Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DXOMark  (Read 13860 times)
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7423


WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2008, 12:27:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Sorry Ray,

You are absolutely correct. Regarding the main issue my view is that:

- DXO results are created with significant care.
- Their methods seem to be based on proper math.
- To reduce all data to a simple DXO mark is a bit to simplicistic in my view.

In general I'd suggest that DXO's data are by and large consistent with other tests. There is actually very little measurement data published which are based on raw images, except those by gentlemen Panopeeper, Glujik and others who publish on this forum. The fact that DXO publishes data produced under consistent conditions is a very good thing.

The data from DXO seems to indicate that there is less development in technology than what we may have believed. Their finding is essentially that noise on the pixel level did not improve at all the past five years. The improvement in technology went into increasing picture density. DXO also point out that significant improvements have been achieved in raw image processing, they state that the DXO engine of today has 4 dB less noise than the early versions.

DXO has done a great effort to present data in an easily understandable format.  

Erik


Quote from: Ray
Erik,
I think you'll agree, these are side-line issues and people should recognise them as such. The question is, are the DXO results accurate? If anyone thinks they are not, then let them provide the evidence. In the absense of contrary eveidence, this is all idle speculation.
« Last Edit: November 26, 2008, 12:29:05 AM by ErikKaffehr » Logged

barryfitzgerald
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 605


« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2008, 03:59:04 AM »
ReplyReply

I would want to look at real world results myself. Numbers and charts on a website don't tell me anything about the image quality anyway.
I don't see a lot of value in the results, not unless they are backed up with samples you can see.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #22 on: November 26, 2008, 06:15:15 AM »
ReplyReply


Quote
Colors exist in the mind?

So what?  Anything that exists in the real world exists also in the mind, expressed in the mind's way to comprehend, understand, and categorize things, putting them into relations to other phenomena.

So what you say is without any sense.

Or did you intend to say "color exists (only) in the mind"?

That would be less than having said something bearing no sense. It would be wrong.

Sorry I wasn't clear. The sensation or experience of color exists only in the mind and such experience varies amongst individual humans, sometimes greatly in the case of people who are described as being color blind, and sometimes more subtly. Some people involuntarily experience a particular color when they hear certain sounds, letter or numbers. It's called synesthesia. Would you say that someone who experiences the sensation of red when he/she sees the letter 'A' could objectively claim that the color red is a property of the letter A?

Quote
It's data about color, even though easy to edit. Any RAW file will tell you what color a person's face is or what a color a car has. You just have to process it, knowing from which camera it came, so you can interpret the data about color, and you know what color it is. That's a part of color management.

Data, that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete, is worthless.

In the same vein you could say that there's no music on a CD, just data

I think you are failing to distinguish between colloquial langauge and scientific language. The music CD is a good example. It contains data which can be transformed and interpreted through a complex chain of processes to produce music. Whether you will like the quality of the sound cannot be determined from an examination of the data on the disc or from an examination of the recording properties of the disc, because the fidelity of the resulting music is dependent upon the quality of the CD player, the quality of the amplifier, the quality of the loudspeakers, the positioning of the loudspeakers in the room, the positioning of you, the listener, in the room, and the acoustic properties of the room.

Quote
Data, that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete, is worthless.

We have no knowledge of data that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete. They only becomes data when they are linked to something tangible.
Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #23 on: November 28, 2008, 11:00:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Sorry I wasn't clear. The sensation or experience of color exists only in the mind and such experience varies amongst individual humans, sometimes greatly in the case of people who are described as being color blind, and sometimes more subtly. Some people involuntarily experience a particular color when they hear certain sounds, letter or numbers. It's called synesthesia. Would you say that someone who experiences the sensation of red when he/she sees the letter 'A' could objectively claim that the color red is a property of the letter A?



I think you are failing to distinguish between colloquial langauge and scientific language. The music CD is a good example. It contains data which can be transformed and interpreted through a complex chain of processes to produce music. Whether you will like the quality of the sound cannot be determined from an examination of the data on the disc or from an examination of the recording properties of the disc, because the fidelity of the resulting music is dependent upon the quality of the CD player, the quality of the amplifier, the quality of the loudspeakers, the positioning of the loudspeakers in the room, the positioning of you, the listener, in the room, and the acoustic properties of the room.



We have no knowledge of data that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete. They only becomes data when they are linked to something tangible.

Where are you going with this? This all makes little sense.

Why don't you first plan what you want to say, and then say it?

If you have nothing to say, like in this post, why say something and just keeping up an attitude, just to appear to be right?

Quote from: Ray
I think you are failing to distinguish between colloquial langauge and scientific language.

What does that mean? Whenever you say something that doesn't make any sense, I have to understand it that you were using the language "colloquially"?

Poor, little trick. If you say something, that doesn't make sense, you can tell the other party:

"Oh, it was only meant colloquially."

Would be a great means for politics: " I promised to not raise taxes? Read my lips: I was talking colloquially, and not meaning it"

Quote from: Ray
We have no knowledge of data that cannot be linked to something tangible or concrete. They only becomes data when they are linked to something tangible.

So you took something I said about data having to be linked to something tangible or concrete in order to be of value, and reformulated it, but in such a convoluted and cloudy way, that you destroyed any sense. What kind of debating style is this? It doesn't add anything, only destroys meaning.

Well, to set things straight for a last time.

Data is information written down by obeying certain rules. If you haven't gotten those rules, you can't read the data, but it's still data.

E.g. For many centuries it was impossible for European scientists to read Egyptian Hieroglyphs. All those texts in the several ancient, Egyptian writing styles can be called data. They were data even before they could be read/deciphered.

In 1799, during the Napoleonic campaign in Egypt, the Rosetta Stone was discovered. On it, the same text was written in ancient Greek and in two kinds of Egyptian hieroglyphic writing, hieroglyphs could be deciphered because of the known part, the ancient Greek text.

Now the data could be read, deciphered.

So, data is data, no matter if you can read them, or not. It just makes sense only when you know the rules for the deciphering.

Data is just a general term, the most general. The data on a music CD is generally data, but it is also music (in the same way as music is music when it is written down on paper in the form of musical notes. So your whole blabla about the transformation process doesn't add any information here, but it avoids the question you were pretending to treat.


You see, that's with all your posts. A lot of faking knowledge and faking arguments, without giving anything worthwhile.

You're just wasting my time.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:24:47 PM by The View » Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #24 on: November 28, 2008, 11:36:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: The View
You're just wasting my time.

And you're wasting mine. Sorry I responded.
« Last Edit: November 28, 2008, 11:38:37 PM by Ray » Logged
The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #25 on: November 30, 2008, 01:49:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You have chosen to ignore all posts from: Ray.

I'm sure I missed out on some very touching derailment.
Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #26 on: November 30, 2008, 02:20:49 PM »
ReplyReply

What?  Afraid Ray might have had the last word?

Yet another thread that should be closed..
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #27 on: November 30, 2008, 09:35:13 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm very amused at such antics   . Why would anyone deliberately announce to someone that he/she is, henceforth, going to ignore them? I ignore whole threads if they don't interest me. I do not feel compelled to announce to the world that I am hereby going to ignore a particular person, thought, idea, philosophy, discipline, race, religion, whatever.
Logged
james_elliot
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


WWW
« Reply #28 on: December 01, 2008, 06:48:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Has anybody read and has opinions about that article:
http://www.astrosurf.com/buil/nikon_test/test.htm
It claims that the Nikon bodies are applying some kind of raw noise reduction before saving the raw file, and thus reduce also the kind of details that can be captured.
Thus, comparison of noise levels becomes irrelevant.

Cited also on this site:
http://www.photo-lovers.org/fpsensor.html.en
Logged

The View
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001


« Reply #29 on: December 02, 2008, 01:42:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: DarkPenguin
What?  Afraid Ray might have had the last word?

Yet another thread that should be closed..



It's because of ignorant blabla guys like you and Ray that message boards are overcrowded with useless texts, in short: misinformation.




Logged

Deserts, Cities, Woods, Faces - View of the World.
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #30 on: December 02, 2008, 08:31:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: The View
It's because of ignorant blabla guys like you and Ray that message boards are overcrowded with useless texts, in short: misinformation.

Yours are no better.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #31 on: December 02, 2008, 09:27:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Not nearly as good, in fact.  
Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7423


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2008, 11:19:12 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

While I consider the DxO mark as a single figure of merit somewhat dubious I find that there is a lot of good analysis of the sensors. They have not yet published data on the D3X but the 5DII test seems to show a one EV advantage for the 5DII over the A-900 and that's consistent with Michael Reichmann's observations although Michael doesn't have a lab.

Another point is that DxO shares this information, much appreciated, at least by me!
Erik


Quote from: fike
When I read Michael's update today about the DXOMark site, I was pretty excited, but after just a few minutes at the site messing around with all the sliders and nifty flash gadgetry, I was left kind of bored.  

Is this it?  Is this what photography has been reduced to?

That word "reduced" seems to be what everyone is shooting for.  We want to reduce cameras down to one number, one rating, a top ten of a sort.  

Top to bottom, image quality is becoming a business of analyzing a gnats @ss of variance.  Michael comments about what one is to make of a 0.1 difference between two cameras.  NOTHING.  

We needed tools like this 4 years ago, but today they become more noise.  Everyone is always trying to fight the last war...fight the last battle.  In my opinion, DXOMarkis a tool that would have been great to fight the first round of the DSLR wars.
Logged

michael
Administrator
Sr. Member
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 4864



« Reply #33 on: December 28, 2008, 05:01:57 AM »
ReplyReply

I'll leave this thread open as long as people immediately stop the personal attacks.

Otherwise, goodnight Irene.

Michael

Logged
dkeyes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 30, 2008, 03:11:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: fike
When I read Michael's update today about the DXOMark site, I was pretty excited, but after just a few minutes at the site messing around with all the sliders and nifty flash gadgetry, I was left kind of bored.  

Is this it?  Is this what photography has been reduced to?

That word "reduced" seems to be what everyone is shooting for.  We want to reduce cameras down to one number, one rating, a top ten of a sort.  

Top to bottom, image quality is becoming a business of analyzing a gnats @ss of variance.  Michael comments about what one is to make of a 0.1 difference between two cameras.  NOTHING.  

We needed tools like this 4 years ago, but today they become more noise.  Everyone is always trying to fight the last war...fight the last battle.  In my opinion, DXOMarkis a tool that would have been great to fight the first round of the DSLR wars.

Sounds like you had expectations that were way too high. I found the site to be mildly interesting in that it seems to confirm what I and others have subjectively seen. Ultimately, I think it's a tech site for technical folks who are always searching for the definitive (Lol), artists couldn't give a isht. Tech sites, including DxO, can't determine quality, creative or otherwise, only you can. Again, I find this useful info but not definitive. I'd much rather hear from artists using these tools and read about their experiences with them.

You can give an artist any tool and they can use it to make a great artwork. (The rest will admire their great tools)
« Last Edit: December 30, 2008, 03:13:36 PM by dkeyes » Logged

ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7423


WWW
« Reply #35 on: December 30, 2008, 03:57:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Please don't forget that scientists gave us the tools that artist use.

Erik


Quote from: dkeyes
Sounds like you had expectations that were way too high. I found the site to be mildly interesting in that it seems to confirm what I and others have subjectively seen. Ultimately, I think it's a tech site for technical folks who are always searching for the definitive (Lol), artists couldn't give a isht. Tech sites, including DxO, can't determine quality, creative or otherwise, only you can. Again, I find this useful info but not definitive. I'd much rather hear from artists using these tools and read about their experiences with them.

You can give an artist any tool and they can use it to make a great artwork. (The rest will admire their great tools)
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #36 on: December 30, 2008, 06:51:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: ErikKaffehr
Please don't forget that scientists gave us the tools that artist use.

Erik

Exactly! If one wants to take the attitude that the camera doesn't really matter and that even a Holga can produce interesting results in the right hands, one should not forget that the Holga is still a product of centuries of photographic development, careful observations in physics, chemistry and optics, and the application of a sophisticated manufacturing processes.
Logged
dkeyes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 259


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 30, 2008, 08:13:52 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: Ray
Exactly! If one wants to take the attitude that the camera doesn't really matter and that even a Holga can produce interesting results in the right hands, one should not forget that the Holga is still a product of centuries of photographic development, careful observations in physics, chemistry and optics, and the application of a sophisticated manufacturing processes.

No one said cameras don't matter (or scientists for that matter), heck, the artist and scientist can be the same person as history has shown. The point is, pick a tool and spend your time being creative.

I'm a fan of progress and technology but I think too many people on these forums obsess over the technical details. I find it humorous that many photographers seem to think that if they just get the new camera X, they will finally produce something interesting. (being able to print it bigger won't make it better either)
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #38 on: January 01, 2009, 10:48:02 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dkeyes
being able to print it bigger won't make it better either

Conversely, being able to print larger does not detract from the artistic merits of an image, either. Sometimes, improving technical quality improves artistic qualities.
Logged

Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8883


« Reply #39 on: January 01, 2009, 07:31:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: dkeyes
(being able to print it bigger won't make it better either)

Actually, I disagree on that point. Bigger can be better. If it wasn't, there'd be no reason for me to use a wide-format Epson 7600; there'd be no reason for artists to paint on large canvasses; there'd be no reason for people to use large, widescreen computer monitors or buy large, widescreen TV sets.

When a print or presentation is large, whatever qualities it has, artistic or otherwise, can be more readily appreciated.

My stitched view of the Himalayan mountain range at dawn, at a print size of 2ftx6ft, is just magnificent. I think it would be even more magnificent if I'd been able to use a 5D MkII instead of the old 5D   .
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad