An irreverent look at the Quattro vs Merrill thing....

xpatUSA wrote:

tagscuderia wrote:

xpatUSA wrote:

tagscuderia wrote:

I concur regards Merrill's DR advantage for both luminance and chroma; the evidence supports the physics at this point too.

Sorry, Tom, DR should only be expressed in terms of luminance.

No mention of chroma here, for example:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/dynamic-range.htm

Have look at the section on digital cameras.

That it should... I'm afraid that my technical lexicon fails me but I'm sure that you comprehend what I'm hinting at (?);

Yes, it's perfectly clear, you wish to mis-attribute blame for anything at all on the Quattro sensor architecture even when it has nothing to do with the facts. I do in fact comprehend, wink wink.

You have done this repeatedly on a range of IQ topics. I see it as simple prejudice.

All part of the forum game, eh? People use their own words to describe stuff and we get to guess what they meant . .

They actually hate when we do that. They prefer that we assume they know more than they actually do.

Foveon 1:1:1 sensors are a law unto themselves, they must be a nightmare to test DR!

Ta-daaah! I rest my case.

At one time Foveon used to tell us stuff like that . . . before the great take-over!

"The typical dynamic range of the F7 is 61dB." (SD9 sensor white paper).

http://kronometric.org/phot/sensor/fov/SD9%20sensor%20in%20depth.pdf

That would be 10.13 EV.

Bill Claff tested my SD9 using the Photon Transfer Curve method - it came out to 9 point something EV, not too shabby.

Using the same criteria that DxOMark use for their Bayer sensor DR measurements, the Quattro has about +1 EV of DR over the Merrill. Using other methods the Merrill can measure higher. So I conclude that it's a wash in the broad world of practical photography, and claims that Merrill has a distinct advantage are -- umm -- selective.