The proof is in the printing ...

Started May 30, 2013 | Discussions thread
Rriley
Forum ProPosts: 21,846Gear list
Like?
Re: Perhaps you should re-read some stuff?
In reply to Raist3d, Jun 5, 2013

Raist3d wrote:

Rriley wrote:

John King wrote:

Sergey_Green wrote:

John King wrote:

As I stated before: as ISO (cameras) is defined by the ISO (standards organisation). Here:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/51574080

Did you read it? It appears not ...

You stated before that you prefer Bill Claff's scientific approach, which, in your words, start with measuring real world examples. To which Bill Claff stated earlier that he does not measure "real" world examples, but collects manufacturer stated ISO instead. Now you are alluding that there is a well defined standard for measuring ISO (appears you know nothing about), which even more contradicts your earlier statement.
Again, Bill Claff specifically states that the native ISO of the sensor is seldom exactly a standard value, and the native ISO information is all he is interested in,
ISO Collaboration
I do not know what to say, did you not know what you write, or did you write it intentionally. If so, then for what gain, why?

-sergey

Re-read what I wrote, perhaps?

Re-read what Bill Claff has written about his data collection and analysis methodology perhaps?
He does not measure ISO, he measures dynamic range from RAW files at the manufacturer's stated ISO settings, that are determined in accordance (hopefully) with the International Standards Organisation standards.

Re-read the ISO standard for the measurement and determination of ISO settings for cameras perhaps?

japanese manufacturers must comply with CIPA standards that they are co-signatories to. If there was a discussion about ISO CIPA and ISO DxO, DxO isnt ISO at all

in short, CIPA doesn't give manufacturers a choice, DxO figure can call anything they want an ISO measure,

That may be the case,

no, that IS the case

but the important part is how the DXo scores go hand in hand with each camera performance for relative comparison purposes.

which is altogether different from a cameras actual measured ISO

Let's say maybe a K-5 really doesn't have 14 stops of DR, and let's say those numbers scale to something smaller.  But I know that the difference I see between a 620 DR and the K-5 is about what Dxo relative scores suggest. Ballpark.

DxO should never have called what they are playing with 'ISO'
It has shaped a climate in which ISO is completely misunderstood, going so far as to suggest some manufacturers are cheating their ISO spec. Resulting in comparisons between sensors with psuedo adjusted ISO's to correct what the 'analyst' sees as requiring re-alignment.

another feature is this propensity to use 'eyeballing' to determine DR scores, which is entirely reminiscent of people making judgements about a sensors noise performance. Many people would both be aware how those things turned out.

BTW, you still haven't supplied any references of any description for the bald statements you made upthread ...

-- hide signature --

Raist3d/Ricardo (Photographer, software dev.)- I photograph black cats in coal mines at night...
“The further a society drifts from truth the more it will hate those who speak it.” - George Orwell

-- hide signature --

Riley
any similarity to persons living or dead is coincidental and unintended
support 1022 Sunday Scapes'

 Rriley's gear list:Rriley's gear list
Sigma DP2 Merrill Canon EOS 5D Olympus E-3 Olympus E-5 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 +1 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow