sjms wrote:
and i totally agree with your last 2 statements. you, for due diligence, need to come up with demonstratable analysis and facts to show where where theirs is flawed
I already told you what was wrong. If you couldn\'t understand the problem, that\'s not because I didn\'t demonstrate it, since other members have understood where I have pointed out the flaws.
If you take measurements of, say, the noise of a sensor, and then take measurements of the dynamic range, you cannot \"average\" the two measurements together using some arbitrarily chosen weighting function to get an overall score that makes any sense. The units are not even the same. If you can\'t grasp something as basic as that, we have nothing further to discuss.
Then, as Alan pointed out, you can\'t even average measurements of something taken at various ISOs, without diluting the meaning of the relative performance of two different sensors, because one may do well at lower ISOs whereas the other may do better at high ISOs. One should at least take into consideration the relative frequency at which one uses different ISOs.
Finally, my point is that if an analysis makes such simple errors for the sake of distilling down their data in a way that a layperson can appreciate, then not only is this an act of intellectual dishonesty, but it calls into suspicion everything they have done. In other words, if I can\'t trust them to avoid pasting some global \"score\" on the entire camera, I shouldn\'t trust that the data they were competent enough to properly measure the data they captured in the first place.
Apr 23, 2011 at 06:28 PM
Previous versions of wickerprints's message #9524178 « DxOMark - Is it relevant? »
