Gavjenks
TPF Noob!
- Joined
- May 9, 2013
- Messages
- 2,976
- Reaction score
- 588
- Location
- Iowa City, IA
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
DxO Mark is annoying. How do they arrive at their "sharpness" score? Nobody knows. And that's pretty much the only number that the two lenses in question differ on significantly, that is creating almost the entire difference in total score.
DxO Mark says they derive their sharpness score somehow from MTF charts mixed with some subjective human visual acuity function. The two I just pasted above look pretty much identical to me out to the limits of the DX sensor size. How the hell are they arriving at one bing TWICE as high of a sharpness score as the other? It must be coming almost entirely from their subjective component, which they don't bother to ever explain in any detail. When you go to the page about perceptual megapixels, it basically can be summarized as "You, reader, are probably really dumb and don't know what MTF scores mean. After all, there are 4 whole lines! And numbers! Who understands those?! Hah! Right? Right. So trust us instead to boil it down to one number... somehow. It's scientific though. It's very scientific, that much we can tell you. We have like, all these top scientists doing sciencey cutting edge stuff. You wouldn't understand, you being a lowly photographer, but you should feel very confident about the final pretty number. Did we mention science was involved in calculating it?"
Sigh. Every time I actually try to use DxO Mark for anything or am directed there by anybody else, I get more and more disappointed in them.
DxO Mark says they derive their sharpness score somehow from MTF charts mixed with some subjective human visual acuity function. The two I just pasted above look pretty much identical to me out to the limits of the DX sensor size. How the hell are they arriving at one bing TWICE as high of a sharpness score as the other? It must be coming almost entirely from their subjective component, which they don't bother to ever explain in any detail. When you go to the page about perceptual megapixels, it basically can be summarized as "You, reader, are probably really dumb and don't know what MTF scores mean. After all, there are 4 whole lines! And numbers! Who understands those?! Hah! Right? Right. So trust us instead to boil it down to one number... somehow. It's scientific though. It's very scientific, that much we can tell you. We have like, all these top scientists doing sciencey cutting edge stuff. You wouldn't understand, you being a lowly photographer, but you should feel very confident about the final pretty number. Did we mention science was involved in calculating it?"
Sigh. Every time I actually try to use DxO Mark for anything or am directed there by anybody else, I get more and more disappointed in them.
Last edited: