uwotm8
Addicted to Fun and Learning
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2020
- Messages
- 629
- Likes
- 653
Reproduction seem to not working as good as intended if some fraction of subjectiveness is involved, once we're talking about things that are more difficult to measure than fps, screen brightness or data transfer speed. It is enough to look at the camera tests of the smartphones you mentioned. And "normal" digital cameras as well. Once a certain acceptable level of noise and dynamic range, as well as color accuracy - I would compare this in importance with the frequency response and distortion - completely different things become a factor in choosing, such as behavior in difficult lighting conditions, subtle technical shortcomings and especially the subjective perception of the result and what kind of "frequency response distortions" the cameras introduce. Oddly enough, Sony or Nikon, which are very accurate in test color chart shots, are still ready to surprise in difficult or uneven conditions with strange colors and questionable skin tones, the pleasant rendering of which is still the reason for choosing Canon for a lot of people. Moreover, not everything can be corrected in the post-processing. In the case of smartphones, the repeatability of the good chart result in a field is where some models struggle nowadays: products of young brands can be equipped with excellent sensors, but the software part makes them show strange things in non-ideal situations. That's why expertise and field tests are very important here. Which is what the DxOmark does. Despite how high their sensor rating mark is, it's way better to check the photos and see what you'll be dealing with and if you want to. And also to figure out if there's really much progress or you should as always divide the rave around it by 10.That is what happens when someone gives credibility to personal opinions as if they were valuable for others. They're not. Personal opinions are varied, they are changeable, they are unfounded and unsupportable without data to back them up, and they are not reproducible. (Follow the hyperlink.)
The only meaningful information about "things" (cell phones, audio speakers, airplanes or hydraulic seals) is to test them and measure them
A different approach would be declaring that precision on test charts under controlled light is all that matters, nobody cares about how some ugly faces look in a rainy day, just shut up pleb, this is science
Oh, you mentioned airplanes. I'm not a pilot and never will be yet just from a common knowledge - aren't aviation rules and principles written by blood? Aren't those perfect mathematical plane models tested by people and gets cancelled after billions and billions of investments when it appears that science didn't take to account of some factors or some 3rd part manufacturer failed making bolts to specification? It continues to happen nowadays. And how actually do you measure real, say, maneurability in numbers? It doesn't matter however that aviation should be cancelled, exactly the opposite - year by year science gets improved and concepts get overlooked.
It was not so far ago when the whole idea of a plane or nucler reaction was a heresy
Last edited: