> 100 point DXOMark Sensor score.

[thierrylegros396]

OK, it's not a still camera, but results seems to be very good for a "small" sensor < Full frame.

Read the "In depth review" page.

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier

Have a Nice Day.

Thierry

[Brian Hirschfeld]

Ridiculous hype-based nonsense. Great it has more "dynamic range". Still somewhat unclear how their measurements system works, I mean don't video cameras function differently in the way that they handle digital imaging?

 But anyway, put up a still from a RED next to a Nikon D800e, and then put both of those up next to a PhaseOne IQ260 and then get back to me.

[LKaven]

It seems that the reviewers do not have access to the raw bayer data.  I don't know how they can verify the results.

Granted that a half a stop in DR doesn't seem impossible for the coming generation of sensors that /aren't in production yet/.  But I also wonder if the extra DR isn't at the top end, and not at the bottom end?  You can add a stop of highlight protection and still call it DR, even where little improvement has been made in terms of absolute signal handling.

[LKaven]

Some analysis over here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier/In-Depth-Analysis

DxO believes they are using temporal noise reduction (through multisamplng) to achieve the unexpected results they are getting. 

They also note that the sensor calls for no analog gain.  The specs have it as a native ISO 250, but the measured ISO is ISO 104.  That's interesting. 

[The View]

Why are people still getting excited about dxo mark?

These are technical points given by pixel peepers who are not photographers or artists and who have no clue about actual qualities of an image.

You can as well try to find the painter with the maximum image quality by ranking their quality like brush stroke, color range, etc.

Or ranking poetry as done by the ignorant English teacher in the movie "Dead Poets Society".

[Codger]

After reading some of these (and other) negative comments about DxO I'm curious whether there is ANY merit to the data DxO produces?  Can any of their measurements play a part in selecting equipment, whether lenses or cameras?

[BernardLanguillier]

Why are people still getting excited about dxo mark?

These are technical points given by pixel peepers who are not photographers or artists and who have no clue about actual qualities of an image.

As far as I am concerned, my confidence in the DxOMark results is increasing every time they release such results.

We had been told by Red users for months/years that they were seeing incredible DR in their files... and DxO confirms that. MFDB owners tell us that they see more noise in the shadows of the P45+ compared to a Sony A99... and DxO Mark results confirm that,... the list goes on and on.

The DxO Mark results are simply the most credible measurement we have of the technical qualities of imaging sensors today.

Now, it is totally obvious that the technical qualities of imaging sensors are only a small contributors to the quality of the images captured by the camera using this sensor (my view remains that "the camera is the least important part of photography"), and the technical qualities of an imaging sensor mesured by DxO is only one aspect of a camera system (together with UI, handling, AF, lenses,...) but if you try to select a camera based on some defined technical sensor needs, DxOMark is the best information source in town.

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

Why are people still getting excited about dxo mark?

Why are people still getting angry about dxo mark?

It seems to measure pretty accurately and repeatably just what it claims to measure. It does not measure artistic genious, but then it never claims to do so either, so why be upset that it does not?

-h

[MrSmith]

Thing is Alexa users are not about to go running to the shop to buy a RED just because a bunch of measurebators says a sensor gets a 100 point score. They are a lot smarter than that.

[hjulenissen]

...measurebators...

You lost me right there. Once you have to resort to name-calling, I am assuming that you have nothing of value to add to the discussion.

-h

[MrSmith]

my comment is valid, you only have to look around on the web to see plenty of people who like to comment on equipment they neither own/rent/use/have experience of. and use some statistical evidence that doesn't always offer any insight to real user experience (and how different those can be)
whether you attach any credence to my comment is entirely up to you, it makes no difference to me.

[BernardLanguillier]

my comment is valid, you only have to look around on the web to see plenty of people who like to comment on equipment they neither own/rent/use/have experience of. and use some statistical evidence that doesn't always offer any insight to real user experience (and how different those can be)
whether you attach any credence to my comment is entirely up to you, it makes no difference to me.

The fact that some people make stupid usage of data doesn't imply that this data is useless.

Besides, some photographer who do use their equipment to create art (within the limits of their abilities of course) are also interested in their technical aspects and have a scientific background that enables them to secure a certain level of understanding. What's wrong with that?

Cheers,
Bernard

[PhotoEcosse]

This discussion seems to be generating more heat than light.

As someone who takes his photographs in the real world, rather than in a laboratory, I am nevertheless interested in the technology and I can make my own decsions about whether lab results have, or have not, any significance for my practice.

[Ajoy Roy]

What Red has done is commendable. I hope that 35mm still cameras also come in "modular" format like MF backs (of course at a much lower price)

As far as DXO ratings go, it is excellent as a comparison tool, especially for lenses. If I want to know which lense is sharper or has less CA or has less distortion, DXO results are enough.

[allegretto]

I hope that 35mm still cameras also come in "modular" format like MF backs (of course at a much lower price)

With cameras as Sony's and adapters, we essentially have this already. It will get cheaper in the future and better as adapters improve too.

[MrSmith]

The fact that some people make stupid usage of data doesn't imply that this data is useless.

Besides, some photographer who do use their equipment to create art (within the limits of their abilities of course) are also interested in their technical aspects and have a scientific background that enables them to secure a certain level of understanding. What's wrong with that?

Cheers,
Bernard

nothing wrong with that at all. i was merely commenting on how this sensor will now be hailed as the imaging fidelity zeitgeist that many will compare/mention yet never buy or use.
no idea if it was just a U.K. thing but there was a card game called Top-Trumps when i was a kid, the highest scoring card was the lambo countach, if you had this 100 point card you were king of the playground,  web chatter will hail the RED as the new King but in the real world people will carry on making images with what they have.

[LKaven]

Hopefully we can retire the term "measurebator."  It's anti-intellectual.

[BJL]

Some analysis over here:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/RED-Epic-Dragon-review-First-camera-to-break-the-100-point-DxOMark-sensor-score-barrier/In-Depth-Analysis

DxO believes they are using temporal noise reduction (through multisamplng) to achieve the unexpected results they are getting.  

That seems very likely, since DXO has to work with 5:1 compressed output from a 24fps video stream that has then been processed by RED's proprietary software, not a single raw frame. And of true, this completely invalidates any scoring comparisons to other cameras of DR and color depth -- unless those other cameras are also evaluated on the basis of files created by the blending of multiple frames.

That, along with the fact that this critical qualification is buried, deep, deep into the article rather than mentioned up front or through the multiple pages of open-mouthed wonder, makes the whole story smell like link bait.

The specs have it as a native ISO 250, but the measured ISO is ISO 104.

It is totally expected that the default exposure index [250] is higher than the lower extreme of the ISO's speed latitude range [104].  Note that what DXO persistently yet falsely misdescribes as the "measured ISO speed" is in fact what the ISO describes as the lower extreme of the ISO speed latitude range, based on being the lowest exposure index at which the camera still gives a barely acceptable three stops between metered mid-tones and blown highlights. "Minimum", not "ideal" or "recommended" or "required" or "any deviation is a misstatement of ISO by the camera maker".

For a video camera giving about 14 stops of DR, and where lighting can fluctuate during a take, placing the midtones at a minimal three stops below blown highlights and so about eleven stops above the shadow noise floor would be crazy, so of course RED (along with all sensible designers of high-end still cameras) choose a different placement of about "4 stops above, 10 below" which better protects highlights while still keeping the noise floor at a negligible level in most situations.


P. S. Dead-horse flogging time: What the ISO 12232 standard actual says about ISO speed and other measures, and the clear contradiction to what DXO says, is summarized in my post at http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=87439.msg711760#msg711760

[BJL]

As far as I am concerned, my confidence in the DxOMark results is increasing every time they release such results.

We had been told by Red users for months/years that they were seeing incredible DR in their files... and DxO confirms that.

That much is plausible ... once one acknowledges that the DR has probably been enhanced by the averaging of information from several frames taken in rapid succession (temporal noise reduction), sort of like HDR on the fly.  Since other video output can get similar processing, this is reasonably fair for comparisons to video produced with other tools -- just not for comparing to images produced using a single frame from a still camera.

I am even willing to speak up in favor of doing some assessments of the final images that a camera and associated software [in-camera or in-computer] can deliver, though I understand why some people are also interested in assessing raw ADC outpu, which is not available in this case.

[hjulenissen]

my comment is valid

"Measurebator" hints that you see other people as standing behind their oscilloscope with their fly open. People tend to not like being characterized that way.

"putting too much weight on measurements rather than experience" would seem to be a neutral (though awkward) way of expressing what you wanted to say.

-h