Pixel 2 dethrones iPhone 8 Plus and Galaxy Note 8 in camera rankings

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 10:22:30 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 20:33:27 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

"math" is not an explanation.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

On Sun, 08 Oct 2017 22:29:31 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

You are assuming one bit per unit exposure value. Why are you doing
that?

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

You are assuming one bit per unit exposure value. Why are you doing
that?

because as i've said several times, sensors are linear devices.

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 00:12:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

All I require is a clear and complete (though it can be brief)
explanation of why the other person is correct. A single "no" or
"wrong" does not qualify. What is required is an _explanation_.

a rather lengthy one was provided.

Are you referring to:

"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

that was part of it.

If so, could you please explain why you old that opinon.

If not could you please explain why you hold that opinion.

math.

Please go away and don't come back until you learn to explain
yourself.

i did explain myself.

you refuse to learn.

"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

You are assuming one bit per unit exposure value. Why are you doing
that?

because as i've said several times, sensors are linear devices.

That's no explanation.

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

You are assuming one bit per unit exposure value. Why are you doing
that?

because as i've said several times, sensors are linear devices.

That's no explanation.

yes it most certainly is.

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.

hdr is done with multiple exposures.

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.

displays are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.

printers are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?

because sensors are linear devices.

i explained this already.

feel free to design a non-linear sensor. until that time, they remain
linear.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.

math and physics are as binding as it gets.

On Mon, 09 Oct 2017 04:26:39 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:


"math" is not an explanation.

it is when you ignored this:
"a 14 bit adc guarantees that the *maximum* theoretical dynamic
range is 14 stops and that's only in ideal conditions (which is
never the case)."?

you claimed that it's possible to have more dynamic range than the
number of bits, which is only true if the encoding is *non-linear*.

camera sensors are linear devices, therefore that does not apply.

You are assuming one bit per unit exposure value. Why are you doing
that?

because as i've said several times, sensors are linear devices.

That's no explanation.

yes it most certainly is.

put simply, the dynamic range in stops can't ever be more than the
number of bits in the adc.

Only if you code one stop per bit. There is no requirement that it be
a simple linear scale. If you have (say) a dynamic range of 16 stops
it is still possible to code it with 14 bits: i.e. 1.14 stops per bit.
This can be variously ignored or tidied up by the raw decoder.

that's true, except that sensors are linear devices and therefore that
does not apply.

Dynamic range is being compressed all along the way. A classic example
is HDR.

hdr is done with multiple exposures.

So?

With a wide range source it is compressed to enable it to be viewed on
a scren or monitor.

displays are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

With almost any source it is compressed when it is printed.

printers are non-linear.
sensors are linear.

So?

Why on earth should it not be compressed (a little or a lot) when it
is encoded in a raw file?

because sensors are linear devices.

And linear devices can't be compressed?

i explained this already.

feel free to design a non-linear sensor. until that time, they remain
linear.

i've said this several times. why do you ignore it?

Because it is not binding.

math and physics are as binding as it gets.

Only as binding as the axioms which lie behind them. And no axiom is
binding.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens