MOST RELEVANT RESULT(S) FOR :

DxOMark - Internal Server Error
500

INTERNAL SERVER ERROR

Looks like something went wrong!
We track these errors automatically, but if the problem persists feel free to contact us. In the meantime, try refreshing.

Author Topic: Credibility is questionable.  (Read 1907 times)

Offline epdm2be

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Credibility is questionable.
« on: May 23, 2014, 12:19:39 am »
<div id="linkdxomark">This a comment for <a href="http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles/Nokia-Lumia-1020-overview-Has-the-best-got-better">this page on the website</a></div>For instance.
How is it that a LED Flash like on the Xperia Z gets a higher score then the true Xenon-flashes used on the 808PV and Lumia 1020?

Z2: Flash = 85
808PV: Flash = 79
L1024: Flash = 79

Also as mentioned by mlife:
If you add the photographic scores and divide them by 7 then you get these averages

Z2: Photo = 80.85 could be interpreted as 81
808PV: photo = 82.71 should be interpreted as 83
L1024: Photo = 78.28 should be interpreted as 78

A similar discrepancy is there in video. Funny that an IOS equipped phone (L1020) scores 49 while a Digital stabilized device (Z2) scores so much, 66.

Also the averages are again a bit off:

Z2: 74.57 (should be interpreted as 75 instead of 73)
808PV: 68.14 is correctly interpreted as 68
L1024: 63.57 could be interpreted as 64 (which i find weird since it is better suited for video than the 808PV)

Also the total average score aren't correct. They should be

Z2: 77 instead of 79
808PV: 74.5 instead 77
L1020: 71.5 instead 74

With the proper re-calculated nos I get the following averages:

Z2: 80
808PV: 78.75 (interpreted as 79)
L1024: 74.75 (could be 75)

Very strange indeed.
Perhaps someone can donate a proper calculator to the poor fellas at DxOmark?
Or maybe they're still using a an old Pentium PC with that arithmetic bug. Oh dear! :-)
« Last Edit: May 23, 2014, 12:31:36 am by epdm2be »