Is the term ISO “totally fake”?
- Thread starter Canon Rumors Guy
- Start date
Misleading information. The meaning of sensitivity, gain, iso-invariant, etc., are simply wrong in his presentation.
And interpretation of F-stop (should be T-stop) is also incorrect.
There was a time that scientists wrote about science and politicians talked politics.
Nowadays every clown with a front facing camera can do both!!
And interpretation of F-stop (should be T-stop) is also incorrect.
There was a time that scientists wrote about science and politicians talked politics.
Nowadays every clown with a front facing camera can do both!!
Upvote
0
unfocused
Photos/Photo Book Reviews: www.thecuriouseye.com
I miss the days when photographers actually knew their trade. Back in the good old days when we took the darkroom with us, brushed our plates with emulsion and then went back in the van and developed the plate before the emulsion dried.
Upvote
0
Not exactly. All sensors have analog conversion gain and at least almost all sensors have digital gain; Sony is no different from anyone else there.
For many years Sony has licensed a schema from Aptina to change that conversion gain. It’s not a unique “stage”. It’s really just a change in the capacitance of the circuit which increases the gain passively.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Try the following experiment - shoot a raw image at ISO 2000-6400, under exposed by 3-5 stops. Then in LR, increase the exposure by the 3-5 stops you underexposed the image.
Repeat this time ISO 3-5 stops higher, properly exposed. Of course shot in manual mode.
Compare the images
My experience and testing tells the higher ISO in the camera gives a better exposure than lower camera ISO and adding exposure in LR.
Repeat this time ISO 3-5 stops higher, properly exposed. Of course shot in manual mode.
Compare the images
My experience and testing tells the higher ISO in the camera gives a better exposure than lower camera ISO and adding exposure in LR.
Upvote
0
Clearly you never shot film! Improvements in ISO performance are the single biggest leap in IQ for decades. AF is nice, IS can be a real boon, but the improvements in ISO even low down are good, at higher figures they are nothing short of spectacular.
I can print from 400 ISO digital files to a higher standard than I ever could with same size 50 ISO slide film. I can easily deliver images at 10,000 ISO from my current digital camera yet film was rarely above 800 ISO, with a resigned acceptance of limitations and poor IQ even at small reproduction sizes at 1,600 ISO.
Upvote
0
maybe things we can do with photoshop are improved from film days,noise reduction tricks
Difficult compare ,i just watched my slides on wall paper ,didnt got computer then never printed anything
i still got 300d camera ,not really good to compare new ones . Ill hope ill get rp soon.
I wonder if resulotion of pictures is actually growed more than Iso performation ,so actually more difficult take unshaken hand hold picture with 5,6F super tele than it was on film days?
Difficult compare ,i just watched my slides on wall paper ,didnt got computer then
never printed anythingi still got 300d camera ,not really good to compare new ones . Ill hope ill get rp soon.
I wonder if resulotion of pictures is actually growed more than Iso performation ,so actually more difficult take unshaken hand hold picture with 5,6F super tele than it was on film days?
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Hi,
i have take some shots with my Canon EOS R and 6D Mark II and can´t push a under exposed pictures like Tony shows in his video.
I think, canon sensors work different.
Here the raw´s
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v16mee3nnqw7b7x/AAD2ZHMqdCSgIp6AgYutyTFUa?dl=0
Greetings, Dirk
i have take some shots with my Canon EOS R and 6D Mark II and can´t push a under exposed pictures like Tony shows in his video.
I think, canon sensors work different.
Here the raw´s
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/v16mee3nnqw7b7x/AAD2ZHMqdCSgIp6AgYutyTFUa?dl=0
Greetings, Dirk
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Time is already here!
Zeiss has just launched a small FF camera with built-in Lightroom!
Upvote
0
I found in the film days that the native noise in the drum / film / slide scanner has a lot to do with the images final noise. Noise interference patterns occur between the film grain particle size and the CCD pattern noise in the scanner. Iso 200 Fuji Chrome had more noise than 800 iso print scans on my 2700 dpi scanner (approx 11.9 mp equivalent). Iso 50 and 100 looked way better...as did 400 iso. Certain brands of film at certain iso's seems to create mega noise due to the interference patterns. A friend of mine used a slightly higher resolution 4000dpi scanner only to find his beloved Velvia 50 scans were riddled with high iso noise and were unusable. Were as scans from my machine were far smoother at the lower native dpi. So yes...iso noise is a thing. Sensor noise / pipeline noise...it's all physical real world issues.
I used to wonder if anyone would develop film profiles (like the digital modelling in guitar effects). But the reality is that most modern sensors far far exceed the dynamic range, contrast range and noise levels available on slide medium.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
Wow! Now I know what was Dr. Fossum's Quanta Image Sensor inspired by!
Upvote
0
"fake" is something that is not real, but made to appear real.
"ISO" is a legacy term for the combination of sensitivity and gain. Sensitivity and gain are both, very real and very important for photography. There is nothing fake about it. Sensitivity includes quantum efficiency and fill factor. Gain is about the analogue amplification of the signal between sensor and analog-to-digital converter.
I wish camera manufacturers would call sensitivity and gain by their names, and use proper units. And use a logarithmic scale instead of ridiculous large numbers.
"ISO" is a legacy term for the combination of sensitivity and gain. Sensitivity and gain are both, very real and very important for photography. There is nothing fake about it. Sensitivity includes quantum efficiency and fill factor. Gain is about the analogue amplification of the signal between sensor and analog-to-digital converter.
I wish camera manufacturers would call sensitivity and gain by their names, and use proper units. And use a logarithmic scale instead of ridiculous large numbers.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
It depends on the camera, 5D Mark IV and 80D are decent, I didn't realize how clean they were. But the 7D Mark II, 6D Mark II, 5DS R are not ISO invariant until at least after 3200. The 6400 number is the one that pops into my head when playing a lot with dual ISO on Magic Lantern, 6400 ISO definitely applies for the 6D and 5D Mark III. This is based on my observations of the noise that appears when bumping the exposures.
Upvote
0
I don't mind Tony Northrup in general. I think he is honest enough in his opinions.
He also has to get page views and things like this pull people in to argue.
Me - I'm quite happy with ISO and how its set up currently in photography.
While it may be a little artificial it is in reality a third point to the exposure triangle from the recorded image perspective.
The article and the comments here brought a few things to my mind which I'd appreciate feedback.
In theory should it be possible to use high ISO to capture the image but say the raw file contain the information from a lower ISO level if ISO is invariant. It would mean if you overdid the ISO you could recover to a more appropriate (less noisy) level?
The second is in the future instead of using physical filters like neutral denstity and graduated neutral densities will the camera be able to desensitize the sensor. ie: Allow for 30 s exposure by say not continuously capturing the light or having the top half less sensitive than the bottom half?
Would this ever be better than a physical filter?
I think Olympus has some sort of electronic neutral density filter in that new big camera they've made
He also has to get page views and things like this pull people in to argue.
Me - I'm quite happy with ISO and how its set up currently in photography.
While it may be a little artificial it is in reality a third point to the exposure triangle from the recorded image perspective.
The article and the comments here brought a few things to my mind which I'd appreciate feedback.
In theory should it be possible to use high ISO to capture the image but say the raw file contain the information from a lower ISO level if ISO is invariant. It would mean if you overdid the ISO you could recover to a more appropriate (less noisy) level?
The second is in the future instead of using physical filters like neutral denstity and graduated neutral densities will the camera be able to desensitize the sensor. ie: Allow for 30 s exposure by say not continuously capturing the light or having the top half less sensitive than the bottom half?
Would this ever be better than a physical filter?
I think Olympus has some sort of electronic neutral density filter in that new big camera they've made
Upvote
0
Personally, I'd like to see them get back to the standard. The "sunny 16 rule" should work the same on all devices.
I don't like the idea of eliminating it because ISO (or digital/analog gain) IS part of the equation that determines exposure level, or how much brightness is recorded.
Upvote
0
Armature disclaimer (you get what you pay for):
1- ISO in-variance still hits the wall of clipping. One you've filled your light bucket, there is no way to recover that information.
2- I bet there are lots of problems I don't even know about with the eND filters, but one I can think of relates to sampling errors of motion. If you are turning the senor off and on to simulate an ND filter, the rate at which you do this is going to effect the smoothness of motion. Maybe you can sample fast enough so it doesn't matter, but even in that case you'll end up with "digital purists" who won't want their 1s and 0s sampled at any frequency (cue the debate of 44kHz sampling in audio).
Upvote
0