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

tagscuderia wrote:

TN Args wrote:

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.

Nope. Facts are that across layers, Merrill can expose with a difference of 2EV, not good for SNR! And if the top layer is correctly exposed, then the bottom will be underexposed and vice versa. Quattro has a difference of 0.5EV, a much better design regards SNR but all layers will clip simultaneously - SPP makes this look worse than it is, reason unknown.

Quattro has a theoretical 0.5-1EV DR advantage when looking at RAW data, as you've written below.

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

Fine.

It's not fine. It's bashing a brand in that brand's own forum. It's against forum rules, in black and white, even when factual; only worse with the made up assumptions!

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.

I wouldn't claim to know more than others and I struggle with some of the technical language but I like design and technology and at the end of the day... I'm only discussing it on an internet forum!

If I want to discuss something on an internet forum, I don't open with a blatant negative conclusion that I have sucked out of my in-principle dislike of a fundamental technology of the camera -- instead, I might open with a genuine and open question (not worded to imply a conclusion) and if I have any evidence, however faint, I would throw it in right at the beginning.

That would lead to a discussion.

But if I just want to grind a disrespected product into the dust, I might start with blatant negative conclusions about things that don't exist like chroma DR, then throw my hands innocently in the air if anyone correctly notes that's not a discussion, that's an ongoing agenda.

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

Ta-daaah! I rest my case.

In what way? Are they not a nightmare to test?

You made the nightmare claim, so how did you do your test and how was it a nightmare? I have seen one or two tests of Quattro DR and no mention of any difficulty whatsoever. So, your test seems to be the first one that was a nightmare. Care to expand on how difficult was your test?

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.

I agree to 1EV, theoretically. However you appear to have returned to the belief that I'm just a troll so...

Not a belief, actually a conclusion based on evidence.

but as someone who doesn't own a Merrill camera, thank you for your conclusion

I only comment on your comments on Quattro cameras, and only on your errors or biased negative assumptions -- but doing so makes me somewhat busy, sadly. I respect the Merrills from a distance and don't comment on them as a rule. When the anti-Quattro stuff comes up in the context vs Merrill, it's obviously tricky not to seem to be anti-Merrill, but still I take some care to focus on the misconceptions about Quattro.