Since we are so many people with so many different competences, I thought we might sometimes be able to help each other with whatever problem, question ect. there could by on once mind.
I go first: I know it is a long shot, but is there anybody with really good statistical skills out there?!
The world is neither fair nor unfair - It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
Since we are so many people with so many different competences, I thought we might sometimes be able to help each other with whatever problem, question ect. there could by on once mind.
I go first: I know it is a long shot, but is there anybody with really good statistical skills out there?!
Since we are so many people with so many different competences, I thought we might sometimes be able to help each other with whatever problem, question ect. there could by on once mind.
I go first: I know it is a long shot, but is there anybody with really good statistical skills out there?!
Well this would be a question for my Dad.... He's been an actuary for over 30 years!
Hi misswill0w, it was really nice to meet you last Friday. I read statistics as a subsidiary course at University and have been working in the field - or at least an off-shoot of it, for the past 30 years. If I can help you I will. What are you trying to do?
I am measuring light intensities in pictures. When I take a couple of pictures of the same object and with the same settings, I get slightly different intensities. That is fine, that is just a "Normal" variation between pictures.
Then I take some more pictures of another object. In these pictures I change the settings a bit between the different pictures. I want to find out if the differences in these pictures are due to an actual difference in the intensity (because of the different settings) or if it is just the "normal" variation, I found above.
The intensity levels are completly different from object to object. The difference in intensity will therefore be much higher in pictures with high intensity than pictures with low intensity. Therfore the variation needs to be in relation to the intensity. It could be in % for example
SO should I calculate the standard deviation and then divide it with the mean intensity? or should I calculate the variance and then divide it with the mean intensity? or should I do something completely different?
Last Edit: Apr 4, 2014 19:08:36 GMT 1 by misswill0w
The world is neither fair nor unfair - It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
So, your experiment introduces a number of degrees of freedom as you change the object your are photographing and a number of the settings on your camera. Since you are trying to establish whether the intensity changes are due to sampling variance or the impact of your changes to settings, I would start by limiting the number of degrees of freedom in the experiment, i.e. take a number of pictures of a fixed object and measure the intensity each time in order to establish the standard deviation of the intensity measure. It actually sounds like you may have already done this. Next change one setting on the camera and repeat the experiment and see if the resultant data lies within a 95%* CI of the baseline sample (*or whatever degree of certainty your are trying to establish). You can the proceed to change each setting or, indeed, the object, one at a time, each time repeating your measurements to establish whether the change gives rise to a statistically significant change in the results.
I must point out here that cameras are not really my thing, so I don't know whether my suggested approach is practical or not. Please let me know if not and I'll try to think of something that fits the sampling constraints.
So, your experiment introduces a number of degrees of freedom as you change the object your are photographing and a number of the settings on your camera. Since you are trying to establish whether the intensity changes are due to sampling variance or the impact of your changes to settings, I would start by limiting the number of degrees of freedom in the experiment, i.e. take a number of pictures of a fixed object and measure the intensity each time in order to establish the standard deviation of the intensity measure. It actually sounds like you may have already done this. Next change one setting on the camera and repeat the experiment and see if the resultant data lies within a 95%* CI of the baseline sample (*or whatever degree of certainty your are trying to establish). You can the proceed to change each setting or, indeed, the object, one at a time, each time repeating your measurements to establish whether the change gives rise to a statistically significant change in the results.
I must point out here that cameras are not really my thing, so I don't know whether my suggested approach is practical or not. Please let me know if not and I'll try to think of something that fits the sampling constraints.
Stewart
thanks for the answer. so you would use the standard deviation?
I think sometimes, you just need to get off work and into the fresh air. 5 min after I got off work I found my solution, which is always the same. do another experiment!
No, I guess, I you could do with the data I already have, but I think it will be easiest to do one more experiment. I will then obtain the data on the "normal" variation on the same objects as the ones I will later change the settings on. then I can just do a t-test. I actually thought about this a couple of hours ago, but somehow I later managed to forget half of the experiment and then it didn´t solved the problem.
But good to knwo that there are a statistic person in here. I always have those problems. I was actually pretty good when I toke the course at the university, but now I seems to have forgot it all. also I have SO MANY experiments and data it makes me all confused
Last Edit: Apr 4, 2014 20:18:34 GMT 1 by misswill0w
The world is neither fair nor unfair - It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
Glad that my reply was of some small value to you. I similarly used to be pretty hot on this, but, over the years, you tend to only really remember the stuff that you use once in a while. There is probably a multi-variate approach that would work here, but I would need to think about that for a while. I'm a bear of very little brain, and prefer to strip problems back to first principles
Happy to take on any other challenges - it's fun to test yourself once in a while isn't it?
I am measuring light intensities in pictures. When I take a couple of pictures of the same object and with the same settings, I get slightly different intensities. That is fine, that is just a "Normal" variation between pictures.
Then I take some more pictures of another object. In these pictures I change the settings a bit between the different pictures. I want to find out if the differences in these pictures are due to an actual difference in the intensity (because of the different settings) or if it is just the "normal" variation, I found above.
The intensity levels are completly different from object to object. The difference in intensity will therefore be much higher in pictures with high intensity than pictures with low intensity. Therfore the variation needs to be in relation to the intensity. It could be in % for example
SO should I calculate the standard deviation and then divide it with the mean intensity? or should I calculate the variance and then divide it with the mean intensity? or should I do something completely different?
P don't forget to account for extraneous variables. Are you just measuring the light intensity in general without regard for the difference of objects? If you take photos of one object with the same settings will you take photos of the second object with the same settings as the first? What kind of Statistical test are you using? T Test, ANOVA etc,,,