Re: This is not an advertisement ...

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by otter, Dec 23, 2012.

  1. otter

    otter Guest

    On Dec 21, 3:18 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > This is not an advertisement but you should know that DXO has a
    > special deal running up to 25th December.
    >
    > Why am I telling you this?
    >
    > Well, I was sniffing around the DXO site in the process of evaluating
    > lenses when I came acrosshttp://www.dxo.com/intl/photoand similar.
    >
    > "Not another hot deal I said to myself" (said I) when I noticed the
    > existence of 31 days free trial. So I read the blurb, thought a while,
    > and then downloaded the 'Standard' edition of DXO Optics Pro 8. After
    > all, if I don't like it I can give it back at no cost to me.
    >
    > I played around with it and then sent in my US$99. I've continued to
    > play around with it and have to say that I am generally blown away.
    >
    > It's got a plethora of adjustments, most of which include an
    > 'Automatic' setting. At first I twiddled everything and now I tend to
    > leave most of it alone. I won't say it extracts detail and texture
    > which no other software can match, cos it doesn't. I will say it
    > extracts detail and texture with an ease which no other software that
    > I have used can match. When I started I used to fiddle with every
    > accessible setting but now I'm finding that I can usually leave DXO to
    > look after most of its own settings.https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC3087_DxO.tifis an example which
    > is much cleaner and crisper than the example I posted in [SI] a few
    > months ago.
    >
    > All I'm suggesting that if you think you might be interested you
    > should download and try it now before US$99 deal runs out. Have fun.
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Your example picture does look nice. Unfortunately, I'd have to buy
    the $199 elite version, and they don't support 2 of my 3 lenses.

    I noticed one feature was DNG output. Does that work OK? Do you
    really get a RAW file that you can then feed into Lightroom?
     
    otter, Dec 23, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. otter

    Robert Coe Guest

    On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 11:35:44 +1300, Eric Stevens <>
    wrote:
    : On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 05:57:07 -0800 (PST), otter
    : <> wrote:
    :
    : >On Dec 21, 3:18 am, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    : >> This is not an advertisement but you should know that DXO has a
    : >> special deal running up to 25th December.
    : >>
    : >> Why am I telling you this?
    : >>
    : >> Well, I was sniffing around the DXO site in the process of evaluating
    : >> lenses when I came acrosshttp://www.dxo.com/intl/photoand similar.
    : >>
    : >> "Not another hot deal I said to myself" (said I) when I noticed the
    : >> existence of 31 days free trial. So I read the blurb, thought a while,
    : >> and then downloaded the 'Standard' edition of DXO Optics Pro 8. After
    : >> all, if I don't like it I can give it back at no cost to me.
    : >>
    : >> I played around with it and then sent in my US$99. I've continued to
    : >> play around with it and have to say that I am generally blown away.
    : >>
    : >> It's got a plethora of adjustments, most of which include an
    : >> 'Automatic' setting. At first I twiddled everything and now I tend to
    : >> leave most of it alone. I won't say it extracts detail and texture
    : >> which no other software can match, cos it doesn't. I will say it
    : >> extracts detail and texture with an ease which no other software that
    : >> I have used can match. When I started I used to fiddle with every
    : >> accessible setting but now I'm finding that I can usually leave DXO to
    : >> look after most of its own settings.https://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/_DSC3087_DxO.tifis an example which
    : >> is much cleaner and crisper than the example I posted in [SI] a few
    : >> months ago.
    : >>
    : >> All I'm suggesting that if you think you might be interested you
    : >> should download and try it now before US$99 deal runs out. Have fun.
    : >> --
    : >>
    : >> Regards,
    : >>
    : >> Eric Stevens
    : >
    : >Your example picture does look nice. Unfortunately, I'd have to buy
    : >the $199 elite version, and they don't support 2 of my 3 lenses.
    : >
    : >I noticed one feature was DNG output. Does that work OK? Do you
    : >really get a RAW file that you can then feed into Lightroom?
    :
    : On rereading your article I realised I had misunderstood the question
    : of your last paragraph. DXO Optics does not pass on a raw file to
    : Lightroom. The output of DXO Optics is an image file of the kind you
    : have selected (JPG, TIFF, DNG) with the variations you have selected
    : and it is this which is passed on to lightroom. In other words, DXO
    : Optics does the raw conversion subject to all the bells, whistles,
    : levers and controls embedded with DXO Optics.

    But isn't the point of DNG that it serves as a sort of vendor-independent RAW
    mode? I interpreted Otter's question to mean, "Is DXO's conversion to DNG good
    enough that Lightroom will accept a DXO-generated DNG file as a RAW file for
    processing purposes?" To which I understood your answer to be, "That appears
    to be the intent, although I haven't tried it myself." Is that about right, or
    do I misunderstand the purpose of DNG?

    Bob
     
    Robert Coe, Dec 24, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. otter

    otter Guest

    On Dec 25, 5:18 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 19:03:11 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <> wrote:
    > >On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 18:41:58 -0800, Savageduck
    > ><savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >  --- snip ---

    >
    > >>Even stranger, when I checked the EXIF of that 536x356 DNG it is
    > >>supposed to be a 2848x4288 12.2 MP DNG.

    >
    > >>I am trying to get my head wrapped around just what might be happening with DB.

    >
    > >Me too!

    >
    > >I find I start of with (an image size of) 4288 x 2848 as a NEF file,
    > >1072 x 712 as a DNG and 4000 x 2656 as a TIFF.

    >
    > >DXO offers the ability to change the size of an image when saving but
    > >not with DNG.

    >
    > >I will write to DNG and ask them to explain what is going on.

    >
    > >I note that in their manual they say of DNG:

    >
    > >    "The DNG format is designed for files that you intend to archive
    > >     or that are going to undergo further post-processing with
    > >     DNG compatible software such as Adobe Camera
    > >     Raw/Photoshop/Lightroom. The DNG generated by DxO Optics Pro isa
    > >     16-bit linear DNG format, which is only available for original
    > >     images shot in RAW.

    >
    > >     With linear DNG, the three color channels have been individually
    > >     calculated, which means that the file is three times larger
    > >     than the original RAW file. This format offers the same level of
    > >     color and exposure control as a camera-generated RAW file.

    >
    > >     For the other options, you can treat DNG files in the same way as
    > >     TIFF files — except for image size, as files intended for
    > >     archiving and/or further post-processing should not be resized
    > >     (so as to maintain maximum potential)."

    >
    > I haven't yet written to DXO but I have done a little more digging.
    > When choosing a file type to save as there is a box "Allow
    > resampling". If this is ticked then up pops a window which allows the
    > maximum image dimension to be set in pixels. I found these to be all
    > set to different dimensions. I set them all to 4000 pixels and both
    > TIFF and JPG produced 4000 x 2656. However DNG (according to windows
    > properties) was 1000 x 664: as previously, this was one quarter of the
    > window size reported by others.
    >
    > Being yesterday surrounded by family, Christmas cheer and hurly
    > burley, I wasn't thinking very clearly and it only belatedly dawned on
    > me that Paint Shop Pro X5 claims the ability to import DNG files. I
    > thought I would try it on the DXO fruit bowl DNG.
    >
    > Lo and behold it works perfectly. It read the DXO file as a RAW file
    > and displayed it's contents as 4000 x 2656 image, exactly what it
    > should have been. It appears as though the small size reported by
    > Windows is a Windows problem, not a DXO problem.
    >
    > All of this has caused me to go hunting Linear DNG files. I found URLs
    > such ashttp://www.barrypearson.co.uk/articles/dng/linear.htm andhttp://dpbestflow.org/file-format/raw-file-formats
    >
    > There are a great many more that tend to add more confusion than
    > enlightenment. A great part of the problem is that people tend not
    > understand the fundamentals of how things work (and that includes me
    > on this subject) and try to explain the topic in terms of some other
    > type of file - which often they don't seem to properly understand
    > either.
    >
    > One of the points which emerged is that the DXO output DNG is a proper
    > file format which can be read by all the software which has been
    > worrying people up to now.
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    You guys have been busy! Thanks for the research. What I got from
    this, though, is that there seems to be no advantage to using DxO
    generated DNG files to feed to LR over using a TIFF, is that right?

    Well, it is academic to me, anyway, until DxO supports the lenses I'm
    interested in.
     
    otter, Dec 26, 2012
    #3
  4. otter

    otter Guest

    On Dec 26, 6:05 pm, Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > >On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:

    >
    > >> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 09:33:16 -0800, Savageduck
    > >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    >
    > >>    --- snip ---

    >
    > >>>> You guys have been busy!  Thanks for the research.  What I got from
    > >>>> this, though, is that there seems to be no advantage to using DxO
    > >>>> generated DNG files to feed to LR over using a TIFF, is that right?

    >
    > >>> That is the way it appears to me. The only difference would be file size.
    > >>> This could be problematic for folks receiving a DXO generated DNG with
    > >>> the implied promise the would have a RAW equivalent or "digital
    > >>> negative" to work with. Better to have the actual RAW file.

    >
    > >>>> Well, it is academic to me, anyway, until DxO supports the lenses I'm
    > >>>> interested in.

    >
    > >>> I am not in the market for DXO.

    >
    > >>> I am quite happy with LR4 and ACR, and I am always able to find lens &
    > >>> camera profiles for the Adobe products. If the lens profile isn't
    > >>> available, as was the case when I first got my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, it
    > >>> is easy enough to create your own with Adobe Lens Profile Creator.
    > >>> For Mac:
    > >>> <http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/detail.jsp?ftpID=5489>

    >
    > >>> ...and for Windows:
    > >>> <
    > >>>http://www.adobe.com/support/downloads/product.jsp?product=193&platfo...

    >
    > >> I can't speak about the comparitive quality of the respective
    > >> corrections but one thing tha DXO does that Adobe seems to lack is
    > >> described in the DXO manual is:

    >
    > >>   "DxO Lens Softness
    > >>    About lens softness
    > >>    The exclusive DxO Lens Softness tool is one of the major strengths
    > >>    of DxO Optics Pro. Lens softness is an optical aberration in
    > >>    which a point is transformed by the lens into a small blurred
    > >>    circle. (This should not be confused with out-of-focus or motion
    > >>    blur, which DxO Optics Pro is unable to correct). DxO Optics
    > >>    Modules have been created by measuring the amount of blur at
    > >>    every point in the image area for each camera body and lens
    > >>    combination.

    >
    > >>    Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    > >>    (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    > >>    DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    > >>    corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    > >>    image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    > >>    since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    > >>    need less correction."

    >
    > >While that is an interesting take on DXO's proprietary solution to a
    > >"lens softness" issue, and their self critique and praise of their
    > >system. As some have also claimed, such "lens softness" can also be
    > >attributed to a need for said lens to be calibrated with the camera on
    > >which it is to be used.

    >
    > 1.  DXO _does_ calibrate a lens and camerea combinations.
    >
    > 2.  The lens softness is not a constant over the image but varies from
    > point to point. This is mapped by DXO and applied accordingly. This
    > generally enables more detail to be recovered at the edges of the
    > image than at the centre.
    >
    >
    >
    > >I suspect they are trying to differentiate their product from those
    > >produced by Adobe and some camera manufacturers.

    >
    > I think they are just describing what they do.
    >
    >
    >
    > >One issue is, not all CS3/4/5/6 and LR users even bother to use lens
    > >profiles in their workflow. So they miss out on the benefits of
    > >correcting many of the issues in a particular lens's DNA. "Lens
    > >Softness" may well be one of those issues, but Adobe does not speak of
    > >it in the same terms as DXO.

    >
    > As far as I can tell Adobe does not speak of it at all.
    >
    >
    >
    > >> As I remarked in passing the other day, the DXO implementation of this
    > >> correction enabled me to recover detail from my old D70 + 18~70 RAW
    > >> files which made them comparable in quality with images produced by my
    > >> D300 with the 16~80. The visual effect is quite remarkable.

    >
    > >...and you might well have experienced a similar benefit had you been
    > >using LR4 or CS4/5/6 and made sure you had the 18-70mm + D70 (RAW) lens
    > >profile installed.
    > ><https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_87.jpg>
    > >BTW: The 18-70mm is a particularly good lens for the money, and I would
    > >not describe it as being afflicted with "lens softness". I still have
    > >my D70 & 18-70mm

    >
    > Virtually all lenses have softness somewhere in their images. Some
    > might have less than others but they will still haved it.
    >
    >
    >
    > >You might gain a similar benefit if you checked the calibration of your
    > >lens/camera pairings using a tool such as LensAlign.
    > ><http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html>

    >
    > That's a an auto-focus checking tool. I've already done that. I've
    > been waiting (literally for months) for the weather to clear
    > sufficiently to enable me to carry out more sophisticated tests on the
    > 7~200.
    >
    > [You wouldn't believe it: we have had strong winds, heavy rain, thick
    > clouds, a near miss (less than 100 yds) from a a near tornado and now
    > we have the residue of a tropical depression sitting on us giving with
    > low clouds, high humidity and drizzle. We have had three clear days in
    > the last three months and I was committed elsewhere at the time.]
    >
    >
    >
    > >DXO is just another solution for some issues, and as much as any user
    > >of a particular piece of software is going to praise the perceived
    > >features/benefits of whatever they are using, and are comfortable with
    > >the results, they will be happy.
    > >That is true for me with LR4 & ACR+CS5, as it was for you with the
    > >Nikon software, as it is for those happy with UFRaw & GIMP, or the
    > >Canon shooters using DPP.

    >
    > I wasn't putting up DXO in a comparitive or competitive sense. In fact
    > I wasn't putting it up at all. What I was doing was advising those who
    > might be interested was that until the 25th December DXO was available
    > at a considerable discount.
    >
    >
    >
    > >Now you have been exposed to something different to the Nikon offering
    > >with DXO and you have experienced an improvement over your earlier
    > >experience, and that is a good thing. There is little point in pushing
    > >Adobe products on you, mainly due to the punitive antipodean pricing.

    >
    > I may be able to deal with that in the forseeable future. I have a
    > friend who is a pilot and he expects to be switching from London
    > routes to LA. We shall see.
    >
    >
    >
    > >The important thing is you have DXO in hand, and you are satisfied with
    > >the results. In your situation I would probably be just as happy.

    >
    > From what I presently know, until Adobe deals with the lens softness
    > issue, I will use DXO with _all_ its lens corrections as a
    > preprocessor/raw converter for CR6/LR.
    >
    > Free trials of DXO are still available and I would like to hear from
    > someone who normally uses lens corrections in CR6/LR.
    > --
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Eric Stevens


    Yeah, DxO seems to be able to add extra resolution to a lens in a way
    that is different from normal "sharpening". At least, some lenses,
    that is. The DLO feature in DPP appears to do a similar thing. I've
    seen some impressive results from some people who have used it. It
    goes beyond the distortion, CA, and vignetting correction that you get
    with LR/ACR lens profiles.

    It seems to do better with lenses that are less sharp to begin with,
    though. I can't tell the difference with the 24-70II or the 70-200 f/
    2.8 IS II.
     
    otter, Dec 27, 2012
    #4
  5. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>> About lens softness

    [...]
    >>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>> need less correction."


    >>While that is an interesting take on DXO's proprietary solution to a
    >>"lens softness" issue, and their self critique and praise of their
    >>system. As some have also claimed, such "lens softness" can also be
    >>attributed to a need for said lens to be calibrated with the camera on
    >>which it is to be used.


    > 1. DXO _does_ calibrate a lens and camerea combinations.


    But not your lens to your camera. If all cameras and lenses were
    identical, we'd not need microfocus settings.

    All that's needed is that the bayonet not be perfectly parallel to
    the sensor, and there you go: one side is different from the other.
    With luck DXOs version is tilted slightly just the other way.

    > 2. The lens softness is not a constant over the image but varies from
    > point to point. This is mapped by DXO and applied accordingly. This
    > generally enables more detail to be recovered at the edges of the
    > image than at the centre.


    And you assume that for good lenses the other errors don't
    outweight that change?


    >>I suspect they are trying to differentiate their product from those
    >>produced by Adobe and some camera manufacturers.


    > I think they are just describing what they do.


    What you think doesn't matter.

    What matters is if what they do (not what they claim to do)
    makes a noticable difference for the *user's* gear.


    >>One issue is, not all CS3/4/5/6 and LR users even bother to use lens
    >>profiles in their workflow. So they miss out on the benefits of
    >>correcting many of the issues in a particular lens's DNA. "Lens
    >>Softness" may well be one of those issues, but Adobe does not speak of
    >>it in the same terms as DXO.


    > As far as I can tell Adobe does not speak of it at all.


    Maybe because it's mostly a non-issue for it's clientel?

    [...]
    > Virtually all lenses have softness somewhere in their images. Some
    > might have less than others but they will still haved it.


    Virtually all photos are somewhat misfocussed. Some might have
    less misfocus than others bit they will still haved[sic] it.

    >>You might gain a similar benefit if you checked the calibration of your
    >>lens/camera pairings using a tool such as LensAlign.
    >>< http://michaeltapesdesign.com/lensalign.html >


    A better benefit. Unless your lens is perfectly calibrated
    to your body, well, DXO doesn't fix misfocussing.

    And I don't think just doing microfocus adjustment is enough.

    Best start with having at least the centre always and consistenly
    sharp before worrying about the corners.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Dec 27, 2012
    #5
  6. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>>>> About lens softness

    >>[...]
    >>>>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>>>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>>>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>>>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>>>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>>>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>>>> need less correction."


    >>>>While that is an interesting take on DXO's proprietary solution to a
    >>>>"lens softness" issue, and their self critique and praise of their
    >>>>system. As some have also claimed, such "lens softness" can also be
    >>>>attributed to a need for said lens to be calibrated with the camera on
    >>>>which it is to be used.


    >>> 1. DXO _does_ calibrate a lens and camerea combinations.


    >>But not your lens to your camera. If all cameras and lenses were
    >>identical, we'd not need microfocus settings.


    > --- snip ---


    > DXO doesn't fix people who are determined to argue, no matter what.


    >>Best start with having at least the centre always and consistenly
    >>sharp before worrying about the corners.


    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
    > is an interesting read about DXO.


    Please note carefully where they do NOT say that they test a
    couple copies of each camera and each lens. Much less a dozen
    or more copies. Then head over to the lensrentals blog and
    read how far 'identical' lenses and cameras can differ from
    each other when it comes to the region of improvements where
    DxO claims to work with. (And that's not even including bad
    lenses and cameras.)

    As I said: if the cameras and lenses really were identical,
    there'd be no need for microfocus settings and photographers
    wouldn't need to match lenses to cameras and wouldn't at the
    high end send them in together to make them matched pairs.
    This should be *blindingly* *obvious* even to rabid DxO fans.

    So you tell me why a random lens copy with a random camera
    copy, each having random variations from the ideal model is
    enough to tell how *your* copies with *their own*, *different*
    random variations behaves? If it's a bad lens design, then
    sure: the bad design overshadowes all the variations (unless
    the lens/camera is broken). But people using that would use
    a good lens in the first place, and there the lens-to-lens
    and camera-to-camera variations are not tiny compared to the
    systematic lens defects!

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 10, 2013
    #6
  7. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>>>>> About lens softness
    >>>[...]
    >>>>>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>>>>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>>>>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>>>>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>>>>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>>>>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>>>>> need less correction."


    > I've also discovered
    > http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/lens-correction-profiles/ which
    > deals with the creation of Adobe lens profiles. It sounds similar to
    > to the DXO method but not identical.


    | This application characterises three common types of lens
    | aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    | aberration, and vignetting.

    Reading THAT should have told you that there's not a single
    bit of "lens softness correction" in there. A bit of
    research would have told you that it's also an old hat.

    > The wording of the article
    > suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.


    | If you’re into making your own lens profiles the Lens Profile
    | Creator application can be download from Adobe Labs.

    It plain says it. No suggestions here.

    > The procedure only "characterises three common types of lens
    > aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    > aberration, and vignetting". There is no mention of the measurement of
    > what DXO calls lens 'softness'. Nor is there any mention of color.


    Look up "chroma" and "chrominance". Contrast to "luminance"

    > In particular, unlike DXO, what is being measured appears to be the
    > behaviour of a particular lens/camera combination.


    You meant to say "exactly like DxO, however, unlike DxO it'll
    be your camera and your lens you test".

    > so you guys with
    > (say) a D800, how do you feel about relying on a lens profile created
    > with (say) a Canon Rebel?


    The guys with a D800 will of course use lens profiles generated
    with *their* D800 and *their* lenses. People who don't care
    so much --- i.e. not D800 owners --- will download one created
    with a compatible type (e.g. Nikon 1.5x crop) and the same lens
    (different copy, though).

    If you had the slightest idea of the whole process --- i.e.
    spend less than 30 minutes reading --- you'd know that your
    scenario would only happen when someone took the same lens,
    mounted it on a camera where it didn't fit natively, extended
    the Rebel's sensor to the larger crop of Nikon and then measured
    the result. Which would be quite a feat.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 10, 2013
    #7
  8. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:54:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>>>>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>>>>>>> About lens softness
    >>>>>[...]
    >>>>>>>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>>>>>>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>>>>>>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>>>>>>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>>>>>>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>>>>>>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>>>>>>> need less correction."


    >>> I've also discovered
    >>> http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/lens-correction-profiles/ which
    >>> deals with the creation of Adobe lens profiles. It sounds similar to
    >>> to the DXO method but not identical.


    >>| This application characterises three common types of lens
    >>| aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    >>| aberration, and vignetting.


    >>Reading THAT should have told you that there's not a single
    >>bit of "lens softness correction" in there.


    > It did.


    So you should have known that it's similar only in the way
    that it applies mathematical operations on digital images.


    >>A bit of
    >>research would have told you that it's also an old hat.


    >>> The wording of the article
    >>> suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.


    >>| If youÂ’re into making your own lens profiles the Lens Profile
    >>| Creator application can be download from Adobe Labs.


    >>It plain says it. No suggestions here.


    > Have you considered the possibility that some of the independently
    > created profiles may be fed back to Adobe?


    Sure.

    > I know of nothing to
    > indicate where individual profiles supplied by Adobe may have come
    > from.


    | suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Your point was?


    >>> The procedure only "characterises three common types of lens
    >>> aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic

    ^^^^^^^^^^
    >>> aberration, and vignetting". There is no mention of the measurement of
    >>> what DXO calls lens 'softness'. Nor is there any mention of color.

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    >>Look up "chroma" and "chrominance". Contrast to "luminance"

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    > None of which are mentioned in connection with the Adobe profile
    > procedure or data.


    I've underlined the parts you should reread.

    I've also noticed that you seem to have misplaced your
    | It sounds similar to
    | to the DXO method but not identical.
    claim.

    >>> In particular, unlike DXO, what is being measured appears to be the
    >>> behaviour of a particular lens/camera combination.


    >>You meant to say "exactly like DxO, however, unlike DxO it'll
    >>be your camera and your lens you test".


    > No. Unlike DXO.


    Really?

    > DXO will test a lens on a number of different cameras They will also
    > test a camera on a number of different lenses.


    If I test 2 cameras I borrowed and 3 lenses I rented in each
    combination, I'm doing it exactly like DxO (cause I'm not
    testing my own stuff and most of the tests don't help me for
    a lack of having that gear), but if I test my own camera(s)
    to my own lens(es), it's different from DxO?

    > By a suitable choice of
    > combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    > accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    > lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)


    Eric, you're out of your mind if you believe you can push
    providing proof for your claims on me. You're twice out
    of your mind if you think the *design* of experiments tells
    anything about a *need* for the contortions someone will take
    with their design. Superstition is a prime example where one
    designs something (e.g. a behavior, a building (Feng Shui),
    and so on) and may genuinely believe the contortions are indeed
    necessary, when they in fact are not at all.


    > With this information they are able assess the performance of
    > combinations of lenses and cameras which they have not actually
    > tested.


    Or so they claim. To a limited degree they may be even right
    --- and by the same degree anyone with a bit of knowledge in
    the right fields can do that.

    > This class of research is way above the level of photographing
    > a brick wall.


    Eric, if my photo of a brick wall shows strong distortions, I
    don't care if DxO labs says about that lens-camera combination
    that there's no distortion.

    What DxO does is akin to publishing a generic profile for a
    printer and paper (tested on a single copy, which may or may
    not be close to the average copy), whereas I can measure my
    *specific* printer, with my *specific* batch of ink and my
    *specific* batch of paper.

    Now, for those who won't or can't create a profile on their
    own a generic profile is better than nothing ...



    >>> so you guys with
    >>> (say) a D800, how do you feel about relying on a lens profile created
    >>> with (say) a Canon Rebel?


    >>The guys with a D800 will of course use lens profiles generated
    >>with *their* D800 and *their* lenses.


    > Agreed, but they can only do that to within the limits of the Adobe
    > test procedures.


    Because there's only Adobe or the road?

    > For example, I don't think Adobe can embed
    > corrections for colour innaccuracy in their profiles. DXO most
    > certainly does.


    Please show the cite where DxO does that.

    And (assuming they do that at all) that helps you only if you
    shoot studio and log the runtimes of your lamps and flashes
    and have a very stable power source for them --- no, wall
    sockets won't do.
    In which case you already *have* a proper colour target or
    five and can apply colour correction to your specific lighting
    situation, your different cameras and lenses and --- of course
    --- your RAW converter's settings.

    In any other setting the light source and environmental
    reflections are too unstable --- unless you maybe shoot film
    and digital at the same time.


    >>People who don't care
    >>so much --- i.e. not D800 owners --- will download one created
    >>with a compatible type (e.g. Nikon 1.5x crop) and the same lens
    >>(different copy, though).


    >>If you had the slightest idea of the whole process --- i.e.
    >>spend less than 30 minutes reading --- you'd know that your
    >>scenario would only happen when someone took the same lens,
    >>mounted it on a camera where it didn't fit natively, extended
    >>the Rebel's sensor to the larger crop of Nikon and then measured
    >>the result. Which would be quite a feat.


    > Especially when you try to take into account the effect of the
    > differences in the sensor grid between a Rebel and a D800.


    "A person would have to lift a multi-gigaton sky scraper and
    carry it through the bog to archive that." -- "Especially when
    they'd have to wear flip-flops."

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #8
  9. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:30:31 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    > <> wrote:


    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>> <> wrote:

    >>
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:

    >>
    >>>>>>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>>>>>> About lens softness
    >>>>[...]
    >>>>>>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>>>>>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>>>>>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>>>>>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>>>>>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>>>>>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>>>>>> need less correction."

    >>
    >>>>>>While that is an interesting take on DXO's proprietary solution to a
    >>>>>>"lens softness" issue, and their self critique and praise of their
    >>>>>>system. As some have also claimed, such "lens softness" can also be
    >>>>>>attributed to a need for said lens to be calibrated with the camera on
    >>>>>>which it is to be used.

    >>
    >>>>> 1. DXO _does_ calibrate a lens and camerea combinations.

    >>
    >>>>But not your lens to your camera. If all cameras and lenses were
    >>>>identical, we'd not need microfocus settings.

    >>
    >>> --- snip ---

    >>
    >>> DXO doesn't fix people who are determined to argue, no matter what.

    >>
    >>>>Best start with having at least the centre always and consistenly
    >>>>sharp before worrying about the corners.

    >>
    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
    >>> is an interesting read about DXO.

    >>
    >>Please note carefully where they do NOT say that they test a
    >>couple copies of each camera and each lens. Much less a dozen
    >>or more copies. Then head over to the lensrentals blog and
    >>read how far 'identical' lenses and cameras can differ from
    >>each other when it comes to the region of improvements where
    >>DxO claims to work with. (And that's not even including bad
    >>lenses and cameras.)


    > It's inconceivable that an organization such as DXO would test any
    > lens without making certain that it was working properly.


    "[inconceivable] You keep using that word. I do not think it
    means what you think it means."

    Even if DxO would not test a clearly bad lens, they have *no*
    way of knowing if it's at the low end of OK or at the high end.
    I say it again: lensrentals.com blog. Go there. Get educated.

    > Nor would
    > any lens or camera manufacturer supply gear for test without
    > confirming that it was working properly.


    And there is no way a lens can be damaged during transport,
    of course. Again, head over to the lensrentals.com blog.

    > Had you not been in such a
    > hurry to have a wack at me you might have found articles like
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20008399-264.html which, among
    > other things, says:


    > "The tests show results for a single copy of each lens, with serial
    > number provided, but DxO factors in variability across multiple
    > copies, Touchard said. Specifically, he said the score numbers are
    > rounded to not show a misleading level precision. Lower-end lenses
    > show more variability, he added, and typically only in resolution
    > but not chromatic aberration, vignetting, and distortion."


    > Clearly DXO are not relying on tests based on just the one example of
    > anything.


    Clearly they test *a* *single* *lens* (with serial number
    provided!) and (simply) "factors in variability": they round
    score numbers, more for lower-end lenses' resolutions.

    It says so right in the snippet you quoted. Is reading a
    lost art nowadays?

    I'll not even ask (because it doesn't even factor in here) if
    you believe everything you read and never found out journalists,
    even journalists focussing on the topic they write about,
    make mistakes and mishear stuff. 50% of the journalists which
    wrote about press releases from a company where I used to work
    didn't even get the name right, for goodness sake!, even when
    it was right in front of them --- in writing! In general I
    found journalists know their stuff unless *I* have a modicum
    of knowledge about the topic or event they write about.
    But again, that's not even a factor here ...


    >>As I said: if the cameras and lenses really were identical,
    >>there'd be no need for microfocus settings and photographers
    >>wouldn't need to match lenses to cameras and wouldn't at the
    >>high end send them in together to make them matched pairs.


    > Buy a Nikon. You can do it yourself.


    I'm afraid Nikons over here don't come with optical workshops
    and tools and gear (worth several $100,000) and instructions how
    to change shims and adjust single element positions and tilts
    and so on to make a lens really shine with a single camera.

    OTOH the prices are below several $100,000 for a Nkon over here.


    >>This should be *blindingly* *obvious* even to rabid DxO fans.
    >>
    >>So you tell me why a random lens copy with a random camera
    >>copy, each having random variations from the ideal model is
    >>enough to tell how *your* copies with *their own*, *different*
    >>random variations behaves?


    > You would hhave to be feeble minded to think that's what it does. At
    > best, it tells you how your gear ought to behave.


    Well, since you bring it up: you seem to believe DxO manages
    *exactly* that. Though I'd call you misled, not feeble minded.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 20, 2013
    #9
  10. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:41:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:54:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>>>>>>> "DxO Lens Softness
    >>>>>>>>>> About lens softness
    >>>>>>>[...]
    >>>>>>>>>> Matching the shooting parameters contained in the EXIF data
    >>>>>>>>>> (aperture, focal length, etc.) and the map provided by the
    >>>>>>>>>> DxO Optics Module, DxO Optics Pro can apply precisely-tailored
    >>>>>>>>>> corrections according to the position of each pixel in the
    >>>>>>>>>> image field. This correction is not the same over the whole image,
    >>>>>>>>>> since lenses are sharper in the center; thus central pixels
    >>>>>>>>>> need less correction."


    >>>>> I've also discovered
    >>>>> http://www.computer-darkroom.com/blog/lens-correction-profiles/ which
    >>>>> deals with the creation of Adobe lens profiles. It sounds similar to
    >>>>> to the DXO method but not identical.


    >>>>| This application characterises three common types of lens
    >>>>| aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    >>>>| aberration, and vignetting.


    >>>>Reading THAT should have told you that there's not a single
    >>>>bit of "lens softness correction" in there.


    >>> It did.


    >>So you should have known that it's similar only in the way
    >>that it applies mathematical operations on digital images.


    > DxO appears to share only some mathematical operations with Adobe.


    I doubt they "share". They use the same external
    knowledge base: Scientific papers and the like from third
    parties. (And they likely try to improve upon them in
    secret, mostly by finding better values to plug into the
    algorithms and make them fast, I guess.)

    >>>>A bit of
    >>>>research would have told you that it's also an old hat.


    >>>>> The wording of the article
    >>>>> suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.


    >>>>| If you?re into making your own lens profiles the Lens Profile
    >>>>| Creator application can be download from Adobe Labs.


    >>>>It plain says it. No suggestions here.


    >>> Have you considered the possibility that some of the independently
    >>> created profiles may be fed back to Adobe?


    >>Sure.


    > So, as I said, Adobe "profiles may not all be created by Adobe."


    "History may not all be in the present."

    >>> I know of nothing to
    >>> indicate where individual profiles supplied by Adobe may have come
    >>> from.


    >>| suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.
    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>Your point was?


    > Unlike DxO, there is not a common methodological base underlying all
    > Adobe profiles.


    And you know that because at DxO there's only one single guy
    creating their profiles? Or are you saying you can only follow
    identical instructions and use identical software if you're
    employed by DxO or Adobe?


    >>>>> The procedure only "characterises three common types of lens
    >>>>> aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>> aberration, and vignetting". There is no mention of the measurement of
    >>>>> what DXO calls lens 'softness'. Nor is there any mention of color.

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>>>Look up "chroma" and "chrominance". Contrast to "luminance"

    >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>> None of which are mentioned in connection with the Adobe profile
    >>> procedure or data.


    >>I've underlined the parts you should reread.


    > With what end in mind?


    There was a slim chance you'd recognize that your claim is
    true only if you meant the literal word "color", spelled
    exactly like that.


    >>I've also noticed that you seem to have misplaced your
    >>| It sounds similar to
    >>| to the DXO method but not identical.
    >>claim.


    >>>>> In particular, unlike DXO, what is being measured appears to be the
    >>>>> behaviour of a particular lens/camera combination.


    >>>>You meant to say "exactly like DxO, however, unlike DxO it'll
    >>>>be your camera and your lens you test".


    >>> No. Unlike DXO.


    >>Really?


    >>> DXO will test a lens on a number of different cameras They will also
    >>> test a camera on a number of different lenses.


    >>If I test 2 cameras I borrowed and 3 lenses I rented in each
    >>combination, I'm doing it exactly like DxO (cause I'm not
    >>testing my own stuff and most of the tests don't help me for
    >>a lack of having that gear), but if I test my own camera(s)
    >>to my own lens(es), it's different from DxO?


    No answer?

    >>> By a suitable choice of
    >>> combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    >>> accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    >>> lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)


    >>Eric, you're out of your mind if you believe you can push
    >>providing proof for your claims on me. You're twice out
    >>of your mind if you think the *design* of experiments tells
    >>anything about a *need* for the contortions someone will take
    >>with their design. Superstition is a prime example where one
    >>designs something (e.g. a behavior, a building (Feng Shui),
    >>and so on) and may genuinely believe the contortions are indeed
    >>necessary, when they in fact are not at all.


    > A technician you may be, a scientist you are not.


    "He who makes a claim has to provide proof" is not valid in
    science?

    The existence of superstition is not accepted in science?
    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101565427673
    http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/beh/1973/00000043/F0020003/art00001
    http://www.northlandprep.org/proctor/Remote-Controlled Rats - Superstitious Behavior.pdf

    The existence of unneccessary contortions (see above) believed
    to be necessary by the performer are not accepted in science?

    > Have you *never*
    > encountered the theory behind the design of experiments? It sounds as
    > though you haven't the faintest idea of what I am talking about.


    I've not the faintest idea why you think that the design of
    experiments has anything to do with making a vague ("sufficient
    degree" --- for what?) claim you want *me* to provide proof for.

    If that's the scientific method, I'll read entrails, that's
    more reliable.


    >>> With this information they are able assess the performance of
    >>> combinations of lenses and cameras which they have not actually
    >>> tested.


    >>Or so they claim. To a limited degree they may be even right
    >>--- and by the same degree anyone with a bit of knowledge in
    >>the right fields can do that.


    > Only if they have the data to an acceptable degree of accuracy.


    Since the 'acceptable degree' is rather low and the resolution
    of cameras is nowadays very high ...


    >>> This class of research is way above the level of photographing
    >>> a brick wall.


    >>Eric, if my photo of a brick wall shows strong distortions, I
    >>don't care if DxO labs says about that lens-camera combination
    >>that there's no distortion.


    > Then you need DxO software to rectify the distortion, don't you?


    Epic fail. Facepalm.

    Slow down, stop knee jerking, start thinking.

    If DxO says: "no distortion", all they can correct is "no
    distortion", not "strong distortions", since they don't have
    the data in first place they need for rectifying.

    On the other hand, I can just use Adobe's method (or use hugin,
    for heaven's sake) and correct the distortion really observed
    with my specific gear. I don't need DxO at all for that.


    >>What DxO does is akin to publishing a generic profile for a
    >>printer and paper (tested on a single copy, which may or may
    >>not be close to the average copy), whereas I can measure my
    >>*specific* printer, with my *specific* batch of ink and my
    >>*specific* batch of paper.


    > I have already given a URL to a site where DxO has explained how they
    > use multiple lenses and camera bodies in their work.


    Sure, just like many amateurs use multiple lenses and bodies:
    ONE telezoom, ONE UWW-zoom, ONE AL-prime, ONE macro prime,
    ONE 1.4x extender, ONE 2x extender, ..., ONE main body,
    ONE smaller backup body.
    Yes, they use multiple lenses and camera bodies ... NO, THEY DO
    NOT USE MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE SAME LENS AND OF THE SAME BODY.
    And that's what that URL of yours said.


    >>Now, for those who won't or can't create a profile on their
    >>own a generic profile is better than nothing ...


    >>>>> so you guys with
    >>>>> (say) a D800, how do you feel about relying on a lens profile created
    >>>>> with (say) a Canon Rebel?


    >>>>The guys with a D800 will of course use lens profiles generated
    >>>>with *their* D800 and *their* lenses.


    >>> Agreed, but they can only do that to within the limits of the Adobe
    >>> test procedures.


    >>Because there's only Adobe or the road?


    Hmmm?


    >>> For example, I don't think Adobe can embed
    >>> corrections for colour innaccuracy in their profiles. DXO most
    >>> certainly does.


    >>Please show the cite where DxO does that.


    > It's in their software. You can select camera makes and models and see
    > the effects.


    I see the same effects when I use a different calibration curve.
    I see the same effects when I switch off the monitor profile.
    I see the same effects when I switch to a linear colourspace.
    I see the same effects when I move the RGBCMY_sliders around.

    The only way to get accurate colours is to use a lightsource
    that gives the same light from shot to shot, avoid all coloured
    reflections in the environment (say, green leafes or blue sky),
    and use a colour chart to profile your camera and lens for
    the specific light situation and RAW converter (including the
    inbuild JPEG engine) settings. Which also means no auto-WB,
    for example.

    Everything else will not get you "corrections for colour
    inaccuracy" --- at best you'll get one specific light situation
    that may be correct, but which you'll never have.

    Wake up and smell the coffee.


    >>And (assuming they do that at all) that helps you only if you
    >>shoot studio and log the runtimes of your lamps and flashes
    >>and have a very stable power source for them --- no, wall
    >>sockets won't do.
    >>In which case you already *have* a proper colour target or
    >>five and can apply colour correction to your specific lighting
    >>situation, your different cameras and lenses and --- of course
    >>--- your RAW converter's settings.


    >>In any other setting the light source and environmental
    >>reflections are too unstable --- unless you maybe shoot film
    >>and digital at the same time.


    > You are getting more than a little ridiculous.


    So where do you think I am wrong? Unless you can point that
    out, you're ridiculous and in denial.


    >>>>People who don't care
    >>>>so much --- i.e. not D800 owners --- will download one created
    >>>>with a compatible type (e.g. Nikon 1.5x crop) and the same lens
    >>>>(different copy, though).


    >>>>If you had the slightest idea of the whole process --- i.e.
    >>>>spend less than 30 minutes reading --- you'd know that your
    >>>>scenario would only happen when someone took the same lens,
    >>>>mounted it on a camera where it didn't fit natively, extended
    >>>>the Rebel's sensor to the larger crop of Nikon and then measured
    >>>>the result. Which would be quite a feat.


    >>> Especially when you try to take into account the effect of the
    >>> differences in the sensor grid between a Rebel and a D800.


    >>"A person would have to lift a multi-gigaton sky scraper and
    >>carry it through the bog to archive that." -- "Especially when
    >>they'd have to wear flip-flops."


    > You don't understand the problem, do you?


    You don't understand, full stop. The differences in the sensor
    grid are no real problem, in fact, you've claimed DxO handles
    them routinely with no problems with "sufficient accuracy".

    Oh, BTW, anything Canon crop format over 14 MPix has denser
    pixels than the D800.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 22, 2013
    #10
  11. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:30:07 -0800, Savageduck
    >>On 2013-01-20 20:36:36 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>> But then he sends the results to Adobe. Unless they have already
    >>> received the results of other immaculately performed tests on the same
    >>> kind of gear Adobe will have no idea of whether the required
    >>> corrections fall in the upper, lower or middle sections of the range
    >>> of possible corrections. They won't know whether the corrections are
    >>> required to correct defects in the camera or the lens.


    You assume that only a single person ever will send in results
    for a given combination.

    >>Just to make things clear The Adobe Lens Profile Creator is there for
    >>the user to do the work and create his/her own lens/camera profiles for
    >>whichever camera lens combination he/she needs or chooses.
    >>For the most part I have been able to find profiles provided by Adobe
    >>for most of my lenses used on my D300S and somewhat fewer for the D70.


    > That's fine but you have no way of knowing how your camera and lens
    > compare with the wider community of similar lenses and cameras.


    And with DxO you have, without measuring things? How?

    > That
    > won't matter to you but it might matter to someone using similar gear
    > with different performance characteristics.


    And that's exactly what the DxO problem is. Even if they'd
    tested 100 copies of a lens on 100 copies of a body to get
    an average, *using similar gear with different performance
    characteristics* will hurt you. It doesn't matter if your
    copy is better or worse than average ... it only matters it's
    not average.

    At least with other products, you can generate your own profile!


    >>> Users of such correction data will not have any idea of how well the
    >>> measured cameras and lenses compare with their own equipment.


    >>You can make A-B comparisons with the profile applied, or not with LR4,
    >>CS5/6, & ACR.


    > Which means that the other users have to have created their own
    > profiles.


    Which is more than they can do with DxO.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 22, 2013
    #11
  12. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:02:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:



    >>Even if DxO would not test a clearly bad lens, they have *no*
    >>way of knowing if it's at the low end of OK or at the high end.
    >>I say it again: lensrentals.com blog. Go there. Get educated.


    > DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they learn the good,
    > the bad and the indifferent.


    You still have to provide proof of that assertion.


    >>> Nor would
    >>> any lens or camera manufacturer supply gear for test without
    >>> confirming that it was working properly.


    >>And there is no way a lens can be damaged during transport,
    >>of course. Again, head over to the lensrentals.com blog.


    > DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they encounter the
    > good, the bad and the damaged..


    You still have to provide proof of that assertion.

    >>> Clearly DXO are not relying on tests based on just the one example of
    >>> anything.


    >>Clearly they test *a* *single* *lens* (with serial number
    >>provided!) and (simply) "factors in variability": they round
    >>score numbers, more for lower-end lenses' resolutions.


    > And how do you think they learn how much variability to factor in
    > without testing a number of examples of a lens? Enquiring minds would
    > like to know.


    Rule of thumb, based on either a couple lenses tested back
    when or on external sources --- or internet rumors and guesses.
    Cheaper lenses get more, remember?


    >>It says so right in the snippet you quoted. Is reading a
    >>lost art nowadays?


    Well?


    >>I'll not even ask (because it doesn't even factor in here) if
    >>you believe everything you read and never found out journalists,
    >>even journalists focussing on the topic they write about,
    >>make mistakes and mishear stuff. 50% of the journalists which
    >>wrote about press releases from a company where I used to work
    >>didn't even get the name right, for goodness sake!, even when
    >>it was right in front of them --- in writing! In general I
    >>found journalists know their stuff unless *I* have a modicum
    >>of knowledge about the topic or event they write about.
    >>But again, that's not even a factor here ...


    > Then why did you write about it?


    Because you sorely lacked that part of knowledge. Probably
    still do, but at least I tried.


    >>>>As I said: if the cameras and lenses really were identical,
    >>>>there'd be no need for microfocus settings and photographers
    >>>>wouldn't need to match lenses to cameras and wouldn't at the
    >>>>high end send them in together to make them matched pairs.


    >>> Buy a Nikon. You can do it yourself.


    >>I'm afraid Nikons over here don't come with optical workshops
    >>and tools and gear (worth several $100,000) and instructions how
    >>to change shims and adjust single element positions and tilts
    >>and so on to make a lens really shine with a single camera.


    > That's how you tune up a lens.


    That how you "make them matched pairs".

    > It's nothing to do with matchin a lens
    > to a camera.


    And one cannot do that with a Pentax or Sony or Olympus or
    --- dare I say --- Canon, because?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 22, 2013
    #12
  13. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:36:55 +1300, Eric Stevens
    > <> wrote:


    >>>>>So you tell me why a random lens copy with a random camera
    >>>>>copy, each having random variations from the ideal model is
    >>>>>enough to tell how *your* copies with *their own*, *different*
    >>>>>random variations behaves?


    > I meant to respond to this point but got interrupted.


    > Let's say a lens owner exactly follows the Adobe procedure and
    > determines the exact corrections required for his own lens and camera
    > combination. That's fine: he knows exactly what corrections to apply
    > in software for his particular camera.


    And they're not generic corrections, but specifically
    tailored to him.


    > But then he sends the results to Adobe. Unless they have already
    > received the results of other immaculately performed tests on the same
    > kind of gear Adobe will have no idea of whether the required
    > corrections fall in the upper, lower or middle sections of the range
    > of possible corrections. They won't know whether the corrections are
    > required to correct defects in the camera or the lens.


    Same with DxO not knowing it from just one lens copy. Except
    tha Adobe may have tested the lens themselves, and 10.000
    other people did so as well. Does DxO test 10.000 copies?


    > Users of such correction data will not have any idea of how well the
    > measured cameras and lenses compare with their own equipment.


    Same with DxO.

    > At least
    > with DxO you know you are getting the mean of several tests


    No, you don't.

    OTOH, I wouldn't wonder if Adobe did show how many lenses
    contributed to a given profile ...

    > and at the
    > worst your own equipment is unlikely to be more than +/- half of the
    > possible defect range.


    But with Adobe, you measure yourself (assuming you care for
    the best), and are spot on. Not an average of +/- 1/4th of
    the possible defect range.

    If you don't care so much, you don't need DxO for correction.

    > Basing corrections on one measurement made by
    > the Adobe procedure could theoretically result in someone correcting
    > their camera with corrections obtained from a camera at the other end
    > of the defect range.


    Theoretically one could be hit by lightning while correcting
    one's shots with Adobe, yes. It's however more likely than
    that Adobe won't have a sizeable number of profiles for all
    common lenses. (For the special rare lens, you're helpless
    with DxO, with Adobe you can measure it.)

    > Just to make things clear, I'm not trying to put down Adobe. I'm
    > trying to respond to those earlier posters who said that Adobe already
    > do what DxO do and that what DxO does is no better then Adobe. I say
    > that what DxO does appears to be different and should be better.


    Different, yes. Better? Better in what? Marketing?
    Automatization? A generic profile is fine if you don't need
    top results ...

    > I was
    > also pointing out a defect in the Adobe procedure.


    And missing two in DxO.


    > Now you, fueled by your dislike of me engendered by me earlier calling
    > your morals into question, are trying to put me down with every
    > half-baked argument you can lay your hands on.


    Well, we certainly share a sentiment.

    > Just remember that this
    > is a matter of optical physics, not politics.


    And I thought it was statistics and algorithms and how identical
    manufactured copies turn out.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 22, 2013
    #13
  14. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:12:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:41:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:54:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>>>>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>> I know of nothing to
    >>>>> indicate where individual profiles supplied by Adobe may have come
    >>>>> from.


    >>>>| suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.
    >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>Your point was?


    >>> Unlike DxO, there is not a common methodological base underlying all
    >>> Adobe profiles.


    >>And you know that because at DxO there's only one single guy
    >>creating their profiles? Or are you saying you can only follow
    >>identical instructions and use identical software if you're
    >>employed by DxO or Adobe?


    > And they do it in the identical lab with identical hardware. It all
    > helps minimise variations.


    Give 2 photographers the identical camera and lenses, one
    after the other, and tell them to photograph Notre Dame.
    Do you get the same results?

    If not, please tell us what part is missing from your picture
    and why that part is critical.

    Additionally, please explain why a low variation between
    measurements of a set of lenses does matter more than
    measuring the actual variations of a specific lens that may
    or may not be in the set --- given that we are talking about
    people who want and need the last bit of quality.


    > See
    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-57415777-76/how-dxo-labs-tests-hot-cameras-like-canons-latest-slr/
    > or http://tinyurl.com/bn6v577


    > "DxO bases its judgments on a series of tests, all performed at a
    > standard temperature and humidity, with carefully calibrated light
    > levels and color."


    Which means that the tests may be comparable at least in this
    variable, but what does it help *me* when I have a different
    temperature and humidity and --- simply because I don't shoot
    only in open shade, but also on overcast days and at night with
    various artifical light sources --- have anything but carefully
    calibrated light levels and since I don't get standard daylight
    at all times different colour?


    >>>>>>> The procedure only "characterises three common types of lens
    >>>>>>> aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>>>> aberration, and vignetting". There is no mention of the measurement of
    >>>>>>> what DXO calls lens 'softness'. Nor is there any mention of color.
    >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>>>>>Look up "chroma" and "chrominance". Contrast to "luminance"
    >>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>>>> None of which are mentioned in connection with the Adobe profile
    >>>>> procedure or data.


    >>>>I've underlined the parts you should reread.


    >>> With what end in mind?


    >>There was a slim chance you'd recognize that your claim is
    >>true only if you meant the literal word "color", spelled
    >>exactly like that.


    > You are playing around. Tell me exactly what you mean and give quotes
    > and cites.


    Please look up what chroma means.
    Then please look up what a chromatic aberration is.
    Then tell me why you think that has nothing to do with colour.

    If you still fail to see the point, get a five year old to
    explain it to you.


    >>>>>>> In particular, unlike DXO, what is being measured appears to be the
    >>>>>>> behaviour of a particular lens/camera combination.


    >>>>>>You meant to say "exactly like DxO, however, unlike DxO it'll
    >>>>>>be your camera and your lens you test".


    >>>>> No. Unlike DXO.


    >>>>Really?


    >>>>> DXO will test a lens on a number of different cameras They will also
    >>>>> test a camera on a number of different lenses.


    >>>>If I test 2 cameras I borrowed and 3 lenses I rented in each
    >>>>combination, I'm doing it exactly like DxO (cause I'm not
    >>>>testing my own stuff and most of the tests don't help me for
    >>>>a lack of having that gear), but if I test my own camera(s)
    >>>>to my own lens(es), it's different from DxO?


    >>No answer?


    > You are now proposing something completely different from your "unlike
    > DxO it'll be your camera and your lens you test".


    Stop playing around and dancing around and fooling around.
    You do understand perfectly well --- if not, ask a five year
    old! --- you just don't wnat to admit it.


    > You are just dancing around. It doesn't help make you look clever.


    Not simply agreeing to you does that? Oh, well, I never
    cared much for my looks (beauty is after all only skin deep)
    and more for results.

    >>>>> By a suitable choice of
    >>>>> combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    >>>>> accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    >>>>> lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)


    >>>>Eric, you're out of your mind if you believe you can push
    >>>>providing proof for your claims on me. You're twice out
    >>>>of your mind if you think the *design* of experiments tells
    >>>>anything about a *need* for the contortions someone will take
    >>>>with their design. Superstition is a prime example where one
    >>>>designs something (e.g. a behavior, a building (Feng Shui),
    >>>>and so on) and may genuinely believe the contortions are indeed
    >>>>necessary, when they in fact are not at all.


    >>> A technician you may be, a scientist you are not.


    >>"He who makes a claim has to provide proof" is not valid in
    >>science?


    > Squirming is no substitute for clear statements and clear arguments.


    So why do you squirm and think that is science?

    >>The existence of superstition is not accepted in science?
    >> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101565427673
    >> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/beh/1973/00000043/F0020003/art00001
    >> http://www.northlandprep.org/proctor/Remote-Controlled Rats - Superstitious Behavior.pdf


    >>The existence of unneccessary contortions (see above) believed
    >>to be necessary by the performer are not accepted in science?


    > This is relevant only to an irrelevancy introduced by yourself.


    The irrelevancy of not simply accepting your "people design
    experiments in way A, thus way A is neccessary"? I agree.

    Relevant is that DxO tests lenses which at least 99.999% of
    their users never use --- they only use superficially similar
    lenses that act slightly (or not so slightly) differently.


    >>> Have you *never*
    >>> encountered the theory behind the design of experiments? It sounds as
    >>> though you haven't the faintest idea of what I am talking about.


    >>I've not the faintest idea why you think that the design of
    >>experiments has anything to do with making a vague ("sufficient
    >>degree" --- for what?) claim you want *me* to provide proof for.


    > What particular claim do you have in mind?


    | By a suitable choice of
    | combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    | accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    | lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)

    That was obvious, wasn't it? If not, ask aforementioned five
    year old.


    >>>>> This class of research is way above the level of photographing
    >>>>> a brick wall.


    >>>>Eric, if my photo of a brick wall shows strong distortions, I
    >>>>don't care if DxO labs says about that lens-camera combination
    >>>>that there's no distortion.


    >>> Then you need DxO software to rectify the distortion, don't you?


    >>Epic fail. Facepalm.


    >>Slow down, stop knee jerking, start thinking.


    >>If DxO says: "no distortion", all they can correct is "no
    >>distortion", not "strong distortions", since they don't have
    >>the data in first place they need for rectifying.


    > You keep putting up straw men.


    The straw man of photograping brick walls? That one is yours.


    >>On the other hand, I can just use Adobe's method (or use hugin,
    >>for heaven's sake) and correct the distortion really observed
    >>with my specific gear. I don't need DxO at all for that.


    > If I wanted evidence that you don't know what DxO actually does, the
    > paragraph above is more than sufficient. You have trapped yourself
    > into thinking that in the field of camera and lens characterisation
    > DxO does the same thing as Adobe. In fact, if you look at their
    > software you will discover that DxO does considerably more.


    If I needed evidence that reading comprehension is a skill you
    lack sorely, I'd only needed to point out that I was talking
    about distortion.

    Looking at DxO's software mainly tells me three things:
    - they want lotsa money
    - I don't need what they offer
    - For me, their software does not work.

    Looing at Adobe's software tells me a similar story.

    But then I'm not fixated on pixel counts and the very last
    bit of sharpness. I can do fine with mere 8 MPix.

    If I was fixated on such stuff, I'd not use a generic profile
    for my lenses and bodies (which is what DxO offers) --- like
    I don't use generic profiles for my printers and monitors.

    DxO is fine for those who don't want or cannot profile their
    own gear or don't grasp that they'd need that for the last bit
    of quality or are dazzled by the "oh gosh look, all-singing,
    all-dancing, includes the kitchen sink" feature list.


    >>>>What DxO does is akin to publishing a generic profile for a
    >>>>printer and paper (tested on a single copy, which may or may
    >>>>not be close to the average copy), whereas I can measure my
    >>>>*specific* printer, with my *specific* batch of ink and my
    >>>>*specific* batch of paper.


    >>> I have already given a URL to a site where DxO has explained how they
    >>> use multiple lenses and camera bodies in their work.


    >>Sure, just like many amateurs use multiple lenses and bodies:
    >>ONE telezoom, ONE UWW-zoom, ONE AL-prime, ONE macro prime,
    >>ONE 1.4x extender, ONE 2x extender, ..., ONE main body,
    >>ONE smaller backup body.
    >>Yes, they use multiple lenses and camera bodies ... NO, THEY DO
    >>NOT USE MULTIPLE COPIES OF THE SAME LENS AND OF THE SAME BODY.
    >>And that's what that URL of yours said.


    > You are not reading the information that is presented to you.


    > http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20008399-264.html


    > "The tests show results for a single copy of each lens, with serial
    > number provided, but DxO factors in variability across multiple
    > copies, Touchard said."

    "Specifically, he said the score numbers are
    rounded to not show a misleading level precision."

    > How do you think they assess the variability? Test the same lens five
    > times, perhaps?


    That would be a valid method of testing their testing method's
    variability.

    How come they don't use averaged test results?
    How come they don't give upper and lower limits?
    How come they have to "factor in variability" by rounding numbers?

    The simplest, most natural solution (look up Occham's razor)
    for the observed results and the claims provided by you is that
    they only test "a single copy of each lens", and variability
    is guessed at, bolstered by testing a very few lenses with
    more than one copy.


    >>>>> For example, I don't think Adobe can embed
    >>>>> corrections for colour innaccuracy in their profiles. DXO most
    >>>>> certainly does.


    >>>>Please show the cite where DxO does that.


    >>> It's in their software. You can select camera makes and models and see
    >>> the effects.


    >>I see the same effects when I use a different calibration curve.
    >>I see the same effects when I switch off the monitor profile.
    >>I see the same effects when I switch to a linear colourspace.
    >>I see the same effects when I move the RGBCMY_sliders around.


    > But none of the above bullshit is tied to the characteristics of your
    > own particular type of camera.


    It's extremely trivial to tie a different setting of the
    bullshit to each and every type of camera. Would you note
    the difference?

    If DxO did what they claimed they did you could shoot the same
    scene with identical light with all camera-lens combinations
    and get instantly indistinguable results, at least regarding
    to colour. There's the reason you cannot (successfully)
    profile printers with colourimeters but need spectrometers.
    Cameras are colourimeters ... not spectrometers. (Monitors can
    be measured by colourimeters --- if their R.G.B spectrums are
    known to the calibrator --- since they have 3 colours only.)

    Also look up metamerism for a similar problem.

    Hence: DxO can try, can get close under a few circumstances,
    but they can't win.


    >>The only way to get accurate colours is to use a lightsource
    >>that gives the same light from shot to shot, avoid all coloured
    >>reflections in the environment (say, green leafes or blue sky),
    >>and use a colour chart to profile your camera and lens for
    >>the specific light situation and RAW converter (including the
    >>inbuild JPEG engine) settings. Which also means no auto-WB,
    >>for example.


    > One of the links I have given you shows the DxO setup for doing
    > exactly that.


    .... for the exact circumstances photograpers are encountering
    when they need exact colours? Nope. Measure your own it is.

    .... for the circumstances where photographers would like
    different cameras to render the same colour as the same colour?
    Nope. There you have way too many variables --- just consider
    daytime shooting, flourescent lights and LED lights. Nice try,
    best bet is bring your own colour charts.


    >>Everything else will not get you "corrections for colour
    >>inaccuracy" --- at best you'll get one specific light situation
    >>that may be correct, but which you'll never have.


    >>Wake up and smell the coffee.


    Good morning!

    >>>>And (assuming they do that at all) that helps you only if you
    >>>>shoot studio and log the runtimes of your lamps and flashes
    >>>>and have a very stable power source for them --- no, wall
    >>>>sockets won't do.
    >>>>In which case you already *have* a proper colour target or
    >>>>five and can apply colour correction to your specific lighting
    >>>>situation, your different cameras and lenses and --- of course
    >>>>--- your RAW converter's settings.


    >>>>In any other setting the light source and environmental
    >>>>reflections are too unstable --- unless you maybe shoot film
    >>>>and digital at the same time.


    >>> You are getting more than a little ridiculous.


    >>So where do you think I am wrong? Unless you can point that
    >>out, you're ridiculous and in denial.


    Obviously Eric doesn't think I am wrong.


    >>>>>>People who don't care
    >>>>>>so much --- i.e. not D800 owners --- will download one created
    >>>>>>with a compatible type (e.g. Nikon 1.5x crop) and the same lens
    >>>>>>(different copy, though).


    >>>>>>If you had the slightest idea of the whole process --- i.e.
    >>>>>>spend less than 30 minutes reading --- you'd know that your
    >>>>>>scenario would only happen when someone took the same lens,
    >>>>>>mounted it on a camera where it didn't fit natively, extended
    >>>>>>the Rebel's sensor to the larger crop of Nikon and then measured
    >>>>>>the result. Which would be quite a feat.


    >>>>> Especially when you try to take into account the effect of the
    >>>>> differences in the sensor grid between a Rebel and a D800.


    >>>>"A person would have to lift a multi-gigaton sky scraper and
    >>>>carry it through the bog to archive that." -- "Especially when
    >>>>they'd have to wear flip-flops."


    >>> You don't understand the problem, do you?


    >>You don't understand, full stop. The differences in the sensor
    >>grid are no real problem, in fact, you've claimed DxO handles
    >>them routinely with no problems with "sufficient accuracy".


    >>Oh, BTW, anything Canon crop format over 14 MPix has denser
    >>pixels than the D800.


    > So?


    *sigh* Ask a five year old.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 27, 2013
    #14
  15. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:34:59 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:30:07 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>On 2013-01-20 20:36:36 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>> But then he sends the results to Adobe. Unless they have already
    >>>>> received the results of other immaculately performed tests on the same
    >>>>> kind of gear Adobe will have no idea of whether the required
    >>>>> corrections fall in the upper, lower or middle sections of the range
    >>>>> of possible corrections. They won't know whether the corrections are
    >>>>> required to correct defects in the camera or the lens.


    >>You assume that only a single person ever will send in results
    >>for a given combination.


    > That's probably the case with some combinations.


    Which means when you use a 1860's lens or use an enlarger lens
    or somthing like that, DxO won't have anything, but you still
    can measure your own lens combo with Adobe.


    >>>>Just to make things clear The Adobe Lens Profile Creator is there for
    >>>>the user to do the work and create his/her own lens/camera profiles for
    >>>>whichever camera lens combination he/she needs or chooses.
    >>>>For the most part I have been able to find profiles provided by Adobe
    >>>>for most of my lenses used on my D300S and somewhat fewer for the D70.


    >>> That's fine but you have no way of knowing how your camera and lens
    >>> compare with the wider community of similar lenses and cameras.


    >>And with DxO you have, without measuring things? How?


    > DxO aren't testing a single lens/camera combination.


    Irrelevant, unless they or you measure *your* lens and *your*
    camera and compare them to DxO's raw values.

    > They are testing
    > multiple examples of each.


    Where exactly is written "DxO tests at least 10 copies of
    each lens on 10 copies of each body in their optics lab" or
    something similar? Provide proof or shut up.


    >>> That
    >>> won't matter to you but it might matter to someone using similar gear
    >>> with different performance characteristics.


    >>And that's exactly what the DxO problem is. Even if they'd
    >>tested 100 copies of a lens on 100 copies of a body to get
    >>an average, *using similar gear with different performance
    >>characteristics* will hurt you. It doesn't matter if your
    >>copy is better or worse than average ... it only matters it's
    >>not average.


    >>At least with other products, you can generate your own profile!


    > If your gear is so far out of line that you need to generate your own
    > profiles for it then there is something wrong with it.


    If you want the last bit of sharpness etc. lens and camera
    variations are significant! And this is the first time I have
    heard people needed to degrade *their specific copy of a lens*
    because it was too sharp compared to the average lens *on
    their specific copy of a body* and thus there was something
    wrong with it.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 27, 2013
    #15
  16. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > rOn Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:53:49 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:36:55 +1300, Eric Stevens


    >>> But then he sends the results to Adobe. Unless they have already
    >>> received the results of other immaculately performed tests on the same
    >>> kind of gear Adobe will have no idea of whether the required
    >>> corrections fall in the upper, lower or middle sections of the range
    >>> of possible corrections. They won't know whether the corrections are
    >>> required to correct defects in the camera or the lens.


    >>Same with DxO not knowing it from just one lens copy. Except
    >>tha Adobe may have tested the lens themselves, and 10.000
    >>other people did so as well. Does DxO test 10.000 copies?


    > You are now pulling numbers out of the air. Why do you have to resort
    > to this?


    Because you are pulling numbers like "Adobe will only get one
    result" and "DxO tests multiple copies" out of the air.

    10.000 is a good estimate for a popular lens-body-combibation.


    >>OTOH, I wouldn't wonder if Adobe did show how many lenses
    >>contributed to a given profile ...


    >>> and at the
    >>> worst your own equipment is unlikely to be more than +/- half of the
    >>> possible defect range.


    >>But with Adobe, you measure yourself (assuming you care for
    >>the best), and are spot on. Not an average of +/- 1/4th of
    >>the possible defect range.


    >>If you don't care so much, you don't need DxO for correction.


    > I don't know how Adobe does it but with DxO you can see the extent of
    > the correction when the image is first loaded. Even with well regarded
    > lenses the effect can be quite substantial.


    You probably mean distortion. Yes, lenses distort. No, for
    photography with the aim of getting pleasing images unless
    you can tell by looking at the image that it's distorted it
    doesn't matter.

    BTW, apply a distortion correction to an already corrected
    image and "the effect can be quite substantial".


    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 27, 2013
    #16
  17. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:41:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 19:02:54 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>>>Even if DxO would not test a clearly bad lens, they have *no*
    >>>>way of knowing if it's at the low end of OK or at the high end.
    >>>>I say it again: lensrentals.com blog. Go there. Get educated.


    >>> DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they learn the good,
    >>> the bad and the indifferent.


    >>You still have to provide proof of that assertion.


    Well?


    >>>>> Nor would
    >>>>> any lens or camera manufacturer supply gear for test without
    >>>>> confirming that it was working properly.


    >>>>And there is no way a lens can be damaged during transport,
    >>>>of course. Again, head over to the lensrentals.com blog.


    >>> DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they encounter the
    >>> good, the bad and the damaged..


    >>You still have to provide proof of that assertion.


    Well?


    >>>>> Clearly DXO are not relying on tests based on just the one example of
    >>>>> anything.


    >>>>Clearly they test *a* *single* *lens* (with serial number
    >>>>provided!) and (simply) "factors in variability": they round
    >>>>score numbers, more for lower-end lenses' resolutions.


    >>> And how do you think they learn how much variability to factor in
    >>> without testing a number of examples of a lens? Enquiring minds would
    >>> like to know.


    >>Rule of thumb, based on either a couple lenses tested back
    >>when or on external sources --- or internet rumors and guesses.
    >>Cheaper lenses get more, remember?


    > In other words, you don't know but are prepared to grasp at straws
    > rather than admit the obvious.


    In other words:
    YOU don't know.
    YOU have not a shred of proof.
    YOU have a dogma.
    YOU are grasping at straws rather than admit the dogma might
    be wrong.

    Occham's razor supports me.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 27, 2013
    #17
  18. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:01:04 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:12:07 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:41:15 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>> On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 18:54:12 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 28 Dec 2012 11:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens
    >>>>>>>>>>On Thu, 27 Dec 2012 19:59:08 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>>>>>>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 26 Dec 2012 15:16:34 -0800, Savageduck
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>On 2012-12-26 14:22:39 -0800, Eric Stevens <> said:


    >>>>>>> I know of nothing to
    >>>>>>> indicate where individual profiles supplied by Adobe may have come
    >>>>>>> from.


    >>>>>>| suggests that profiles may not all be created by Adobe.
    >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>>>Your point was?


    >>>>> Unlike DxO, there is not a common methodological base underlying all
    >>>>> Adobe profiles.


    >>>>And you know that because at DxO there's only one single guy
    >>>>creating their profiles? Or are you saying you can only follow
    >>>>identical instructions and use identical software if you're
    >>>>employed by DxO or Adobe?


    >>> And they do it in the identical lab with identical hardware. It all
    >>> helps minimise variations.


    >>Give 2 photographers the identical camera and lenses, one
    >>after the other, and tell them to photograph Notre Dame.
    >>Do you get the same results?


    >>If not, please tell us what part is missing from your picture
    >>and why that part is critical.


    >>Additionally, please explain why a low variation between
    >>measurements of a set of lenses does matter more than
    >>measuring the actual variations of a specific lens that may
    >>or may not be in the set --- given that we are talking about
    >>people who want and need the last bit of quality.


    > You seem to be overlooking the fact that there are two different
    > objectives.


    > (A) to characterise a particular type of lens.


    > (B) to characterise a particular lens.


    > (A) is what DxO sets out to do and so too does Adobe when determining
    > lens corrections to be built into Adobe software. From what I have
    > been told, the Adobe method can also be used by a lens-owner to (B)
    > characterise their particular lens, which characterisation can then be
    > loaded into Adobe software for the lens-owner's personal use. There is
    > nothing wrong with any of this.


    As to that: Adobe gets (A) by getting a number of (B)
    reports, too --- and for most any lens they'll get more (B)
    reports than DxO (assuming they did test multiple copies of
    lenses and bodies each) could amass.

    > Accuracy and repeatability is of paramount importance if tests are
    > going to be carried out on several examples of a particular lens type.


    A final accuracy for (A) that's much greater than the
    difference between typical lenses doesn't help.
    Repeatability is only important as too low repeatability
    affects accuracy.

    > Accuracy is particularly important if different types of lenses are
    > going to be later compared on the basis of test results.


    And that's why DxO *voluntarily* rounds the values ---
    reducing accuracy a lot --- because of lens variability.
    (Says so in the URL you gave and cited!)

    So obviously DxO disagrees very much with your claim.

    > The highest degree of accuracy requires controlled test conditions and
    > certainly cannot be achieved by tests being carried out by different
    > people under different physical and lighting conditions.


    Guess what: DxO has different people and different physical
    conditions. (Or do you really think DxO has one lab guy
    who's barred from ever leaving the company? Or do you think
    they have the same distance between camera and test chart for
    varying focal lengths? QED.)

    As to the lighting conditions: Pray tell why distortion
    correction should be sensitive to them! Only with vignetting
    you may have a claim, but the fact that the same target is
    placed in different areas of the frame allows a computer to
    differenciate between uneven lighting and vignetting.


    > That's why I
    > expressed concern at the possibility that the Adobe data includes the
    > results of tests carried out under inconsistent or less than ideal
    > conditions.


    If Adobe did try to correct the colour rendition in one
    single condition you might have a claim. And I'd guess Adobe
    filters out outliers in the large number of data points they'll
    be getting.


    > Then there is the problem tha,t as far as the final image is
    > concerned, the characteristics of the lens depends upon the camera on
    > which it was tested.


    Which characteristics would that be? Distortion?
    Vignetting? CA? In which way would they be camera model
    sensitive more than camera copy senistive? Apart from
    sensor size (as in: a smaller sensor can't tell about the
    outer image circle of a larger sensor), that is?


    > It is largely a waste of time to haracterise a
    > lens without controling for the type of camera being used. I have no
    > knowledge of how Adobe manages this (if at all).


    You can bet even Adobe allows you to tell it what type of
    camera you're using.


    >>>>>>>>> The procedure only "characterises three common types of lens
    >>>>>>>>> aberrations, namely geometric distortion, lateral chromatic
    >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^
    >>>>>>>>> aberration, and vignetting". There is no mention of the measurement of
    >>>>>>>>> what DXO calls lens 'softness'. Nor is there any mention of color.
    >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>>>>>>>Look up "chroma" and "chrominance". Contrast to "luminance"
    >>>>>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


    >>>>>>> None of which are mentioned in connection with the Adobe profile
    >>>>>>> procedure or data.


    >>>>>>I've underlined the parts you should reread.


    >>>>> With what end in mind?


    >>>>There was a slim chance you'd recognize that your claim is
    >>>>true only if you meant the literal word "color", spelled
    >>>>exactly like that.


    >>> You are playing around. Tell me exactly what you mean and give quotes
    >>> and cites.


    >>Please look up what chroma means.
    >>Then please look up what a chromatic aberration is.
    >>Then tell me why you think that has nothing to do with colour.


    > Much beating around the bush and eventually you get to the point.


    Mostly you being dense as tungsten and too lazy to use a
    search engine or a dictionary. Do you get your food pre-chewed
    as well?

    > Both
    > DxO and Adobe assess chromatic aberation.


    Which is "colour fringing" to you. Which is a clear
    mentioning of "color".

    > As far as I am aware only
    > DxO measures the colour profile of the camera's sensor.


    They don't do that. It wouldn't make much sense, either.



    >>>>>>>>> In particular, unlike DXO, what is being measured appears to be the
    >>>>>>>>> behaviour of a particular lens/camera combination.


    >>>>>>>>You meant to say "exactly like DxO, however, unlike DxO it'll
    >>>>>>>>be your camera and your lens you test".


    >>>>>>> No. Unlike DXO.


    >>>>>>Really?


    >>>>>>> DXO will test a lens on a number of different cameras They will also
    >>>>>>> test a camera on a number of different lenses.


    >>>>>>If I test 2 cameras I borrowed and 3 lenses I rented in each
    >>>>>>combination, I'm doing it exactly like DxO (cause I'm not
    >>>>>>testing my own stuff and most of the tests don't help me for
    >>>>>>a lack of having that gear), but if I test my own camera(s)
    >>>>>>to my own lens(es), it's different from DxO?


    >>>>No answer?


    >>> You are now proposing something completely different from your "unlike
    >>> DxO it'll be your camera and your lens you test".


    >>Stop playing around and dancing around and fooling around.
    >>You do understand perfectly well --- if not, ask a five year
    >>old! --- you just don't wnat to admit it.


    > It cannot be "you camera and lens you test" if you test is of a number
    > of different borrowed and rented cameras and lenses.


    Finally. You're beginning to understand. Testing copies
    of lenses and cameras I don't own to make a profile for *my*
    copies ... that's DxO.



    >>>>>>> By a suitable choice of
    >>>>>>> combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    >>>>>>> accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    >>>>>>> lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)


    >>>>>>Eric, you're out of your mind if you believe you can push
    >>>>>>providing proof for your claims on me. You're twice out
    >>>>>>of your mind if you think the *design* of experiments tells
    >>>>>>anything about a *need* for the contortions someone will take
    >>>>>>with their design. Superstition is a prime example where one
    >>>>>>designs something (e.g. a behavior, a building (Feng Shui),
    >>>>>>and so on) and may genuinely believe the contortions are indeed
    >>>>>>necessary, when they in fact are not at all.


    >>>>> A technician you may be, a scientist you are not.


    >>>>"He who makes a claim has to provide proof" is not valid in
    >>>>science?


    >>> Squirming is no substitute for clear statements and clear arguments.


    >>So why do you squirm and think that is science?


    Well?


    >>>>The existence of superstition is not accepted in science?
    >>>> http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.23...id=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=21101565427673
    >>>> http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/brill/beh/1973/00000043/F0020003/art00001
    >>>> http://www.northlandprep.org/proctor/Remote-Controlled Rats - Superstitious Behavior.pdf


    >>>>The existence of unneccessary contortions (see above) believed
    >>>>to be necessary by the performer are not accepted in science?


    >>> This is relevant only to an irrelevancy introduced by yourself.


    >>The irrelevancy of not simply accepting your "people design
    >>experiments in way A, thus way A is neccessary"? I agree.


    >>Relevant is that DxO tests lenses which at least 99.999% of
    >>their users never use --- they only use superficially similar
    >>lenses that act slightly (or not so slightly) differently.


    No answer? Oh well, you ran out of arguments and personal
    attacks.


    >>>>> Have you *never*
    >>>>> encountered the theory behind the design of experiments? It sounds as
    >>>>> though you haven't the faintest idea of what I am talking about.


    >>>>I've not the faintest idea why you think that the design of
    >>>>experiments has anything to do with making a vague ("sufficient
    >>>>degree" --- for what?) claim you want *me* to provide proof for.


    >>> What particular claim do you have in mind?


    >>| By a suitable choice of
    >>| combinations they are able to characterise to a sufficient degree of
    >>| accuracy the properties of the cameras and the properties of the
    >>| lenses. (Look up the design of experiments if you want to know more.)


    >>That was obvious, wasn't it? If not, ask aforementioned five
    >>year old.


    I see.


    >>>>>>> This class of research is way above the level of photographing
    >>>>>>> a brick wall.


    >>>>>>Eric, if my photo of a brick wall shows strong distortions, I
    >>>>>>don't care if DxO labs says about that lens-camera combination
    >>>>>>that there's no distortion.


    >>>>> Then you need DxO software to rectify the distortion, don't you?


    >>>>Epic fail. Facepalm.


    >>>>Slow down, stop knee jerking, start thinking.


    >>>>If DxO says: "no distortion", all they can correct is "no
    >>>>distortion", not "strong distortions", since they don't have
    >>>>the data in first place they need for rectifying.


    >>> You keep putting up straw men.


    >>The straw man of photograping brick walls? That one is yours.


    See?


    >>>>On the other hand, I can just use Adobe's method (or use hugin,
    >>>>for heaven's sake) and correct the distortion really observed
    >>>>with my specific gear. I don't need DxO at all for that.


    >>> If I wanted evidence that you don't know what DxO actually does, the
    >>> paragraph above is more than sufficient. You have trapped yourself
    >>> into thinking that in the field of camera and lens characterisation
    >>> DxO does the same thing as Adobe. In fact, if you look at their
    >>> software you will discover that DxO does considerably more.


    >>If I needed evidence that reading comprehension is a skill you
    >>lack sorely, I'd only needed to point out that I was talking
    >>about distortion.


    > It's funny that: you keep wanting to avoid the extra things that DxO
    > does.


    Tell me which extra things they do that *provide value* to
    the user. Some colour measuring for a specific situation
    that's not reproduceable by the user and for which the user
    who may need it already has better and more flexible tools?
    That's not providing value to the user.

    What else did I miss? Having you buy new modules when you add
    lenses or bodies to your collection? Not being able to profile
    your own lenses? Testing only one copy and rounding the values?
    Offering some "optimized" sharpening based on a completely
    different lens copy on a completely different body copy? Yep,
    sounds cool, but if you want the last bit of sharpness ---
    where that tool may help --- you already have good lenses and
    the differences between copies start to become the limiting
    factor, not where in the frame somthing is.

    >>DxO is fine for those who don't want or cannot profile their
    >>own gear or don't grasp that they'd need that for the last bit
    >>of quality or are dazzled by the "oh gosh look, all-singing,
    >>all-dancing, includes the kitchen sink" feature list.


    And that's it.



    >>> You are not reading the information that is presented to you.


    >>> http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20008399-264.html


    >>> "The tests show results for a single copy of each lens, with serial
    >>> number provided, but DxO factors in variability across multiple
    >>> copies, Touchard said."

    >> "Specifically, he said the score numbers are
    >> rounded to not show a misleading level precision."


    so much for your accuracy for comparison claim.

    >>> How do you think they assess the variability? Test the same lens five
    >>> times, perhaps?


    >>That would be a valid method of testing their testing method's
    >>variability.


    > How would you go about testing the variability of a particular type of
    > lens?


    Who says DxO is testing the variability? Care to show some URL?


    >>How come they don't use averaged test results?
    >>How come they don't give upper and lower limits?
    >>How come they have to "factor in variability" by rounding numbers?


    > Because they are trying to reduce a very complicated subject to
    > something which can be understood by the ordinary mortal.


    I see. Averaging test results --- resulting in the same amount
    of numbers --- is too difficult for "ordinary mortals".
    Upper and lower bounds --- well, even price comparison
    engines use them, and they're designed for very ordinary,
    non-technical mortals.w

    The only reducing they do is simply measuring one lens on
    one body.

    >>The simplest, most natural solution (look up Occham's razor)
    >>for the observed results and the claims provided by you is that
    >>they only test "a single copy of each lens", and variability
    >>is guessed at, bolstered by testing a very few lenses with
    >>more than one copy.


    > You are implying they use dishonest test procedures.


    I am impying that you can't provide any proof they test more
    than one lens copy on one body copy, while I can bring lots
    of facts and observations that point to that. I can't help
    you feel cheated because you always thought they did test
    multiple copies.


    >>>>>>> For example, I don't think Adobe can embed
    >>>>>>> corrections for colour innaccuracy in their profiles. DXO most
    >>>>>>> certainly does.


    >>>>>>Please show the cite where DxO does that.


    >>>>> It's in their software. You can select camera makes and models and see
    >>>>> the effects.


    >>>>I see the same effects when I use a different calibration curve.
    >>>>I see the same effects when I switch off the monitor profile.
    >>>>I see the same effects when I switch to a linear colourspace.
    >>>>I see the same effects when I move the RGBCMY_sliders around.


    >>> But none of the above bullshit is tied to the characteristics of your
    >>> own particular type of camera.


    >>It's extremely trivial to tie a different setting of the
    >>bullshit to each and every type of camera. Would you note
    >>the difference?


    > Oh yes.


    How?
    Did you measure it?

    >>If DxO did what they claimed they did you could shoot the same
    >>scene with identical light with all camera-lens combinations
    >>and get instantly indistinguable results, at least regarding
    >>to colour. There's the reason you cannot (successfully)
    >>profile printers with colourimeters but need spectrometers.
    >>Cameras are colourimeters ... not spectrometers. (Monitors can
    >>be measured by colourimeters --- if their R.G.B spectrums are
    >>known to the calibrator --- since they have 3 colours only.)


    >>Also look up metamerism for a similar problem.


    >>Hence: DxO can try, can get close under a few circumstances,
    >>but they can't win.


    > You are trying to lead the discussion off into the swamps.


    I feel sorry for you that discussing the real value and the
    real problems of colour accuracy bogs you down and you'd
    rather have your DxO placebo.


    >>>>The only way to get accurate colours is to use a lightsource
    >>>>that gives the same light from shot to shot, avoid all coloured
    >>>>reflections in the environment (say, green leafes or blue sky),
    >>>>and use a colour chart to profile your camera and lens for
    >>>>the specific light situation and RAW converter (including the
    >>>>inbuild JPEG engine) settings. Which also means no auto-WB,
    >>>>for example.


    >>> One of the links I have given you shows the DxO setup for doing
    >>> exactly that.


    >>... for the exact circumstances photograpers are encountering
    >>when they need exact colours? Nope. Measure your own it is.


    >>... for the circumstances where photographers would like
    >>different cameras to render the same colour as the same colour?
    >>Nope. There you have way too many variables --- just consider
    >>daytime shooting, flourescent lights and LED lights. Nice try,
    >>best bet is bring your own colour charts.


    I see you don't want to agree, but don't find any counter
    arguments.


    >>>>Everything else will not get you "corrections for colour
    >>>>inaccuracy" --- at best you'll get one specific light situation
    >>>>that may be correct, but which you'll never have.


    >>>>Wake up and smell the coffee.


    >>Good morning!


    >>>>>>And (assuming they do that at all) that helps you only if you
    >>>>>>shoot studio and log the runtimes of your lamps and flashes
    >>>>>>and have a very stable power source for them --- no, wall
    >>>>>>sockets won't do.
    >>>>>>In which case you already *have* a proper colour target or
    >>>>>>five and can apply colour correction to your specific lighting
    >>>>>>situation, your different cameras and lenses and --- of course
    >>>>>>--- your RAW converter's settings.


    >>>>>>In any other setting the light source and environmental
    >>>>>>reflections are too unstable --- unless you maybe shoot film
    >>>>>>and digital at the same time.


    >>>>> You are getting more than a little ridiculous.


    >>>>So where do you think I am wrong? Unless you can point that
    >>>>out, you're ridiculous and in denial.


    >>Obviously Eric doesn't think I am wrong.


    So I may assume that the "getting more than a little
    ridiculous." was just your way of saying "I disagree, but I
    have zero arguments. I want a pony."


    >>>>>>>>People who don't care
    >>>>>>>>so much --- i.e. not D800 owners --- will download one created
    >>>>>>>>with a compatible type (e.g. Nikon 1.5x crop) and the same lens
    >>>>>>>>(different copy, though).


    >>>>>>>>If you had the slightest idea of the whole process --- i.e.
    >>>>>>>>spend less than 30 minutes reading --- you'd know that your
    >>>>>>>>scenario would only happen when someone took the same lens,
    >>>>>>>>mounted it on a camera where it didn't fit natively, extended
    >>>>>>>>the Rebel's sensor to the larger crop of Nikon and then measured
    >>>>>>>>the result. Which would be quite a feat.


    >>>>>>> Especially when you try to take into account the effect of the
    >>>>>>> differences in the sensor grid between a Rebel and a D800.


    >>>>>>"A person would have to lift a multi-gigaton sky scraper and
    >>>>>>carry it through the bog to archive that." -- "Especially when
    >>>>>>they'd have to wear flip-flops."


    >>>>> You don't understand the problem, do you?


    >>>>You don't understand, full stop. The differences in the sensor
    >>>>grid are no real problem, in fact, you've claimed DxO handles
    >>>>them routinely with no problems with "sufficient accuracy".


    >>>>Oh, BTW, anything Canon crop format over 14 MPix has denser
    >>>>pixels than the D800.


    >>> So?


    >>*sigh* Ask a five year old.


    No children in your area?

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2013
    #18
  19. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:19:09 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> rOn Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:53:49 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>>>> But then he sends the results to Adobe. Unless they have already
    >>>>> received the results of other immaculately performed tests on the same
    >>>>> kind of gear Adobe will have no idea of whether the required
    >>>>> corrections fall in the upper, lower or middle sections of the range
    >>>>> of possible corrections. They won't know whether the corrections are
    >>>>> required to correct defects in the camera or the lens.


    >>>>Same with DxO not knowing it from just one lens copy. Except
    >>>>tha Adobe may have tested the lens themselves, and 10.000
    >>>>other people did so as well. Does DxO test 10.000 copies?


    >>> You are now pulling numbers out of the air. Why do you have to resort
    >>> to this?


    >>Because you are pulling numbers like "Adobe will only get one
    >>result" and "DxO tests multiple copies" out of the air.


    > Where did I ever say that?


    You implied it. You also required "immaculately performed
    tests", which not even DxO can produce, because you don't
    grasp statistics, error boundaries and averages.

    >>10.000 is a good estimate for a popular lens-body-combibation.


    > Why?


    Count of lenses and bodies in use
    % of people testing their lenses with Adobe
    % of people who then send in their results

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2013
    #19
  20. Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    > On Sun, 27 Jan 2013 19:22:45 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>Eric Stevens <> wrote:
    >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013 23:41:06 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
    >>>>Eric Stevens <> wrote:


    >>>>> DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they learn the good,
    >>>>> the bad and the indifferent.


    >>>>You still have to provide proof of that assertion.


    >>Well?


    >>>>> DxO tests several of each type of lens. That way they encounter the
    >>>>> good, the bad and the damaged..


    >>>>You still have to provide proof of that assertion.


    >>Well?


    Still waiting ...


    >>In other words:
    >>YOU don't know.
    >>YOU have not a shred of proof.
    >>YOU have a dogma.
    >>YOU are grasping at straws rather than admit the dogma might
    >>be wrong.


    >>Occham's razor supports me.


    > I hope you have got it the right way round.


    It only cuts logic, not people. And I am familiar with it.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Feb 3, 2013
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Arun
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    935
  2. Ivan Ostres

    BGP conditional advertisement

    Ivan Ostres, Aug 2, 2004, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    5,034
    Ivan Ostres
    Aug 9, 2004
  3. Lars L. Christensen

    Advertisement of a default route

    Lars L. Christensen, Jan 27, 2005, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    6,937
    Ivan Ostreš
    Jan 31, 2005
  4. Garry
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    896
    Cisco Fan
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. joe

    funny humor - not an advertisement

    joe, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    436
    anthonyberet
    Oct 16, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page