>>4495441Yes, PTP's DR chart is derived from SNR = 1 (or similar thresholds), not from a human-vision-based "how much DR looks usable in a final image" test. It’s an engineering metric, a standardized benchmark, not a perceptual one. Which also makes it perfectly valid to COMPARE CAMERAS.
> it's almost always several stops off from actual visible dynamic range tests.PTP's DR chart correlates very well with lab-based step chart tests (DXO, IMATEST, CineD, etc.), differences between "visible DR" and SNR-based DR are usually fractions of a stop, not "several", unless you can prove it.
>protip: you can't>also imagine confusing measured ISO and ISO settingYou're right that 100 ISO doesn't mean the same for each brand.
Now, real-world usage: If you are a photographer, you care about how the camera performs when you set it to "ISO 800." If Camera A at ISO 800 has more dynamic range than Camera B at ISO 800, Camera A is performing better for you in the field, regardless of the underlying "true" voltage measurement.
Some like fujiworms "underrate" their ISO to protect highlights. This might shift their position on a graph slightly, it doesn't magically create dynamic range that isn't there, that's just a physical impossibility. You can’t "fake" high dynamic range by simply renaming ISO 100 to ISO 200 and dumping gain. If a sensor is small or noisy, it will show up as a lower line on that chart regardless of the label. At best you'll offset the curve by a fraction of a stop, and that's pretty much all PTP warns you against when comparing at a specific ISO setting.
>the g9ii is notable for looking good on DR charts but 99% of the actual photos look like dogshit.DR measures how much detail you can pull back from both extremes, the potential recoverable signal, not artistic usefulness or perceptually how good the image will look. This is off-topic. Blame Panasoniggers for their non-existent skills.
>leave gearfagging to smart people.So not you?
Niggerlicious post.
