1Dx M2 Sensor Resolution - Back of envelop estimate

[Loswr]

I will agree that Neuro has lost in this debate. Read below for explanation.
...
It is an mid level troll tactic to make a correct statement about a small slice of a situation to illicit a response from someone who is talking about a finished product or broader subject.
...
However your original slice point was on target.
...
Sorry Neuro, but I think he got you on this one.

To clarify my earlier post, it was my observation he was trying to make a goal line spike, it wasn't my spike.

Maybe not a "debate", but there was "bait" placed next to the bridge.

To me, your last post seems to be more of a retraction than a clarification, as calling a statement correct and on target generally suggests that one agrees with that statement. Distancing yourself from agreement with those who are frequently wrong is probably a good idea, though.

Also, where Mikael is from (and in fact, in most of the world), football means something different and spiking the ball may be a non sequitur.

 

[NancyP]

Who uses envelopes nowadays? ;D

 

[scyrene]

I understand sporting metaphors even less than motoring ones

 

[takesome1]

To me, your last post seems to be more of a retraction than a clarification, as calling a statement correct and on target generally suggests that one agrees with that statement. Distancing yourself from agreement with those who are frequently wrong is probably a good idea, though.

Not a retraction, I believe he won. Ill admit on my part debate is a poorly chosen word. Probably a better description would have been "lost in this "or his" game".

I believe the whole conversation was crafted on his part to culminate with his statement "So can we all agree, except Nuro,..."

For him the discussion about noise was nothing more than a ploy to arrive at that point.
I think you took the Troll's bait.

 

[takesome1]

Who uses envelopes nowadays? ;D

I used one yesterday when I shipped my camera to Canon. I put the service return form to Canon in an envelope and then packed it with my camera.

Occasionaly they have a use

 

[Loswr]

I believe the whole conversation was crafted to culminate with his statement "So can we all agree, except Nuro,..."

For him the discussion about noise was nothing more than a ploy to arrive at that point.
I think you took the Troll's bait.

Fair enough. I will point out that all except me did not agree. The ploy of making a false statement to garner a response may be the case, and if so that was successful, although I suspect he still believes he is correct, and will persist in doing so regardless of all evidence to the contrary.

For my part, I know in advance how these things will go, but there's an element of amusing diversion in an otherwise busy day. I don't often get to toss out alliterations like 'tangential trivialities' in general conversation.

 

[takesome1]

I don't often get to toss out alliterations like 'tangential trivialities' in general conversation.

Excellent use. Unless you can coin it as a type of trolling I wonder when we would ever see it again.

 

[takesome1]

To claim that the noise increases with higher ISO just shows ignorance from one person, then not listen to the correct explanation / answer means even more ignorance.then try to explain away the ignorance just gets a lot of text
I don't know how it is in Dilbertland as Neuro describe it, and would that statement be fun one ? but I understand that there is a lot of ignorance in Neuro Donald "Duck" Country and where they have great problems to stick to the topic.

You over extended. You went outside your original point.

This is what Canon says;

In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase both the signal and the background noise, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image.

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

 

[Loswr]

This is what Canon says;

In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase both the signal and the background noise, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image.

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

Well, sure...but Canon clearly does not understand sensor physics as well as Mikael. After all, they can't even manage to design a sensor where you can push images of barbecues and awnings 5+ stops in post with as little noise as Sony (which, of course, says nothing about the usability of the resulting images).

 

[tpatana]

Soo.... my car goes slower on freeway than local roads, since on freeway the RPM is typically around 1900-2000, and on local roads more like 2500-3500. The car must go slower since the engine is making less rpms. There's nothing else in the car which might impact the speed, and need to be considered since RPM is the metric that all cool people use to determine speed. Yes. And I can find people online who agree with me.

You can't just take one single meaningless metric and decide that's the end result. Even Stevie Wonder knows that higher ISO images have more noise.

 

[Northstar]

This is what Canon says;

In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase both the signal and the background noise, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image.

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

Well, sure...but Canon clearly does not understand sensor physics as well as Mikael. After all, they can't even manage to design a sensor where you can push images of barbecues and awnings 5+ stops in post with as little noise as Sony (which, of course, says nothing about the usability of the resulting images).

that was not the question or statement

all who are literate , can read that Neuro is wrong in his statement that higher ISO generate more noise.
NO it doesn't and It was my answer

do you want a link to Prof / Dr. Eric Fossum, Inventor , father of the active cos , a sensor that we all use today, and where he says the same as I do?
give up the excuses now Neuro, be like a man and tell others that you were wrong regarding noise and high iso

Filluppa..... Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction?

North

Also, I had a special treat tonight, I used both butter AND salt for my popcorn while reading through this post! ;D

 

[Eldar]

This is what Canon says;

In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase both the signal and the background noise, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image.

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

Well, sure...but Canon clearly does not understand sensor physics as well as Mikael. After all, they can't even manage to design a sensor where you can push images of barbecues and awnings 5+ stops in post with as little noise as Sony (which, of course, says nothing about the usability of the resulting images).

that was not the question or statement

all who are literate , can read that Neuro is wrong in his statement that higher ISO generate more noise.
NO it doesn't and It was my answer

do you want a link to Prof / Dr. Eric Fossum, Inventor , father of the active cos , a sensor that we all use today, and where he says the same as I do?
give up the excuses now Neuro, be like a man and tell others that you were wrong regarding noise and high iso

Filluppa..... Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction?

North

Also, I had a special treat tonight, I used both butter AND salt for my popcorn while reading through this post! ;D

When you have less light, you need more amplification to generate a usable image. In this amplification you amplify to compensate for less light AND drag the noise, which is stable, into the same amplification. The noise does not change with changing light or your ISO setting. However, the resulting image of an amplified combination of light and noise is more noisy, because the S/N ratio is much worse. And then you can apply noise reduction.

This whole tread is becoming hard evidence that someone here needs help ...

 

[Loswr]

You can't just take one single meaningless metric and decide that's the end result. Even Stevie Wonder knows that higher ISO images have more noise.

You mean the winner of a football game (either kind) is not determined by the time of possession?

Just goes to show, there are none so blind as those that will not see.

 

[Loswr]

Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction?

A) It's there to pacify you, like the 'close door' button in some elevators that when pushed makes no electrical contact click because there's no wiring behind it

B) It's there because Canon doesn't understand sensor physics, and thinks there's more noise at higher ISO

C) It's there because Canon thinks Mikael is correct that there's less noise at higher ISO, but has caved in to the prevailing mindset of the real world that believes high ISO means more noise, so Canon uses the setting as part of a conspiracy theory to hide the truth

D) It's part of an Easter egg - if you enable that setting along with certain others, while disabling certain other settings, your 1D X will actually make popcorn...with butter and salt.

;D

 

[takesome1]

This is what Canon says;

In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase both the signal and the background noise, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image.

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

Well, sure...but Canon clearly does not understand sensor physics as well as Mikael. After all, they can't even manage to design a sensor where you can push images of barbecues and awnings 5+ stops in post with as little noise as Sony (which, of course, says nothing about the usability of the resulting images).

that was not the question or statement

all who are literate , can read that Neuro is wrong in his statement that higher ISO generate more noise.
NO it doesn't and It was my answer

do you want a link to Prof / Dr. Eric Fossum, Inventor , father of the active cos , a sensor that we all use today, and where he says the same as I do?
give up the excuses now Neuro, be like a man and tell others that you were wrong regarding noise and high iso

For the most part you had stayed focused on the minor point, some posters were even leaning your way and you were the one insulted. You had the victory.

But now you come back and make a broad statement and use insults. This is the classic inexperienced troll mistake.

You gave away your victory by continuing to play. You should have picked up your ball and taken it home. I think Neuro has a very easy slam dunk on this one now if he chooses.

 

[scyrene]

I love these threads This one is getting quite meta, even better!

To me it boils down to, put two images* side by side, one at low ISO, one at high ISO. Stating that there is less noise in the low ISO image is like saying day is night. What is the extra graininess in the high ISO image if not noise? What bizarre twisting of commonly-used terms must you need to say it's not?

*let's make them of the same scene in the same lighting to avoid ANY leeway.

 

[unfocused]

A plea for a bit of kindness here.

If Neuro is correct and this is indeed the latest incarnation of Mikael or Angkor What, lets try not to escalate things. That individual clearly has an obsessive disorder of some type and some forum members have gotten their kicks in the past by baiting him to the point that he ultimately gets banned from the site.

The person is not an intentional troll like Dilbert, who just enjoys saying ridiculous things to bait people. This person fixates on obscure minor points and is unable to control his obsession. The exchanges end up going far beyond the usual pointed give and take that is common on this forum. And, while initially, it may seem that baiting him is just good fun, it has become evident over the years that it can easily degenerate into school-yard-bullying of a child.

Think of it this way. If you knew someone had a fear of insects, an eight-year-old might find it amusing to throw bugs at the person, but mature adults recognize that such behavior is unnecessarily cruel and anti-social. He can't help himself and before this spirals out of control, I'd ask my fellow forum members to just walk away.

 

[geekpower]

yeah seriously, why are you guys bothering to argue with somebody who clearly has a mental illness? there is zero chance of changing his mind, and it just clutters up the forum.

 

[takesome1]

I am at a loss now,

were the last two posts serious or just subtle jabs at his intelligence?

 

[takesome1]

It is interesting what kind of answers I get in this thread where the issue was whether higher ISO causes higher noise as Neuro say, I say NO in my answer 50

some of you would have a red card and not yellow card as Eric Fossum suggest in this discussion and when it comes to objectivity

keep it simple

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/56401387
Eric is the inventor of active cmos and hold hundreds of patents
http://www.ericfossum.com/Patents/Full%20Patent%20List.htm

This is what Eric Fossum said ;
"Yellow card. Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light.
The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher."

This is what Neuro said;
"Higher ISO means more noise which means larger files"

Less Light and Higher ISO are not interchangeable words. Less light refers to the volume of light. Higher ISO is sensitivity/amplification of the signal.

Sorry but with your own backup and proof you lost your point.
You should have stopped earlier.