Forum

Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Credibility is questionable.  (Read 229 times)
epdm2be
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« 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 » Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines