Arcimboldo
Leading Member
I understood you suggested the GFX has an X-Trans sensor, and it hasn't.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
TN on "color science"
- Thread starter Another birder
- Start date
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
No I fully aware and didn't suggest so, but just burst myth of Fuji color superiority. Fuji has similar colors and profiles X-trans or not.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
Unfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
Arcimboldo
Leading Member
Wasn't testing bias the idea in the first place?Unfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
TN test clearly shows many biased on brands not on actual colors.Wasn't testing bias the idea in the first place?Unfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
tbcass
Forum Pro
Except that was the primary purpose of the test, to show how bias affects people's perceptions. This test showed that very well. The test was not designed to determine which camera had the "best" colors. The test was designed to determine two things, What colors people liked the best in those samples when the brand was unknown and how brand name affects people's opinions of the colors. Based on that I see no flaws in the test.Unfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
--
Tom
Last edited:
tbcass
Forum Pro
I believe that was the primary purpose of the test.
Jonathan Brady
Veteran Member
HyperboleUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
Rinse and repeat
Active member
- Messages
- 53
- Reaction score
- 30
You plainly know nothing about the scientific process.Unfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
Embarrassing!
Nope. In the first part he is specifically testing FOR bias and that test was very interesting. In the second part he tried to test and take any potential bias out. Of course, bias is a part of human nature and is impossible to fully remove, so it cannot render tests uselessUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
That is a typical downplaying of a creditable and scientific test to 'useless' when the test not favor someone's brand, further prove unconditional brand bias.Nope. In the first part he is specifically testing FOR bias and that test was very interesting. In the second part he tried to test and take any potential bias out. Of course, bias is a part of human nature and is impossible to fully remove, so it cannot render tests uselessUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
Doesn't look like you know what color science is. How do you design compositions for on-sensor CFAs without color science, pray tell?
Ignoramuses are the worst, brand doesn't matter.I liked that Canon ended last since those users are the worst
PWPhotography
Forum Pro
That is a typical downplaying of a creditable and scientific test to 'useless' when the test not favor someone's brand, further prove unconditional brand bias.Nope. In the first part he is specifically testing FOR bias and that test was very interesting. In the second part he tried to test and take any potential bias out. Of course, bias is a part of human nature and is impossible to fully remove, so it cannot render tests uselessUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
Here we go side by side in high ISO video. Are you sure your favorite brand has better 'color science'? ;-) Also once again shows how Fuji X-trans is clearly 1/2 to 2/3 stop darker under the same ISO mark. Yeah, we know someone will argue it's on a different alternative standard. But the fact it's darker regardless on what standard, that is so-called where 'ISO cheating' comes from, doesn't mean a Fuji deliberate conspiracy but under the same ISO it's obviously darker and has to be adjusted, or need to shoot under higher ISO to have the same brightness, that is the fact.
--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/55485085@N04/albums
Last edited:
Lightshow
Veteran Member
IME, people that have only one brand are the most biased.From my experience m4/3 fanboys are the worst.Yup. People should stop talking about the 'color sience' bullsh*t. Especially if you shoot RAW it doesn't matter at all.
I liked that Canon ended last since those users are the worst
I found older Sony AWB to be inconsistent(pre A7), since then, they have improved dramatically.
Color science is a fundamental field of science dedicated to understanding the creation of colored stimuli, sources of illumination, and ultimately the human perception of color.
It is relevant. It is real.
boy_wander
Well-known member
- Messages
- 163
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 109
I think there has to be a clear distinction between stills and video with regards to color science. But I'd he happy to be proven wrong if any colorist out there can make my Sony produce arri Alexa colors
James Stirling
Forum Pro
The problem with that is if you cry wolf too often....He may be often aim at clicks but in this particular case this critique seems to me to be a bit unfair.The 24-105mm F/4G { my most used Sony lens} has huge vignetting before correction
I have no interest in the Canon gear are you talking about actual tests of the Canon lens ? I have not seen any serious tests of the Canon lenses
He like most of the photography channels on youtube is a clickbait whore , with some of the worst examples of clickbait titles
--
Jim Stirling
“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams
It seems to me that there are several points that this poll could make. That people's opinions can be affected by brand bias and color balance is one. But Tony also did the blind test where different cameras received drastically different sums of ratings. The blind test was not affected by brand bias, so the considerable difference in ratings has to be attributed to the difference in color rendering (unless one brand had consistently "better" white balance in most pictures).
Tony's poll shows that this difference is real, regardless of whether it is appropriate to use the term "science" in relation to the color rendering, and whether this difference can be minimized or even eliminated in post.
As far as consistency is concerned, I recently re-took the other famous blind test that compared 1Dx, D5, and A9 (
Last edited:
I agree. The mere presence of multiple variables does not make any one of them less real.
The Davinator
Forum Pro
- Messages
- 24,707
- Solutions
- 2
- Reaction score
- 37,836
I did not mention any brand in my post...I said the test told us nothing. It was not credable, nor was it really scientific. As you have been someone who dismisses test sites if they don't favour Sony (and in the past, Canon, when that was your brand) you aren't really one to discuss bias in any way.That is a typical downplaying of a creditable and scientific test to 'useless' when the test not favor someone's brand, further prove unconditional brand bias.Nope. In the first part he is specifically testing FOR bias and that test was very interesting. In the second part he tried to test and take any potential bias out. Of course, bias is a part of human nature and is impossible to fully remove, so it cannot render tests uselessUnfortunately, anything that introduces the possibility of bias in the results renders the "test" useless.Yes, this was interesting.
My interpretation is that a lot of the participants figured that Fuji was the most likely winner, based on reputation, and therefore put them last in their rankings.
That is, Fuji got most 'hate' because more people were worried that Fuji would win - its a mark of respect I guess
Putting random brands on the pictures was pretty clever.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum