The problem (I suspect) with measuring pattern noise is that it is more subjective. Right now, DXO sticks to measuring things that can be quantified. I like that approach.
The problem (I suspect) with measuring pattern noise is that it is more subjective. Right now, DXO sticks to measuring things that can be quantified. I like that approach.
I used to think so, but a lens+camera designer in the UK told me that the military uses several methods for objectively measuring pattern noise that work very well. I forget what they were called, but I think there were some some papers or something published about them. (I know that a FFT is involved at some point.) In any case, it's not really fair to look a gift horse in the mouth by complaining about what they don't measure.Originally Posted by Jon Ruyle
That's interesting. I'm totally ignorant of matters involving signal processing, but it seems to me that an fft would allow one to measure spikes along certain spacial frequencies, so it is not surprising that such methods exist and that they involve a Fourier transform (by contrast, the Fourier transform of the Poisson distribution you get from photon noise is highly regular)
But as you say, DXO is pretty good as they are, especially when compared to other some reviewers out there (Bryan excluded, of course).
Last edited by Jon Ruyle; 03-30-2012 at 07:48 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote