DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro

Zitelli <joezitelli@areyoucrazy.spam.com> wrote:
> DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro
>

This post is so useless. Is there a link you want to share?

On 2022-10-02, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
> Zitelli <joezitelli@areyoucrazy.spam.com> wrote:
>> DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro
>
> This post is so useless. Is there a link you want to share?

TBF, DxOMark is fairly useless anyway.

--
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

badgolferman wrote at Sun, 2 Oct 2022 16:45:17 -0000 (UTC) :

> Zitelli <joezitelli@areyoucrazy.spam.com> wrote:
>> DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro
>>
>
> This post is so useless. Is there a link you want to share?

How can one not be aware of DxOMark who is long the most respected reliable
independent scientific tester of smartphone AV quality for the industry?

https://www.dxomark.com/

Jolly Roger wrote at 2 Oct 2022 18:43:49 GMT :

> On 2022-10-02, badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Zitelli <joezitelli@areyoucrazy.spam.com> wrote:
>>> DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro
>>
>> This post is so useless. Is there a link you want to share?
>
> TBF, DxOMark is fairly useless anyway.

Name a more respected reliable independent scientific tester of smartphone
AV quality for the industry.

On 10/2/2022 9:45 AM, badgolferman wrote:
> Zitelli <joezitelli@areyoucrazy.spam.com> wrote:
>> DxOMark has just released its camera assessment of the iPhone 14 Pro
>>
>
> This post is so useless. Is there a link you want to share?
>

<https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>

The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second highest
in the world (that they've tested).

Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:

> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>
> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second highest
> in the world (that they've tested).

They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/

But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.
--
Alfred Molon

Olympus 4/3 and micro 4/3 cameras forum at
https://groups.io/g/myolympus
https://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On 04/10/2022 18:00, Alfred Molon wrote:
> Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:
>
>> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>>
>> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second
>> highest in the world (that they've tested).
>
> They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
>
> But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.

How much would you need to spend on a camera which would take
photographs of the quality attainable by using an iPhone 14 Pro?

In article <thhfgb$2luen$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second highest
> in the world (that they've tested).

first of all, a single score is meaningless because different people
use their cameras in different ways. for example, someone who shoots
outdoor landscapes won't care about low light performance or zoom
range. someone who shoots sports needs a fast and responsive camera,
whereas someone who shoots still life does not. no single camera is
best at everything (nor is any other device, for that matter).

second, those who pay dxo rank higher than those who don't. apple
doesn't play those games, so to get the top ranking is quite the feat.

On 10/4/2022 10:40 AM, David Brooks wrote:
> On 04/10/2022 18:00, Alfred Molon wrote:
>> Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:
>>
>>> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>>>
>>> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second
>>> highest in the world (that they've tested).
>>
>> They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
>> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
>>
>> But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.
>
> How much would you need to spend on a camera which would take
> photographs of the quality attainable by using an iPhone 14 Pro?

I'd may a lot for a digital mirrorless camera with high-quality lenses
and computational photography. Like the Fuji X-H2S.And you will pay a
lot for it!

Smartphone cameras are great, but add computational photography
capability to a real camera and it takes things to another level.

On 04/10/2022 23:09, sms wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 10:40 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>> On 04/10/2022 18:00, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:
>>>
>>>> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>>>>
>>>> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second
>>>> highest in the world (that they've tested).
>>>
>>> They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
>>> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
>>>
>>> But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.
>>
>> How much would you need to spend on a camera which would take
>> photographs of the quality attainable by using an iPhone 14 Pro?
>
> I'd may a lot for a digital mirrorless camera with high-quality lenses
> and computational photography. Like the Fuji X-H2S.And you will pay a
> lot for it!
>
> Smartphone cameras are great, but add computational photography
> capability to a real camera and it takes things to another level.

Do you consider that THIS software https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai

Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?

Serious question!

In article <iC2%K.974510$YC96.900668@fx12.ams1>, David Brooks
<BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

>
> Do you consider that THIS software https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>
> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?

which cell carrier does that software work with?

> Serious question!

no it isn't.

nospam said:

> first of all, a single score is meaningless because different people
> use their cameras in different ways.

First of all you misread the review because it contains far more than a
single score.

> for example, someone who shoots
> outdoor landscapes won't care about low light performance or zoom
> range.

For example, they covered all types of light and zoom ranges in the DxOMark
testing suite.

> someone who shoots sports needs a fast and responsive camera,
> whereas someone who shoots still life does not. no single camera is
> best at everything (nor is any other device, for that matter).

What DxOMark comprehensive tests do is cover all the test bases.
You can choose which result is more important to you in the review.

> second, those who pay dxo rank higher than those who don't.

Point to the evidence of your absurd accusation.

> apple
> doesn't play those games, so to get the top ranking is quite the feat.

You just are unhappy that Apple doesn't make smartphone cameras that are as
good in independent testing as they are when Apple floats a video of them.

In article <4db85c98-019a-41b6-a25b-b5edebef6a10n@googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >
> > <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
> >
> > The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second highest
> > in the world (that they've tested).
>
> The phone isn't performing in sales as they'd hoped.

rubbish. the reality is that it's outperforming their expectations,
which is why there's currently about a one month backlog for most
models, some even longer.

> All of a sudden, shining reviews appear.

more rubbish. reviews have been consistent all along.

On 10/4/2022 3:39 PM, David Brooks wrote:
> On 04/10/2022 23:09, sms wrote:
>> On 10/4/2022 10:40 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>>> On 04/10/2022 18:00, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>> Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:
>>>>
>>>>> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>>>>>
>>>>> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second
>>>>> highest in the world (that they've tested).
>>>>
>>>> They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
>>>> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
>>>>
>>>> But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.
>>>
>>> How much would you need to spend on a camera which would take
>>> photographs of the quality attainable by using an iPhone 14 Pro?
>>
>> I'd may a lot for a digital mirrorless camera with high-quality lenses
>> and computational photography. Like the Fuji X-H2S.And you will pay a
>> lot for it!
>>
>> Smartphone cameras are great, but add computational photography
>> capability to a real camera and it takes things to another level.
>
> Do you consider that THIS software https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>
> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?

No.

The computational photography features are built into the phone's
firmware. While the iPhone 14 did come in second in the world in the
DXOMark tests, it does lack some features present in other phone
cameras. The Pixel phones have an awesome astrophotography mode. Other
phones have better pseudo optical zoom lenses, and Sony has the first
phone with a true optical zoom lens, coming later this month, for a
whopping $1,599.99
<https://www.theverge.com/23065641/sony-xperia-1-iv-announcement-hands-on-price-specs-zoom-screen>.

No smart phone can get around the issue of the small sensor and its
performance in low light.

On 10/4/2022 6:49 PM, Zitelli wrote:
> nospam said:
>
>> first of all, a single score is meaningless because different people
>> use their cameras in different ways.
>
> First of all you misread the review because it contains far more than a
> single score.
>
>> for example, someone who shoots
>> outdoor landscapes won't care about low light performance or zoom
>> range.
>
> For example, they covered all types of light and zoom ranges in the DxOMark
> testing suite.
>
>> someone who shoots sports needs a fast and responsive camera,
>> whereas someone who shoots still life does not. no single camera is
>> best at everything (nor is any other device, for that matter).
>
> What DxOMark comprehensive tests do is cover all the test bases.
> You can choose which result is more important to you in the review.
>
>> second, those who pay dxo rank higher than those who don't.
>
> Point to the evidence of your absurd accusation.

It's especially absurd because the iPhones nearly always rank near the
top in the DXOMark reviews, and you can be pretty certain that Apple
isn't paying for those high rankings.

In article <thj3qi$2tfdf$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> While the iPhone 14 did come in second in the world in the
> DXOMark tests, it does lack some features present in other phone
> cameras.

and has many features other cameras do not.

> The Pixel phones have an awesome astrophotography mode.

iphones can do that without a separate mode.

> Other
> phones have better pseudo optical zoom lenses,

not really.

> and Sony has the first
> phone with a true optical zoom lens, coming later this month, for a
> whopping $1,599.99

and it won't sell particularly well.

being first with something that doesn't sell is not a particularly good
strategy.

> No smart phone can get around the issue of the small sensor and its
> performance in low light.

that part is true.

On 04/10/2022 23:45, nospam wrote:
> In article <iC2%K.974510$YC96.900668@fx12.ams1>, David Brooks
> <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:
>
>>
>> Do you consider that THIS software https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>>
>> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
>
> which cell carrier does that software work with?

How is that relevant?

>> Serious question!
>
> no it isn't.

Yes, it is.

On 05/10/2022 06:13, sms wrote:
> On 10/4/2022 3:39 PM, David Brooks wrote:
>> On 04/10/2022 23:09, sms wrote:
>>> On 10/4/2022 10:40 AM, David Brooks wrote:
>>>> On 04/10/2022 18:00, Alfred Molon wrote:
>>>>> Am 04.10.2022 um 16:21 schrieb sms:
>>>>>
>>>>>> <https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro " rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/Apple/iPhone-14-Pro>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The highest score of any phone sold in the U.S., and the second
>>>>>> highest in the world (that they've tested).
>>>>>
>>>>> They rank it 2nd behind the Honor Magic4 Ultimate.
>>>>> https://www.dxomark.com/smartphones/
>>>>>
>>>>> But personally, I wouldn't spend so much money for a smartphone.
>>>>
>>>> How much would you need to spend on a camera which would take
>>>> photographs of the quality attainable by using an iPhone 14 Pro?
>>>
>>> I'd may a lot for a digital mirrorless camera with high-quality
>>> lenses and computational photography. Like the Fuji X-H2S.And you
>>> will pay a lot for it!
>>>
>>> Smartphone cameras are great, but add computational photography
>>> capability to a real camera and it takes things to another level.
>>
>> Do you consider that THIS software
>> https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>>
>> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
>
> No.
>
> The computational photography features are built into the phone's
> firmware. While the iPhone 14 did come in second in the world in the
> DXOMark tests, it does lack some features present in other phone
> cameras. The Pixel phones have an awesome astrophotography mode. Other
> phones have better pseudo optical zoom lenses, and Sony has the first
> phone with a true optical zoom lens, coming later this month, for a
> whopping $1,599.99
> <https://www.theverge.com/23065641/sony-xperia-1-iv-announcement-hands-on-price-specs-zoom-screen>.
>
> No smart phone can get around the issue of the small sensor and its
> performance in low light.

Thank you for your comments.

I'm actually amazed at the quality I get from my iPhone SE (SE), so I
have little doubt that the 14 Pro will be awesome!

In article <7za%K.1023598$%q2.368516@fx15.ams1>, David Brooks
<BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

> >> Do you consider that THIS software https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
> >>
> >> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
> >
> > which cell carrier does that software work with?
>
> How is that relevant?

comparing a phone to software is well beyond stupid.

they are two *very* different things, for very different purposes.

> >> Serious question!
> >
> > no it isn't.
>
> Yes, it is.

no, it isn't.

On 05/10/2022 14:22, nospam wrote:
> In article <7za%K.1023598$%q2.368516@fx15.ams1>, David Brooks
> <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:
>
>>>> Do you consider that THIS software
https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>>>>
>>>> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
>>>
>>> which cell carrier does that software work with?
>>
>> How is that relevant?
>
> comparing a phone to software is well beyond stupid.

I agree. 😂 I'm glad I didn't do that.

> they are two *very* different things, for very different purposes.

I agree. They are. 😂

>>>> Serious question!
>>>
>>> no it isn't.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> no, it isn't.

I will put your penchant for child-like silliness down to senility and
will forgive you. ❤️

The iPhone *takes* a photograph.

The software *enhances* a photograph.

If the result of the enhancement by the software was to provide a better
viewable image (from a photograph taken with my current iPhone SE) than
a basic photograph taken with the iPhone 14, it would appear to preclude
the need to purchase an iPhone 14.

Do you really consider that false?

In article <3lh%K.1023603$%q2.435521@fx15.ams1>, David Brooks
<BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:

> >>>> Do you consider that THIS software
> https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
> >>>>
> >>>> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
> >>>
> >>> which cell carrier does that software work with?
> >>
> >> How is that relevant?
> >
> > comparing a phone to software is well beyond stupid.
>
> I agree. ? I'm glad I didn't do that.

you did do that.

On 05/10/2022 16:53, nospam wrote:
> In article <3lh%K.1023603$%q2.435521@fx15.ams1>, David Brooks
> <BDB@not.on.your.life> wrote:
>
>> >>>> Do you consider that THIS software
>> https://www.topazlabs.com/topaz-photo-ai
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Would be a better investment than buying a new iPhone 14 Pro?
>> >>>
>> >>> which cell carrier does that software work with?
>> >>
>> >> How is that relevant?
>> >
>> > comparing a phone to software is well beyond stupid.
>>
>> I agree. ? I'm glad I didn't do that.
>
> you did do that.

No, moron, I didn't!

How does it feel to be shown that you are mistaken - just about every day?

On 10/5/2022 8:24 AM, David Brooks wrote:

<snip>

> The iPhone *takes* a photograph.
>
> The software *enhances* a photograph.
>
> If the result of the enhancement by the software was to provide a better
> viewable image (from a photograph taken with my current iPhone SE) than
> a basic photograph taken with the iPhone 14, it would appear to preclude
> the need to purchase an iPhone 14.
>
> Do you really consider that false?

Yes, that is false.

The computational photography capability of a high-end phone camera,
whether an iPhone, a Pixel, or a Samsung, achieves results that are not
possible with an after-market software enhancement program.

"The biggest advances have all come from ways to stack or combine
multiple images in the phone. Depending on how many images are stacked,
and how clever the algorithms, this technique can be used to reduce
noise, boost the tonal range, take clear shots in the dark, or even
artificially boost resolution."

You can learn about computational photography here:
"https://www.engadget.com/2019-11-04-upscaled-computational-photography-pixel-deep-fusion-explainer.html>.

Now we're seeing camera companies, with Fuji being the leader, adding
computational photography into their mirrorless cameras.

In article <thket6$31ek0$1@dont-email.me>, sms
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> The computational photography capability of a high-end phone camera,
> whether an iPhone, a Pixel, or a Samsung, achieves results that are not
> possible with an after-market software enhancement program.

false. with the vastly more powerful processors and gpus on computers,
it can be far more capable than a phone, depending on the computations
involved.

> "The biggest advances have all come from ways to stack or combine
> multiple images in the phone. Depending on how many images are stacked,
> and how clever the algorithms, this technique can be used to reduce
> noise, boost the tonal range, take clear shots in the dark, or even
> artificially boost resolution."

that's only one aspect of computational photography.

> You can learn about computational photography here:

yes, you do need to learn about it.