@misswillow This reminds me of the Project we did in my undergrad course. Our group decided to measure which gender had a tendency to go through the stop sign at the end of the campus men or women. (this was mostly to pizz off our male chauvinist research professor. Of course I pizzed him off early in the semester when I made fun of the giant Velvet Elvis portrait in his office. He was from Nebraska and apparently was dead serious about the portrait ) We actually took videos and yep, the men lost. We used a Standard T Test for that because we were comparing the means of two groups.
It's amazing I passed that class after how much I tortured the professor. haha
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?
Hi, just a thought on this experiment, even if the settings on the camera are static and the object the same, variance in intensity of the image could be due to changes from your light source, for example if you were using natural light and not a manufactured light like flash for example.. As things like clouds come and alter the intensity of that source very quickly..
A very good point Sir, even flash will vary unless the camera can be fixed to ensure distance and angle to the reflective surfaces of the object are constants. But your argument for a controlled artificial light source is, I would think, a necessity.
I've just realised it's midnight on a Friday, I'm home alone and debating statistical sampling techniques! No offence folks, but I'm off to drink beer and play my new blu-ray copy of Trilogy REALLLY LOUD!
I am not sure how much I can/are allowed to reveal about the experiment here. I am using a fixed static light source. but thats is not the issues. My equipment is right.
It is more a questing of the statistical test.
but I think I can due with a standard T-test, if I do the experiment again and obtain some more data.
but thanks all for the input
The world is neither fair nor unfair - It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it
ravenslament: Yep, makes perfect sense! Us women are stealthy like that.
P.S.: Just for the record, statistics was the most loathsome subject at uni. Fact. I still don't know why/how they let me pass that exam, must have been pure sympathy on their part.
ravenslament: Yep, makes perfect sense! Us women are stealthy like that.
P.S.: Just for the record, statistics was the most loathsome subject at uni. Fact. I still don't know why/how they let me pass that exam, must have been pure sympathy on their part.
they probably needed a normal distribution, and you won't the worst
The world is neither fair nor unfair - It's just us trying to feel that there's some sense in it