Linked by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 00:18 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 465450
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: 13.7% improvement, not 12.8%
by lemur2 on Wed 9th Mar 2011 22:22
in reply to "13.7% improvement, not 12.8%"
Bogus algorithm for computing improvement in the article: total improvement is multiplicative, not additive If the improvement from base to A is M% and from A to B is N%, then we need to convert to improvement- factors to do the computation. A's improvement factor is 1 + M/100, and B's factor is 1 + N/100, so the total improvement factor is (1 + M/100)*(1 + N/100). Converting that to percentages gives an incremental improvement of 100*(1 + M/100)*(1 + N/100) - 1), or M + N + M*N/100 If I read the individual numbers M,N correctly, that gives a 13.7% improvement, not 12.8%.
A (Aylesbury) is (1+M%) * base
B (Bali) is (1+N%) * A
So, B is (1+N%) * (1+M%) * base
Bali: "Best" mode average quality improved 6.1% over Aylesbury using the SSIM metric.
Aylesbury: "Best" mode average quality improved 6.3% over launch release using the SSIM metric.
Total improvement from launch release to Bali release = 1.061 * 1.063 = 1.127843. I rounded this out to 12.8%.




Member since:
2006-04-16
Bogus algorithm for computing improvement in the
article: total improvement is multiplicative,
not additive
If the improvement from base to A is M% and from A
to B is N%, then we need to convert to improvement-
factors to do the computation.
A's improvement factor is 1 + M/100, and B's factor
is 1 + N/100, so the total improvement factor is
(1 + M/100)*(1 + N/100).
Converting that to percentages gives an incremental
improvement of 100*(1 + M/100)*(1 + N/100) - 1),
or M + N + M*N/100
If I read the individual numbers M,N correctly,
that gives a 13.7% improvement, not 12.8%.