Moon Maid's sensor comparison

Started Feb 29, 2012 | Discussions
Luke Kaven Veteran Member • Posts: 5,712
Re: Production unit not required

He spent a couple of days coming after me for even reporting on yours and Bill's preliminary findings. I found him incorrigible.

MrSkelter Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: Sharpening the pencil

Marianne Oelund wrote:

MrSkelter wrote:

That seems like an odd choice. Normally analysis is supposed to make hard to discern differences easier to see.

Most of the analyses I've performed over the last 30 years as an engineer, have been to uncover unformation which was previously unseen, not merely to amplify what is already apparent.

This doesn't make sense to me. You said:

"This presentation was chosen to make differences which are difficult to see in images, also difficult to see on the graphs."

If you're showing us new things why deliberately obscure them?

The connecting lines are a visual aid to lead the eye from point to point. Many of the points are difficult to locate by themselves, since they can be hidden behind others.

With the lines, I'm only getting complaints from you. Without the lines, I'm sure many others would have been complaining about the difficulty of reading the plots.

As an engineer you know that lines on graphs are not "a visual aid to lead the eye from point to point", they represent the values between points.

It's not rude, or strange, of me as someone who also understands data to notice and question such a unique 'lines-as-visual-aids' approach. It would be useful if you detailed your methodology so others finding your graphs don't question their veracity, as I have, thanks to their lack of adherence to convention.

If you want to share the data, and don't have the time, I'd be glad to plot the information in a more standards compliant way.

Lordsegan Regular Member • Posts: 160
Re: Sharpening the pencil

You really are stupid.

She is saying that she choose a graph scale that would not over emphasize small differences.

In other words, if the difference in a photo would be hard to see with the naked eye, the difference will be small/grouped on the chart. Thus, the chart reflects the real photos the cameras can take.

What is WRONG with you people who are attacking this chart so vociferously??

It's offered as-is. If you don't like the data, or don't trust the data, then just ignore it!

I personally think its EXTREMELY useful. It shows, as I suspected by viewing the sample photos, that the D800 will have excellent high ISO capability, on par or better than the D3 I currently have.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,832
Re: Production unit not required

It doesn't matter whether it's a production unit

In most of the cases, no, it does not matter. Only in one case I know, with an Oli camera, the pre-production unit differed from the production because they changed the exposure meter calibration.

-- hide signature --
Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,832
Re: Green channel for luminance noise

The green channel is considered to be the luminance signal for these purposes, and as far as I'm aware, is used by everyone to assess luminance noise.

I use a matrix to convert to Lab and examine L* for luminance noise. In that case it is easy to see how noise is changing depending on the SPD and with white balance.

-- hide signature --
geronimo Regular Member • Posts: 304
Re: Production unit not required

Marianne Oelund wrote:

geronimo wrote:

I didn't make comments on sensors - I made comments on your use of non-production cameras using non-production firmware.

If none of that mattered, then you wouldn't feel the need to continue your experiments, as you mention below, using production cameras.

It doesn't matter whether it's a production unit

Do you work at Nikon? The D4 has been delayed multiple times, and is rumored to have been delayed yet again, and no solid reasoning has been provided by Nikon. So, unless you work at Nikon and have direct access to what is going on behind the scenes with their new camera production, then you cannot be 100% certain that there won't be any differences, however minor, between pre-production and production models that would affect your data.

Well it's such a shame to hear you cannot spend 1 second to paste a link to your supporting one or two sample images from non-production cameras that you used to create Estimation Charts.

Dealing with you is like dealing with a spoiled child. The real shame is that you continue to reply with insults, and cannot be bothered to do simple things for yourself. Keywords "D800 sample NEF" immediately turned up this:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1021&message=40554548

That's funny that you think people should read one thread of yours and immediately run to the net to research you and search out and read through however many hundreds of posts you may have made to find one with links to images.

However, it's nice of you to provide the link here, and I would simply suggest posting the link (to whichever source files you use at that time) in your future sensor comparison threads.

MrSkelter Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: Sharpening the pencil
1

Lordsegan wrote:

You really are stupid.

I'm not stupid.

I'm asking questions and asking for clarification. It's not an attack. If you're too... what's the word... stupid, to understand that. Go polish your lenses.

The OP is on a forum, participating in discussion. This is what discussion looks like. Nothing in my posts in this thread has been anything but civil and interested. I'm not here to praise anything I see and swallow it down with a smile the way you seem to be on your knees and willing to.

I'm not arguing she's wrong but you're too in-love to see that. I'm asking about the detail. What are yo so afraid of? (my guess is "Everything").

People like you are the reason the OP has the unfair reputation for being at the head of a mob. Behave like a grown-up. You'll lose a flame-war with me.

geronimo Regular Member • Posts: 304
Re: Moon Maid's sensor comparison

Tony Beach wrote:

jenella wrote:

Tony Beach wrote:

jenella wrote:

...just more speculation IMO despite all the fancy charts and graphs.

No one really gives a damn about your opinion.

Maybe not,

Definitely not, and even more so since Marianne was kind enough to respond to you and instead of thanking her for her efforts or for taking some time to explain to you what she had done, you come back with yet another snarky post. You have clearly become nothing more than a rather lame troublemaker in this forum.

but you cared enough to take the time to quote me...thank you!

I'm glad that you are confirming that I captured the essence of your post. It reminded me of some parody of a moron dismissing "fancy booklearning."

Wow, the Estimation Graph cultists are really coming out of the woodwork today!

OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,765
Re: Sharpening the pencil

MrSkelter wrote:

This doesn't make sense to me. You said:

"This presentation was chosen to make differences which are difficult to see in images, also difficult to see on the graphs."

If you're showing us new things why deliberately obscure them?

They aren't new things. I'm collecting together data which was previously scattered about and in a form which made it difficult to compare. You should be happy that I didn't make the plots much smaller.

As an engineer you know that lines on graphs are not "a visual aid to lead the eye from point to point", they represent the values between points.

I disagree. Line-segment linkage is very common, as are bar graphs. At least I didn't resort to bars. By the way, the error in the linear approximations that you've been complaining about, is less than 0.1dB.

If you want to share the data, and don't have the time, I'd be glad to plot the information in a more standards compliant way.

I may take you up on that offer, when I have final data.

Julian Vrieslander Senior Member • Posts: 1,069
Re: Sharpening the pencil

MrSkelter wrote:

Lordsegan wrote:

You really are stupid.

I'm not stupid.

You may not be stupid, but you are pontificating and nit-picking. Marianne generously took the time to share some data which are of great interest to this community, and she presented the data in graphics which clearly communicate their meaning.

Then you came along to criticize her efforts because they don't match your own preferences for plots.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,832
Re: Production unit not required

you cannot be 100% certain that there won't be any differences, however minor, between pre-production and production models that would affect your data.

Do you know how long it takes to develop a sensor? Are you seriously expecting that the sensor will be somehow different in the production model?

I'm expecting you will come back to apologize when the production cameras will be available.

-- hide signature --
OP Marianne Oelund Veteran Member • Posts: 7,765
Re: Production unit not required

geronimo wrote:

Do you work at Nikon? The D4 has been delayed multiple times, and is rumored to have been delayed yet again, and no solid reasoning has been provided by Nikon. So, unless you work at Nikon and have direct access to what is going on behind the scenes with their new camera production, then you cannot be 100% certain that there won't be any differences, however minor, between pre-production and production models that would affect your data.

Strictly speaking, no one can be 100% certain about anything. Practically speaking, the record is what matters, and it says: If you want to worry, it's far more sensible to worry about sample variation, than sensor changes at this point in the D4 product life.

That's funny that you think people should read one thread of yours and immediately run to the net to research you and search out and read through however many hundreds of posts you may have made to find one with links to images.

What's even funnier, is that you're willing to spend an order of magnitude more time complaining about a missing link, than it would have taken you to search for it right here on the forum.

ssh33
ssh33 Regular Member • Posts: 182
Re: Production unit not required

Please check "Ignore User" under his post.
--
Serge

MrSkelter Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: Sharpening the pencil
1

Julian Vrieslander wrote:

MrSkelter wrote:

Lordsegan wrote:

You really are stupid.

I'm not stupid.

You may not be stupid, but you are pontificating and nit-picking. Marianne generously took the time to share some data which are of great interest to this community, and she presented the data in graphics which clearly communicate their meaning.

Then you came along to criticize her efforts because they don't match your own preferences for plots.

You're wrong.

I didn't express a preference. I asked her to clarify her presentation - which is misleading given not all the ink on her plots is data - which she did. Presentation is important when the OP hasn't published any numbers, and is making a point purely on the basis of her charting. That her charting is non-standard is therefore salient.

Your need to 'defend' the OP when she's perfectly capable of responding, and has, makes you seem foolish.

Your version of 'clear' isn't the same as mine. You seem to be spectacularly pleased with whatever you're seeing. I'm trying to dig into it. Your lack of curiosity doesn't make you any sort of hero. In technical fields being an expert doesn't buy you the right not to be challenged.

Right or wrong, you explain yourself and your position gets stronger or weaker based on what you say. Ironically your attempts to 'protect' the OP from questions is preventing her from strengthening her position.

You should get out of her, and my, way. Your inability to see anything but deference as attack is juvenile.

Mikael Risedal
Mikael Risedal Veteran Member • Posts: 4,623
Re: Moon Maid's sensor comparison

yes we are.
Problems with that

Wow, the Estimation Graph cultists are really coming out of the woodwork today!

mattr Veteran Member • Posts: 3,531
Re: Sharpening the pencil

Marianne Oelund wrote:

MrSkelter wrote:

If you want to share the data, and don't have the time, I'd be glad to plot the information in a more standards compliant way.

I may take you up on that offer, when I have final data.

This whole sub-thread is hilarious.

I'm stll not sure whether MrSkelter is actually just pulling your leg!

MrSkelter Contributing Member • Posts: 705
Re: Sharpening the pencil
1

Marianne Oelund wrote:

MrSkelter wrote:

This doesn't make sense to me. You said:

"This presentation was chosen to make differences which are difficult to see in images, also difficult to see on the graphs."

If you're showing us new things why deliberately obscure them?

They aren't new things. I'm collecting together data which was previously scattered about and in a form which made it difficult to compare. You should be happy that I didn't make the plots much smaller.

That's true. I am glad they're not smaller.

As an engineer you know that lines on graphs are not "a visual aid to lead the eye from point to point", they represent the values between points.

I disagree. Line-segment linkage is very common, as are bar graphs. At least I didn't resort to bars. By the way, the error in the linear approximations that you've been complaining about, is less than 0.1dB.

The small scale is the reason I'm interested. This is all very marginal. I'd like to see exactly how close these things run. Plotting curves will either make the cameras seem closer, or further apart. I'd like to know which.

You're right in saying there's a lot of chart-junk out there. I hate all of it.

If you want to share the data, and don't have the time, I'd be glad to plot the information in a more standards compliant way.

I may take you up on that offer, when I have final data.

Feel free. There are bound to be interesting ways to visualize your numbers which lead in interesting directions.

Even if I only eliminate yellow-on-white from your color palette I'll have mad a contribution (I'll stand by for 'I love yellow on white' comments).

Thanks for your basic civility. Some of your 'supporters' here are real prizes.

Iliah Borg Forum Pro • Posts: 25,832
Re: Don't forget, y'all...

The D800 is the undisputed low ISO DSLR champ.

There is however more to the image quality than just read noise, shot noise, and dynamic range. It is also a question of the usability of low ISO if one aims to get all the high resolution the camera is supposed to provide.

-- hide signature --
CAT Productions
CAT Productions Contributing Member • Posts: 867
Re: Moon Maid's sensor comparison

Ty, Marianne.

 CAT Productions's gear list:CAT Productions's gear list
Nikon D70s Nikon D300 Nikon D700 Nikon D4 Nikon D800E +16 more
noirdesir Forum Pro • Posts: 13,586
Re: Sharpening the pencil

MrSkelter wrote:

Your need to 'defend' the OP when she's perfectly capable of responding, and has, makes you seem foolish.

No, but we want to keep Marianne's contributions, thus it is important to us that it is clear to her that the vast majority very much appreciates her postings. Making clear that we don't share your criticism nor feel it is appropriate is part of that package. Ideally, we would naturally like to convince you that your criticism and tone was inappropriate but it does not look like we have much success with that.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads