>>4278676Tell us about these performance metrics anon. Did they come from dxomark? Were they estimated by examining "raw" files under the assumption that they represented unprocessed sensor output?
Of course. That's how all "camera performance facts" are "discovered". But it's a black box of proprietary software. Consumer cameras do a lot of things behind the scenes for this specific reasons. Users look at their raws, look for flaws, and compare them to other peoples raws for flaws, all under the assumption that raw represents hardware performance.
What motivation could a camera manufacturer have to secretly apply pre-processing to raws to make them look better?
>inb4 no, no one is reducing noise because that would make images blurrier, I just looked at my camera and its super sharp!Imatest allows using noise reduction because it does not have a perceivable impact on the MTF curve. They actually recommend leaving it turned on!
https://www.imatest.com/support/docs/24-1/sharpness/slanted-edge-noise-reduction/>inb4 but bill claff did/didn't find evidence of...He's a buffoon who can't chart ISOs properly and an inconsistent amateur researcher.
Some cameras do it more obviously than others, but do assume all cameras are fucking with your raws before you even see them. DXO scores are complete and absolute bullshit and should not be trusted because they are based entirely on noise.
