Why the DxO bashing?

[JumboShrimp]

It appears that DPReview has a similar method (?) to that of DxO whereas DPReview gives a percentage outcome to their testing, such as 82% for a "Gold Award", etc. Looks like both folks give a single numerical rating to cameras and lenses, just using different approaches. Do you think that DPReview has more credibility than DxO? Is DPReview inherently more "accurate"?

 

[Rams_eos]

I would say we should not mix DXO software with DXO ratings?

I am extremely happy with DXO software (despite the fact they removed Win XP compatibility without mentioning it clearly in DXO 9). I used it very successfully for Canon and Nikon raw processing.

For DXO rating, I am much more sceptical. With a friend we exchange camera (he has a Nikon D7000 and is a great fan of Nikon) and I totally agree that the end result (the image) is more pleasant with Canon that Nikon despite using a “crap “ Canon (specially for night shoots). But this is my subjective opinion.
We recently saw images of a professional event from this outstanding Nikon D800 (by DXO standards), and we both agreed that overall picture quality was very disappointing :-[.
But we don’t have the control i.e. 5D3 comparison.

So end result is what matters and DXO ratings are reflecting only a few per cent of that.
Deciding which camera to use based on that rating is a bit like choosing a car based the shades of colour you can get. It does not guaranty you will be happy using it.

 

[jrista]

I cannot help but question the measurement methodology of a group who (either fraudulently or ignorantly) uses biased and misleading summary statistics to put forth claims about camera/lens performance. That is to say, if you don't analyze your data properly but staunchly claim to be fair and objective, then it is my obligation to question your data collection methods as well, because your entire process is now suspect. That is what any good scientist does.

DxO has the phrase "Image Science" as part of their logo, but their practices aren't consistent with that phrase. I'm most concerned by the 'black box' calculation for their summary Sensor Score and Lens Score (methods should be published), and by the fact that they released data which was incorrect, defended it, then subsequently changed it with no acknowledgement of their error. Also, I'm noticing that the more I delve into their Measurements, the more I find errors (for example, I just looked at the Canon 28-300L measurements and their actuance data shown visually as field maps are ~10% lower relative to the same data plotted on a graph as a profile).

This right here sums up my problems with DXO in a nutshell. They HAVE made mistakes in the past, ignored them, then quietly tried to fix them without a word. That's irksome. I'm not saying that their DR tests (or rather, Screen DR measurements) are wrong...they are just as valid as any other form of DR test, so long as the same method is applied with consistency.

My problem is that DXO does not clearly explain all of their methods, and sometimes their methods seem sketchy. For example, Print DR is not actually measured, it is derived. Print DR is the "measure" (as they call it) used in scoring their camera sensor tests. But it is not a measure, it is a derivation from the actual Screen DR measure. Problem with Screen DR is, they don't actually publish the actual method by which they measure it, so not only do you have Print DR with is derived from Screen DR...you don't really know how Screen DR is computed. That's quite frustrating. (It gets even worse when you download DXO Optics Pro to see how it works, and find that DXO's algorithms result in FAR more noise with Canon CR2 files than ACR/LR, RawThearapy, or any one of various astrophotography tools...makes me even that much more suspicious that DXO doesn't really know how to properly process Canon CR2 files for optimal performance.)

 

[Radiating]

In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?

There is little fault in DxO's methodology, except for a few issues I have with them testing outliers in copy variation.

The problem with DXO is DXO's scores are stupid nonsense.

DXO scores are like rating a car by taking it's price, multiplying by it's horsepower and dividing by it's color in binary. Then situations like this happen:


Newbie: My sensor has the highest DXO mark score of any sensor!
Bystander: What are you using the camera for?
Newbie: Low light reportage!
Bystander: You do realize that you picked an 80 megapixel medium format back to do reportage. It delivers images at 3 seconds per frame, and has an iso range of 100-400 and absorbs only 10% of the light of a Canon rebel, that is the worst possible camera for your needs.
Newbie: No it's the best DXO says so!
Bystander: lol

 

[jrista]

In various threads around CR, I have noticed quite a few opinions that are not complimentary to the folks at DxO. The various individuals seem to take issue with DxO's methods and conclusions and generally disagree with pretty much everything they offer. Why? Is there some inherent fault with their methodology that would make their conclusions erroneous? (I am neither pro or con on this issue, but would just like some enlightenment.) Do you have any factual basis for disagreement? Comments?

It should be noted that, in addition to all the valid reasoning offered by everyone else, that DXO's scoring system is not just invalid for Canon. It is invalid, period. Because they utilize only ISO 100 measures in several scores, and because they do not FULLY publish all of their algorithms and methodologies, it invalidates the process as a whole. Using DXO to find the best Nikon camera is no better, and the results are just as misleading for them as for any other brand.

For example, Print DR is an EXTRAPOLATION based on DERIVED data based on Screen DR, which itself is determined via an unknown formula...it is not actually a "measure", despite the fact that they claim as much. Print DR is also based on the assumption that images are downsampled to a standard 3200x2400 pixel size. When it comes time to edit RAW images, ALL RAW images are ALWAYS edited at 100% size. It's the nature of RAW. So when DXO says some Nikon DSLRs are capable of achieving more than 14 stops of DR, they are being extremely misleading to people who don't understand what those numbers really mean. There is NO camera that uses 14-bit ADC that can achieve more than 14 stops of DR. Technically speaking, because of required overhead, even if that overhead is minimized, one could never really achieve 14 stops of DR period, you would always attain something just a little less.

Screen DR is the only valid measure of DR that DXO offers. In the case of the D800 and D600, the actual DR is ~13.2 stops, as much as 1.2 stops LESS than the 14.4 one might believe they have according to the Print DR extrapolation. The fact that Print DR IS an extrapolation means that even if someone downsamples their image by a considerable amount to 3200x2400 pixels, then tries to recover that extra 1.2 stops of information, it may not actually exist...Print DR is not a measure. It is derived, and therefor no one can really know for certain if a downsampled image from a D800 or D600 could actually achieve that much dynamic range. From an editing latitude standpoint...how much real-world freedom you have to push exposure around in post, you can only use DXO's Screen DR measure. The problem is, that measure is not shown by default, you have to find it yourself.

DXO claims a scientific approach to measuring cameras. They really fail to provide that on multiple fronts. For one, they don't measure cameras at all...they measure sensors, and only sensors. That fails to factor in ANY other camera features, such a AF system, metering system, body ergonomics, or other camera capabilities that may be as critical, if not more critical, to final IQ than the sensor. Because they do not 100% fully disclose all details of every methodology and algorithm they use, they can't really claim to be scientific (or at least, not openly scientific.) The fact that they clearly seem to have changed some of their algorithms over the years, and sometimes explicitly to cover up errors they made previously, only debases their claim to using a scientific method even more. At the very least, if an error is found in their methodology, it should be clearly explained and not slyly covered up.

Finally, as others have said...trying to reduce such a complex device as a camera to a single score that could theoretically be used for simple comparison of one camera to another is doomed to failure from the get-go....too many variables to consider, especially considering that DXO ignores the vast majority of them (i.e., all the non-sensor factors.) And don't even get me started on their lens tests...thats a debacle that puts their sensor testing to shame!

 

[Roo]

Similarly, camera brand partisans magnify the importance of these small differences because it confirms their biases, regardless of which side they are on. Canon fans see it as confirmation that DXO is biased, Nikon fans see it as confirmation that their brand is better. The reality is that unless your primary subject is test charts, almost none of this matters.

+1

 

[JumboShrimp]

If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.

 

[David Hull]

Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
Just watch.

Many Canon Rumors trolls may experience great satisfaction from demonstrating that ~2 stop deficit in low ISO DR by shooting images with the lens cap on, then pushing those images 4-5 stops in post.

The majority of Canon devotees, at least here on CR, seem to be fairly objective about the issue. It's widely acknowledged that Canon sensors deliver less low ISO DR than Nikon/Sony sensors. The fact remains that people buy cameras, not bare silicon sensors. If low ISO DR is someone's only criterion for judging a camera's performance (and for a very tiny minority of people, that may be the case), they should choose something other than a Canon camera. But for most people, what matters is the performance of the system as a whole (camera + lenses + flashes + accessories), and that's where Canon usually wins. As Don Haines is fond of saying, who cares how many stops of dynamic range a blurry picture has?

Many times in the DR debate, those bashing Canon sensors have been asked to provide examples of shots ruined by Canon's 'poor low ISO DR' that would have been saved by those extra two stops. Personally, I have almost no examples of that situation - in many scenes, the ~12 stops I get is sufficient, and when the scene DR is greater than 12 stops, it's almost always greater than 14 stops, too.

But for those who would like to persist in this debate, I have found a relevant example showing how an extra two stops of DR can keep the sunlit outdoors from blowing out when shooting an indoor candlelit scene...

One of the better "synopsi" of the issue that I have seen in a while.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

Many Canon devotees may also experience sour gripes that those DxOmark base ISO sensor measurements consistently demonstrate Canon's ~2 stop weakness no matter how expensive a body you buy.
Which leads to much knashing of keyboards as staunch Canonites defend their choice to use such gear and providing many valid reasons and lame excuses why it doesn't matter that a $400 entry-level Nikon DSLR has better low ISO performance than any canon DSLR.
Just watch.

But for those who would like to persist in this debate, I have found a relevant example showing how an extra two stops of DR can keep the sunlit outdoors from blowing out when shooting an indoor candlelit scene...

;D ;D ;D those images show how much DR is available in my Nikon & Sony cameras ;D

 

[jrista]

People bash DxO because during the time when DxO results have been shared around more and more widely talked about on the 'Net, they always favour Nikon/Sony.

As a result, all sorts of reasons have been created by the Canon fanbase as to why this is and how DxO is useless but rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, people would be lauding DxO.

LOL. Your ignoring the facts here, bub. I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.

It doesn't matter who DXO favors. Their science is too obscure, and the results are too skewed, to take any of their scores at face value without a significant dose of salt grains. It really has nothing to do with who they cater to, and everything to do with how they do things.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.

Agreed!

I have a D300s and a Nikon 200-400mm VRI, which is a nice lens by anyone but DXO's measurements. They tested the VRII model which is basically the same lens with improved VR and give it a score of 12!
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-200-400mm-F4G-ED-VR-II-mounted-on-Nikon-D300s__614

Now, if you put it on a D7000, it jumps to 14. On a D3 its 17, and on a D700 its also 17. On a D4, it jumps to 21, on a D600, it jumps to 24, and on a D800, its 25!
This is why you don't compare lenses across different camera models, much less across different brands. Testing lenses on a camera body gives results that only apply to that body or one with the same sensor. In general, the test methods will give higher numbers with more MP. The lens itself did not change and is no better or worse just because its on a camera with more pixels.
The reason is simple, the MTF of a image is a product of the MTF of the lens, The Body, the monitor or printer its viewed on, and even your eyes. Raising the MTF of any of these things will improve the image as long as the others don't change. Of course, DXO does not USE MTF, just because the entire photography world uses it, they invented their own number, MPIX.

Now, if DXO wanted to compare lenses between Canon and Nikon, they'd test them all on the same Canon body. That would give you at lease some comparison, but it still would not be accurate, since manufacturers cameras recognize a lens model and may make subtle adjustments to exposure at the edges.

That's why most knowledgeable lens testers provide a warning note that says don't compare on different models or manufacturers, a lens test on a D300s is only good for a D300s, but may be similar for a body with the same sensor.

 

[rpt]

Any attempt to reduce a complex system used under diverse conditions for diverse goals to a single number is doomed to failure.

Thanks! Lovely sentence. I am going to quote your words to a colleague. He wanted me to arrive at a single data quality number after analysing tens of columns in each of about five hundred or so database tables.

Does he have an MBA, by chance?

Nope! An ordinary engineer like me

What? ... he is just an ordinary engineer and does not even have the highly acclaimed Masters in Bull$h!tting Arts? ... how dare he! ;D

Ha! Ha! Ha!

Don, thanks for the beautifully crafted sentence. It settled matters for me.

 

[jrista]

[

I've been on a rampage against DXO lens tests for almost as long as they've been around, and I've been QUITE vocal about that here in these forums. DXO lens tests frequently indicate that Canon lenses are better than the competitions, DESPITE the undue bias they give to Nikon lenses thanks to the D800. Doesn't change the fact that DXO's lens tests are a joke, again thanks to that "weighted scoring" they do that vastly overweights factors that don't play a big roll in IQ, and vastly underweights factors that do play a big role. They also use the word "transmission" to refer to what is really "aperture", and therefor ALL of their lens tests are massively skewed by the transmission factor.




I have a D300s and a Nikon 200-400mm VRI, which is a nice lens by anyone but DXO's measurements. They tested the VRII model which is basically the same lens with improved VR and give it a score of 12!
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Nikon/Nikon-AF-S-Nikkor-200-400mm-F4G-ED-VR-II-mounted-on-Nikon-D300s__614

Now, if you put it on a D7000, it jumps to 14. On a D3 its 17, and on a D700 its also 17. On a D4, it jumps to 21, on a D600, it jumps to 24, and on a D800, its 25!
This is why you don't compare lenses across different camera models, much less across different brands. Testing lenses on a camera body gives results that only apply to that body or one with the same sensor. In general, the test methods will give higher numbers with more MP. The lens itself did not change and is no better or worse just because its on a camera with more pixels.
The reason is simple, the MTF of a image is a product of the MTF of the lens, The Body, the monitor or printer its viewed on, and even your eyes. Raising the MTF of any of these things will improve the image as long as the others don't change. Of course, DXO does not USE MTF, just because the entire photography world uses it, they invented their own number, MPIX.

Now, if DXO wanted to compare lenses between Canon and Nikon, they'd test them all on the same Canon body. That would give you at lease some comparison, but it still would not be accurate, since manufacturers cameras recognize a lens model and may make subtle adjustments to exposure at the edges.

That's why most knowledgeable lens testers provide a warning note that says don't compare on different models or manufacturers, a lens test on a D300s is only good for a D300s, but may be similar for a body with the same sensor.

Aye. All this I know. Which is why I always say: Standard lens testing is useless! It has no real value, since output resolution is usually sensor bound. These tests don't really tell you anything about the lens, and they aren't comparable...so....what value do they hold? Personally, I just made the decision to ditch lens tests entirely and rely on model-generated MTFs to determine how good a lens is. You can actually garner a LOT of useful knowledge about a lens from a single MTF chart, not the least of which is corner performance.

Anyway....

 

[Albi86]

This thread is a festival of misinformation.

First of all, every test is based on 3 stages: design, data collection, data interpretation.

DXO is quite transparent on the way they design the tests and collect the data. They are not transparent at all in the way they interpret the results and produce a verdict (score). Are they biased? Sure. Every test is. No test can possibly encompass every scenario and variable; the testers decide what to focus on - in this case ISO 100, 8 MP, blah bla. You may agree or disagree with their choices, but your disagreement doens't make the test "stupid", because your choice is not worth any more than theirs.

It must be noticed, for example, that they don't test lenses per se, but lens-camera combinations; this is why lens scores change camera-to-camera. The sharpness of the final output depends on camera AND lens and so this is why they do it. Again, you may disagree. However, every lens will perform differently on a D700 and a D800; testing a lens on a D700 and saying that it's great it's no indication of how it will fare on a 3x resolution body. In this sense their measurements are far more accurate.

It should also be noted that their tests are based on a resized 8 MP file. This is why Canon's sharpness scores are often higher, and Nikon's scores are higher in most other fields. This is not the bread & butter of pixel peepers, but it can better reflect a real world scenario of printed pictures. Again, you may disagree, but it stands true that you need around 8 MP for a 300dpi A4 print, so how the final output will look like can be a more important information than a 100% crop.

Ranting about something while swearing that it's useless and meaningless, is paradoxical and childish. For as much as I agree with most people saying that the way DXO interprets results is disputable and pretty much useless, the data they collect is quite good. You can have DR graphs at different ISOs, compare screen and print output from different cameras and lenses, etc. All of these data are freely accessible and everyone can then draw his own conclusions - probably a more interesting endeavour than just ranting about DXO's.

Every test is useful in its limited purpose. Ranting derives from 2 major causes:
- Incapability of understanding the test methodology, and thus both its usefulness and limitations: this leads to labeling as stupid.
- Results are not what one wants to hear: this leads to discrediting the tests, claiming bias and second interests, etc etc.

I agree with those who thinks that, if it was the other way around, this forum would be full of DXO ambassadors. Same as the recent "conversion" of Scott Kelby to Canon has not raised any suspicions about the actual circumstances as they were presented; it has been a genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light.

 

[Keith_Reeder]

As a result, all sorts of reasons have been created by the Canon fanbase as to why this is and how DxO is useless but rest assured, if the shoe were on the other foot, people would be lauding DxO.

You know, I've quit this forum once, entirely because of this interminable, revisionist whining from you and LetTheRightTrollIn, and now I find myself having to sign up again just to address this drivel.

What's the real problem with DxO?

People like you.

The fact is that nobody disputes that some Nikons and Sonys have a low ISO DR advantage. Nobody.

But that's not good for you and you OCD mission to be right at all costs: you and your like have to bang away in a preposterous and utterly idiotic attempt to convince the world that this is all that matters.

Well get this through your head once and for all: for the vast majority of Canon users (and - truth be known - most Nikon, Sony and Pentax users too), it doesn't matter worth a damn.

But you simply can't accept that, can you? So instead simply letting DxO's findings stand for themselves, you have to make the DR difference into a crusade - for God knows what motivation, but it isn't healthy.

Again: we don't care about DxO's findings. They just don't matter.

Clear enough yet?

And if it did eventually transpire that Canon started getting the upper hand in the DxO DR race, Canon users wouldn't be "lauding" DxO because it proved that they had better cameras now, but purely to shut trolls like you up.

Your tedious obsession with the trivial difference between Canon's and other sensors hasn't stopped us from taking thousands, millions of incredible images; and besides, I've been able to open up shadows by multiple stops cleanly and easily from my 7D simply because I know how to choose and use my Raw converters and pixel editors properly.

As Americans are wont to say, "sucks to be you" - but if you're seriously telling us that you can't take great pictures with your Canon cameras, or more to the point that the number that are spoiled for want of better low ISO shadow DR is too high to accept, I'm going to call you a bare-faced liar.

So, once more, for the avoidance of any doubt: the problem with DxO is obsessive, disingenuous, revisionist trolls like you. We're sick of having it shoved down our throats what should to be important to us, just because it's (supposedly) crucial to you.

(Doubtless this will be deleted, but while it stands, it makes the point).

 

[Loswr]

This thread is a festival of misinformation.

First of all, every test is based on 3 stages: design, data collection, data interpretation.

DXO is quite transparent on the way they design the tests and collect the data. They are not transparent at all in the way they interpret the results and produce a verdict (score). Are they biased? Sure. Every test is. No test can possibly encompass every scenario and variable; the testers decide what to focus on - in this case ISO 100, 8 MP, blah bla. You may agree or disagree with their choices, but your disagreement doens't make the test "stupid", because your choice is not worth any more than theirs.

It must be noticed, for example, that they don't test lenses per se, but lens-camera combinations; this is why lens scores change camera-to-camera. The sharpness of the final output depends on camera AND lens and so this is why they do it. Again, you may disagree. However, every lens will perform differently on a D700 and a D800; testing a lens on a D700 and saying that it's great it's no indication of how it will fare on a 3x resolution body. In this sense their measurements are far more accurate.

It should also be noted that their tests are based on a resized 8 MP file. This is why Canon's sharpness scores are often higher, and Nikon's scores are higher in most other fields. This is not the bread & butter of pixel peepers, but it can better reflect a real world scenario of printed pictures. Again, you may disagree, but it stands true that you need around 8 MP for a 300dpi A4 print, so how the final output will look like can be a more important information than a 100% crop.

Ranting about something while swearing that it's useless and meaningless, is paradoxical and childish. For as much as I agree with most people saying that the way DXO interprets results is disputable and pretty much useless, the data they collect is quite good. You can have DR graphs at different ISOs, compare screen and print output from different cameras and lenses, etc. All of these data are freely accessible and everyone can then draw his own conclusions - probably a more interesting endeavour than just ranting about DXO's.

Every test is useful in its limited purpose. Ranting derives from 2 major causes:
- Incapability of understanding the test methodology, and thus both its usefulness and limitations: this leads to labeling as stupid.
- Results are not what one wants to hear: this leads to discrediting the tests, claiming bias and second interests, etc etc.

I agree with those who thinks that, if it was the other way around, this forum would be full of DXO ambassadors. Same as the recent "conversion" of Scott Kelby to Canon has not raised any suspicions about the actual circumstances as they were presented; it has been a genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light.

That post was a mini-festival of misinformation...

The key points are:

• DxO does not disclose their methods for deriving their scores, which renders their scores meaningless
• Some of DxO's measurements have errors, which makes all of their measurements suspect
• DxO does not acknowledge their mistakes and issue corrigenda, but rather silently modify the original data, rendering their scientific ethics questionable

I'm not saying their information is useless, but I do suggest people view their measurements with caution, and ignore their Scores.

By the way, your recollection of facts is suspect, too. "A genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light?" Go back and re-read the Kelby conversion thread(s)...there was pretty broad support for the idea that he did it for the money.

 

[Don Haines]

By the way, your recollection of facts is suspect, too. "A genuine event of a prodigal son finally seeing the true light?" Go back and re-read the Kelby conversion thread(s)...there was pretty broad support for the idea that he did it for the money.

NO!!!!!!! Tell me it isn't so!!!!! Come on now, who ever heard of a business doing something for money!

 

[Albi86]

The key points are:

• DxO does not disclose their methods for deriving their scores, which renders their scores meaningless
• Some of DxO's measurements have errors, which makes all of their measurements suspect
• DxO does not acknowledge their mistakes and issue corrigenda, but rather silently modify the original data, rendering their scientific ethics questionable

On which I totally agree. In fact I have specifically addressed the difference between data themselves and their interpretation, as well as pointing out the need of accepting the limitation of any single test and understanding the useful information it provides without labeling the whole thing as pointless, biased or false.

 

[Orangutan]

To give you an example of a scene I tried (and failed) to capture with Canon equipment, I had a setting sun behind a building that I could see through the door on the east, down a corridor and out the open door on the west side. As you can imagine, the detail outside the building on the west side was brightly lit (direct/diffuse sunlight), the side of the building I was on was maybe in the 50% grey area and the interior of the building was quite dark. There was very limited ability to expose to the right due to the outdoor area being lit by the sun but at the same time, if I didn't push it then the interior was lost to noise from Canon's sensor.

Would you please post that raw file?

 

[David Hull]

If nothing else comes out of this discussion, at least we can hope that the folks at DxO will be reading this, too.

Nah.... it's not in French.