the two is the dynamic range.
Such a test is not affected by the camera's firmware. It is puely a
test of the performance of the camera's sensor.

>
>> In any case you have used the fact that DxO claims to have measured a
>> dynamic range of the sensor of a Nikon camera with 12-bit raw files as
>> being over 13, or some such figure. You say that this is impossible
>> and you have several times cited this as evidence that DxO is lying.
>> You have gone further and claimed that this evidence that DxO can be
>> bought.
>
>it is indeed impossible for a camera with a 12 bit adc to have >12
>stops dynamic range.

You persist in confusing the dynamic range of the sensor with the
dynamic range of the sensor. They are quite independent. If for
example the sensor has a dynamic range of 12 stops (4096:1) the
dynamic range of the sensor is not diminished by encoding it in (say)
8 bit data.

They can do whatever they like between the sensor and the encoded
data.

[Eric Stevens]

On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 04:10:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <vbbapep2c2g4flnnr...@4ax.com> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
>> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
>> signal.
>
>That is the definition of sampling theorem.
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem>
>
>"In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a
>fundamental bridge between continuous-time signals and discrete-time
>signals. It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that
>permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information
>from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth."
>
>Are you familiar with what digital signal processing is? Hint, it's
>about digitizing an analog signal and analoging a digital sample of an
>analog signal.
>
>You also might benefit from learning what continuum-time and discrete-
>time mean in this field.

Yes I do know about all this. 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.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, 3 October 2019 07:19:12 UTC+1, Arlen Holder wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 07:10:08 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
> > Their test as bullshit, their scores are worthless, and they take money
> > to pump scores.
> >
> > They are worthless.
>
> While Eric Stevens takes one approach to ask Lewis to responsd with facts
> o i.e., "how do you view them?"

But NOT relivant facts.

> I use another approach which instantly shows apologists are immune to fact.

Which approach is that then ?

>
> The Apple apologists (see list below) love to deprecate reliable reviews.

What makes them reliable is your view,.

> o Yet, none of them can name even a single reliable site - that is better!

Why should there be one that is better, and can you tell me what the word better means in this instance.

>
> Not a single one.

can you tell me what the best wine is or the best car.

>
> Hence, while Eric is repeatedly and logically asking Lewis to explain:
> o "How do you view them?"

Eric isn't very logical.

and what is meant by o "How do you view them?".

>
> I'm asking all the apologists who deprecate reliable smartphone reviews
> o Name a site that does a BETTER job of comprehensive smartphone camera QOR

Why do you think the dpreview is the most relible ?
what data to you have to compare and how.

>
> The apologists _always_ fail the simplest tests of adult belief systems
> o Name just one

What's an adult belief system, are you asking a God, if so which one.

>
> Lewis:
>
> Name a reliable mobile phone comprehensive test site better than DXOMark.
> o Name just one

A studip and pathetic statement.

Can you name any other mobile phone comprehensive test site ?

Just one will do then we can compare those two.
Can you name a site that does testing for free abosloutly free where the testers aren't paid by anyone.

Wat's an Apologists anyway, and what wrong is with that anyway providing your using FACTS.


As an example I laughed when reading the link below.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-49660765

I would have felt the same if it was said about sumsung or any other phone manufatuer, in fact I laughed harder when I thought about what happens when these people want to have sex.

Does that put me on your list of Apple apologists, why am I missing off this list. I have 2 ipods, 1 ipad, 1 iphone, an imac (2014) , an macmini (2010) a G4 tower, a G3 tower, a Macplus, a mac SE30, a LCIII a LC475.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, 3 October 2019 07:19:12 UTC+1, Arlen Holder wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Oct 2019 17:34:13 -0000 (UTC), Lewis wrote:
>
> >>>except that they can be bought, thereby skewing the tests.
> >
> >> That's an assumption you have reached without evidence.
> >
> > No, you have simply ignored it.
>
> FACTS:
>
> Simple test of imaginary belief systems.... just three words
> o Name just one
>
> Name a reliable cite that provides proof DXOMark reviews are 'bought'.
> o Name just one
>
> Imaginary belief systems always fail this simple 3-word test.
> o Name just one

So you name another site that test such things.

>
> --
> And, why doesn't Apple have enough money to buy the reviews then?

Apple does have enough money, but they don't need to buy reviews.
Any more than the royal family need to pay for TV time.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, 3 October 2019 09:52:43 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

>
> Each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling some and guessing
> others. What happens to the data is another matter.

you know little about technology do you.

[Whisky-dave]

On Thursday, 3 October 2019 09:56:37 UTC+1, Eric Stevens wrote:

> Yes I do know about all this. The point is that in the DSLRs under
> discussion there is no continuous time signal.

What is a continuous time signal in your world ?

>The sensor is exposed
> and for a fixed time and then the charge of each sensel is digitized.
> There is no sampling as such.

that is sampling.

[Savageduck]

On Oct 3, 2019, Eric Stevens wrote
(in article<nocbpe5i4sfvaik65...@4ax.com>):

>
> The dynamic range of the sensor is not determined by or calculated
> from the number of bits to encode it. DxOMark actaully measures it-
> see https://corp.dxomark.com/about-us/ "HDR Testing" The test uses two
> adjustable liht sources. One is used to determine the lowest level of
> light that the sensor can detect and the other determines the level
> which saturates the sensor. The ratio of the two is the dynamic range.
> Such a test is not affected by the camera's firmware. It is puely a
> test of the performance of the camera's sensor.

...and DxOMark has yet to find a way to deal with Fujifilm X-Trans sensor
cameras, and hasn’t even tested any Fujifilm Bayer sensor cameras (of which
there are several) since the 2010 X100.

--
Regards,
Savageduck

[nospam]

In article <0001HW.234624A801...@news.giganews.com>,

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> ...and DxOMark has yet to find a way to deal with Fujifilm X-Trans sensor

> cameras, and hasnšt even tested any Fujifilm Bayer sensor cameras (of which

> there are several) since the 2010 X100.

apparently fuji isn't interested in paying them.

[nospam]

In article <qodbpelrvo2me4g1s...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>
> >> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> >> signal.
> >
> >That is the definition of sampling theorem.
> >
> ><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem>
> >
> >"In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a
> >fundamental bridge between continuous-time signals and discrete-time
> >signals. It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that
> >permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information
> >from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth."
> >
> >Are you familiar with what digital signal processing is? Hint, it's
> >about digitizing an analog signal and analoging a digital sample of an
> >analog signal.
> >
> >You also might benefit from learning what continuum-time and discrete-
> >time mean in this field.
>
> Yes I do know about all this. 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.

you know a *lot* less than you think you do.

[nospam]

In article <nocbpe5i4sfvaik65...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens

<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:


> >
> >> >> >the results of some of their tests break the laws of physics, so
> >> >> >clearly something funny is going on.
> >> >>
> >> >> You are back to that misunderstanding about the encoding of dynamic
> >> >> range again. Oh dar.
> >> >
> >> >the only misunderstanding is your own.
> >> >
> >> >go learn something about sampling theory.
> >>
> >> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
> >> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> >> signal.
> >
> >eh?
> >
> >sampling theory has *everything* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> >signal, which is done by *sampling* said signal.
> >
> >statements like that indicate you know *far* less about this than you
> >think you do.
>
> Each sensel is digitized. There is no sampling some and guessing
> others. What happens to the data is another matter.

you're continuing to demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of
very basic concepts.

there absolutely is sampling and the only guessing is your own.

> >> >this has been explained to you *numerous* times and you still don't
> >> >understand.
> >> >
> >> Your argument is that it is impossible for a camera whose dynamic
> >> range (measured in stops) is greater than than the number of bits used
> >> to encode the signal. I keep pointing out to you that what is being
> >> digitized is the output of whatever circuitry is being used to read
> >> the photon charge which has been received by a sensel and that this
> >> circuitry can scale the photon charge in any way the designer likes.
> >> There is not a one to one correspondence.
> >
> >it's not an argument.
> >
> >the number of bits limits the dynamic range. period.
> >
> >this is easily demonstrated mathematically, or just by understanding
> >what's going on.
>
> The dynamic range of the sensor is not determined by or calculated
> from the number of bits to encode it.

the dynamic range of the sensor is limited by the number of bits in the
adc.

> DxOMark actaully measures it-
> see https://corp.dxomark.com/about-us/ "HDR Testing" The test uses two
> adjustable liht sources. One is used to determine the lowest level of
> light that the sensor can detect and the other determines the level
> which saturates the sensor. The ratio of the two is the dynamic range.
> Such a test is not affected by the camera's firmware. It is puely a
> test of the performance of the camera's sensor.

whatever they claim to be doing is still limited by the adc.

> >> In any case you have used the fact that DxO claims to have measured a
> >> dynamic range of the sensor of a Nikon camera with 12-bit raw files as
> >> being over 13, or some such figure. You say that this is impossible
> >> and you have several times cited this as evidence that DxO is lying.
> >> You have gone further and claimed that this evidence that DxO can be
> >> bought.
> >
> >it is indeed impossible for a camera with a 12 bit adc to have >12
> >stops dynamic range.
>
> You persist in confusing the dynamic range of the sensor with the
> dynamic range of the sensor. They are quite independent.

statements such as that indicate that *you* are confused.

you obviously meant something else, but it's anyone's guess what that
might be.

> If for
> example the sensor has a dynamic range of 12 stops (4096:1) the
> dynamic range of the sensor is not diminished by encoding it in (say)
> 8 bit data.

yes it very definitely is.

> >>
> >> It is clear that in the case of the Nikon D70 the data coding has no
> >> direct connection at all with the dynamic range of the sensor. If
> >> Nikon has done this with the D70 it is more likely that they have used
> >> a similar trick in other cameras, including the ones that have
> >> atracted your ire for their claimed dynamic range. It is much more
> >> likely that you have continued to misunderstand the actual situation
> >> than that DxO takes bribes to report impossible results.
> >
> >they do that for lossy compressed raw.
> >
> >they do *not* do that for uncompressed or lossless compressed.
> >
> >you're *way* over your head on this stuff.
>
> They can do whatever they like between the sensor and the encoded
> data.

they can, but they are still limited by the adc.

[Lewis]

In message <qodbpelrvo2me4g1s...@4ax.com> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
> On Thu, 3 Oct 2019 04:10:19 -0000 (UTC), Lewis
> <g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <vbbapep2c2g4flnnr...@4ax.com> Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
>>> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
>>> signal.
>>
>>That is the definition of sampling theorem.
>>
>><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist–Shannon_sampling_theorem>
>>
>>"In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a
>>fundamental bridge between continuous-time signals and discrete-time
>>signals. It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that
>>permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information
>>from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth."
>>
>>Are you familiar with what digital signal processing is? Hint, it's
>>about digitizing an analog signal and analoging a digital sample of an
>>analog signal.
>>
>>You also might benefit from learning what continuum-time and discrete-
>>time mean in this field.

> Yes I do know about all this.

Obviously not, a you said "Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the
digitizing of an analog signal" which is spectacularly wrong and shows a
complete ignorance of the topic. How complete? My dog knows exactly as
much about it as you do; which is to say you and he both know nothing at
all.

The difference, of course, is my dog is only spreading his shit in the
yard, not all over USENET, so score one for the dog.

> 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.

--
I NO LONGER WANT MY MTV Bart chalkboard Ep. 3G02

[nospam]

In article <slrnqpcanf....@mac-mini.lan>, Lewis

<g.k...@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

> >>> Either you are way off the rails or you are trying to misdirect.
> >>> Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the digitizing of an analog
> >>> signal.
> >>
> >>That is the definition of sampling theorem.
> >>

> >><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nyquist?Shannon_sampling_theorem>

> >>
> >>"In the field of digital signal processing, the sampling theorem is a
> >>fundamental bridge between continuous-time signals and discrete-time
> >>signals. It establishes a sufficient condition for a sample rate that
> >>permits a discrete sequence of samples to capture all the information
> >>from a continuous-time signal of finite bandwidth."
> >>
> >>Are you familiar with what digital signal processing is? Hint, it's
> >>about digitizing an analog signal and analoging a digital sample of an
> >>analog signal.
> >>
> >>You also might benefit from learning what continuum-time and discrete-
> >>time mean in this field.
>
> > Yes I do know about all this.
>
> Obviously not, a you said "Sampling theory has *nothing* to do with the
> digitizing of an analog signal" which is spectacularly wrong and shows a
> complete ignorance of the topic. How complete? My dog knows exactly as
> much about it as you do; which is to say you and he both know nothing at
> all.
>
> The difference, of course, is my dog is only spreading his shit in the
> yard, not all over USENET, so score one for the dog.

score five for the best post of the year.

> > 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.

[Eric Stevens]

We all do.