Author Topic: Credibility is questionable.  (Read 1714 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="">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 »