>>4211154>objective data is retarded>photostophotons is retarded"let me tell you which SNR is acceptable"
"measured ISO? no, only labeled, heheh"
"i only care about le grain percent not the five dozen other things that matter more like color data and the subjective appearance of grain"
"muh numbers"
The only dynamic range chart that ever mattered is pic related, and not measured by a computer, but by a human observer deciding if the result looks good to them, because what a computer calls an unacceptable SNR can appear to the human brain as better than a computed "superior" result. Computer measurement is for astronomers who need to know what's noise and what's actually 9001 light years away.
Computer measurements are irrelevant to photography. If it looks good, it is a good photo, even if the computer says ""zomg 420db NOT REAL DYNAMIC RANGE" when you clearly see some tonality.
