Samsung Galaxy S9
- Ustvarjalec teme Flash
- Začetni datum
Vsaj jaz bom kar podaljšal interval menjave telefonov. Če sem prej menjal na 2 leti, bo zdaj na 4. Sploh zdaj, ko vemo za Applov trik z upočasnjevanjem telefonov.
A za tole sta šla v Barcelono na izlet???? Uf, ima cajta rajaŠe malo
Tak sem jaz že zdaj naredil, zato pa še vztrajam na iPhone 6. Zdaj ga bom počasi po nekaj več kot 3 letih upokojil.
A za tole sta šla v Barcelono na izlet???? Uf, ima cajta raja
Seveda. Samo izlet
Lahko si pa kaj prebereš na mobile
Iz tega filmčka bi težko trdil, da je katerakoli kamera boljša. Obe sta dobri. Pri nekaterih slikah se mi zdi S9+ boljši, pri nekaterih pixel. Pogosto odvisno od osvetlitve in fokusa.
da malo podražim:Kaj jim pomaga, če dela pixel 2 še vedno boljše slike
http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/22562_camera_head_to_head_lumia_950_.php
Tako:
https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s9-plus-review-premium-specs-top-end-performance/
Ni boljšega kar se kamere tičejo, tako pravijo kdo zdaj laže???
https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s9-plus-review-premium-specs-top-end-performance/
Ni boljšega kar se kamere tičejo, tako pravijo
kdo zdaj laže???
Oni. Ker je logično, da ima S6 s 16 Mpix več detajlov v zelo dobri svetlobi.Tako:
https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s9-plus-review-premium-specs-top-end-performance/
Ni boljšega kar se kamere tičejo, tako pravijo
What does DxOMark do?Tako:
https://www.dxomark.com/samsung-galaxy-s9-plus-review-premium-specs-top-end-performance/
Ni boljšega kar se kamere tičejo, tako pravijo
DxO Labs, the company which runs the DxOMark testing suite, is primarily a consultancy company. In other words, the company charges fees to advise camera hardware companies on how to improve their products based on its own analysis and expertise in the camera industry.
No review site is guaranteed to be free from bias, but DxO’s business revolves around attracting big companies to it to make use of its expertise, which adds a lot of baggage to their reviews. Ranking test results in a way that encourages consumers to buy certain phones over others complicates everything.
The company claims to run an independent test, but is that really possible when it offers for-profit consultancy, too? There’s no reason to believe DxOMark is in anyway rigging results — after-all the company’s business model depends on its reputation and its results tend to roughly fit with the broader consensus on camera hardware. However, manufacturers that tune their cameras against the testing suite are likely to score higher than those who don’t. So does this decrease the value of the test itself?
The pay-to-win problem
In addition to consulting with other companies, DxO Labs also sells its DxO Analyzer solution for testing and measuring cameras. Obtaining a license to use the suite is expensive, especially when you factor in the costs of installation and training to familiarize companies with its functions. There’s nothing wrong with this in principle, however one would assume that a company, say a smartphone manufacturer, that refines its camera hardware using the DxO Analyzer will score highly when DxOMark comes to test the final product.
There is nothing inherently wrong with a company paying for a service that will result in better quality cameras in their smartphones. Helping to create superior photography results is in everyone’s interests. However, there’s a reliance in the media on DxoMark scores to judge camera quality, which gives the company a lot of influence over not just industry imaging quality, but also how consumers perceive smartphone products. Those who pay to work closely with DxOMark will likely score more highly in the company’s tests, which is then quoted by many other review sites. There’s pressure on smartphone OEMs to pay for DxO’s services simply to keep near the top of the pack.
The company proudly notes that “all top ten DSC manufacturers and all top smartphone and camera module makers are DxO Analyzer customers.”
DxO stakes its reputation on helping companies improve image quality and would have a lot to lose by fiddling its scores.
That appears to be the situation we’re looking at, as many of the biggest brands in the smartphone and professional camera markets are customers of DxO. HTC, Huawei, Samsung, and Foxconn are all DxO Analyzer customers, but we don’t know if other companies are also paying for consultancy. These companies look to be getting their money’s worth, with each new generation achieving a higher score than the last. But perhaps most importantly, can we be sure that these latest products are really offering tangible improvements to us consumers?
The score weighting used in DxOMark’s latest smartphone scoring system is debatable. Phones can score additional points based on minor or more niche use cases such as software bokeh, zoom or video, while wide-angled, RAW, or monochrome capabilities aren’t considered in the final score. Its scoring system is problematic as some smartphone camera designs can more easily score points than others.
This leads us to perhaps the biggest issue of all with the industry’s reliance on DxOMark. If companies are shaping their camera development around these tests, DxOMark is thereby partly shaping the development trajectory of smartphone products. However, as the tests aren’t entirely comprehensive and weigh certain features ahead of others, we’re seeing more importance placed on features that consumers may not care so much about.
Closing thoughts
All of the above considered, we should definitely take DxOMark’s scores with a pinch of salt. A company working closely with smartphone manufacturers to improve picture quality is surely a good thing for consumers, and DxO clearly knows what it’s talking about when it comes to camera quality. However it’s important to recognize the potential for bias from a company that has a need to sell services to camera developers, while also scoring the results from companies that it works closely with against those it doesn’t. More so when the tests aren’t completely comprehensive or evenly weighted for all possible features.
Do the Pixel 2, Galaxy Note 8, and iPhone 8 all feature best in class cameras? Absolutely. Is DxOMark’s ranking system reflective of camera quality? Probably, depending on the weighting of the results. If some OEMs working closely with the test provider are benefiting with better scores, that’s not inherently bad if its producing better cameras. But if we want more transparent testing and results for smartphone camera quality, consumers, reviewers, and those in the industry should want to consult a wider range of sources.
The more DxOMark scores are cited in popular media, the more pressure there is upon smartphone and other camera makers to submit devices not only to DxOMark's testing, but to purchase their consultancy and other services to maximize their end score to beat competitors. It almost goes without saying, but DxO makes no promises that the cameras it judges have not been tuned to maximize their scores under DxO's benchmarking tools by DxO themselves. Products that have received versus not received consultancy and tuning from DxO Labs are not identified, and so it is impossible to know which camera has likely been tuned to maximize its score under the test conditions versus which tends to do well without having specifically been adapted to DxO's parameters.
This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies that choose not to license its software or services. Perhaps some phones never get the benefit of a test at all, given that they are not licensees or do not directly submit their devices to DxO. Perhaps others would not have received such excellent scores without the assistance of DxO themselves in maximizing their performance under the test conditions and values DxO design, implement, and weigh. We do not know that they abuse this power, simply that the power exists, and that the capacity for abuse is clearly present.
This also gives DxO Labs the power to silently "shame" the companies that choose not to license its software or services. Perhaps some phones never get the benefit of a test at all, given that they are not licensees or do not directly submit their devices to DxO. Perhaps others would not have received such excellent scores without the assistance of DxO themselves in maximizing their performance under the test conditions and values DxO design, implement, and weigh. We do not know that they abuse this power, simply that the power exists, and that the capacity for abuse is clearly present.
Podobne teme
