From DXOMark: More pixels offsets noise3

Started May 30, 2009 | Discussions thread
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,383
Re: Another possible issue..

John Sheehy wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

All these are the pitfalls of subjective assessment, which is why I
prefer quantitative evaluation - if you know how to use it, you can
gain a godd idea of how things will come out much quicker.

It takes quite a bit of time, however, for the two to be properly
related. Statistics don't always reflect what we are really
interested in.

I agree with that, the trick is to get the ones that do. Also, to learn how to deduce what we are interested in.

Look how recently people who should know better were relying on
standard deviation to determine image DR and noise. Look at how much
pattern noise is still ignored in camera analysis.

Was that me? Could have been, like many my understanding of these things has developed bit by bit, helped by contributions from your good self and several others. There's still more to be done. Pattern noise is an interesting one. There should be a way of quantifying it, probably not as a simple scalar. The interesting thing is, when a figure can be put on a quantity, and gains currency for assessment, manufacturers start improving it. That was one of the threats of DPR's bogus pixel density measure - if manufacturers had started 'improving' it the way DPR wanted, we'd all have lost. So far as pattern noise is concerned, once a simple figure of merit which has a good correlation with its visible objectionableness is developed, manufacturers will try to make sure they score well on that measure.

-- hide signature --


Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow