Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) is a More Useful Measure than the DxOMark Landscape Score

Started Apr 17, 2015 | Discussions thread
Detail Man
Detail Man Forum Pro • Posts: 17,073
Re: Clarification - Read Noise and Engineering Dynamic Range

bclaff wrote:

Horshack wrote:

bclaff wrote:

However, normalized read noise is not photographically relevant; and the DxOMark Landscape Use Case score is supposed to be a photographic use case.

Read noise is not relevant to whose photography specifically?

I think I could have been more explicit.
I mean that a measure that is solely read noise and has no photon noise component is not photographically relevant. (It has engineering relevance.)

At how may EV of (in-processing) "pushing" do the results cease to be "photographically relevant" ?

If we disagree on that, I guess we should just let it go!

The problem with randomly selecting an SNR cutoff for DR and calling it relevant is that it's only relevant to some and not others.

I don't believe the PDR cutoff is random at all.
It is based on the acuity of the human eye and established values for image quality.

.

Iliah Borg wrote:

Above 10 stops flare starts to play significant role in real-life shooting.

If such is indeed the case, how (at least in relevant, so affected cases) might such phenomena influence the ("practical", "real world") significance of both "PDR" as well as DxOMark numbers ?

DM

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