This ^ little test clearly illustrates that people do in fact see colors differently. I\'ve taken the test 3 different times and have scored a 4 each time. While that Chi for 3 samples may not yield the same confidence factor as if I had taken the test 59 times, I do not expect that my score is going to become a 12 or a 0 anytime soon. Some folks consistently score 0, while others can\'t achieve single digits, no matter how hard they try.
When we collectively start using our own eyes as a measuring instrument to evaluate color, it is introducing an additional variability into the assessment / determination. In that regard, the \"measurebator\" approach provides one less variable to contend with. It isn\'t that we are so hung up on the numbers that we don\'t know how to take a picture and are missing the point of image making or the relevance of light to color, but rather that we want to have a more objective means for comparison ... imperfect as it is. It is still certainly more objective (noting the protocol/results methodology) than \"looks good to me\", when we don\'t have a clue as to the accuracy of another person\'s color perception.
Personally, the overall score itself isn\'t the tell all clue to hang your hat on, but rather a preliminary one ... as it does help provide a gauge of initial interest/expectation. I do like to look at a chart that shows the proximity of test vs. produced so I can see if the colors are close to their targets, or if there is a particular color or two that have rogue response.
That being said ... I have no clue what the score for my Kodak SLR/C is. I\'d be curious to know where it sits in the mix of things. I could say, it doesn\'t matter because I think it looks just fine (and to a degree that is true), but it still would be good to know if I decide to retire the SLR/C for the A7R .... am I gaining color, or losing color ... and if so, how much @ significant vs. insignificant.
This ^ little test clearly illustrates that people do in fact see colors differently. I\'ve taken the test 3 different times and have scored a 4 each time. While that Chi for 3 samples may not yield the same confidence factor as if I had taken the test 59 times, I do not expect that my score is going to become a 12 or a 0 anytime soon. Some folks consistently score 0, while others can\'t achieve single digits, no matter how hard they try.
When we collectively start using our own eyes as a measuring instrument to evaluate color, it is introducing an additional variability into the assessment / determination. In that regard, the \"measurebator\" approach provides one less variable to contend with. It isn\'t that we are so hung up on the numbers that we don\'t know how to take a picture and are missing the point of image making or the relevance of light to color, but rather that we want to have a more objective means for comparison ... imperfect as it is. It is still certainly more objective (noting the protocol/results methodology) than \"looks good to me\", when we don\'t have a clue as to the accuracy of another persons color perception.
Personally, the overall score itself isn\'t the tell all clue to hang your hat on, but rather a preliminary one ... as it does help provide a gauge of initial interest/expectation. I do like to look at a chart that shows the proximity of test vs. produced so I can see if the colors are close to their targets, or if there is a particular color or two that have rogue response.
That being said ... I have no clue what the score for my Kodak SLR/C is. I\'d be curious to know where it sits in the mix of things. I could say, it doesn\'t matter because I think it looks just fine (and to a degree that is true), but it still would be good to know if I decide to retire the SLR/C for the A7R .... am I gaining color, or losing color ... and if so, how much @ significant vs. insignificant.
Measurebators ... please continue.
Nov 01, 2013 at 08:35 AM
Previous versions of RustyBug's message #11903676 « Sony A7R sensor gets high scores from DxOMark »
