ISO is fake?
Apr 26, 2019 07:54:44 #
DaveO wrote:
Does that mean the iso of the tenor of this thread is increasing? 
Ahhhhh, yes?
Apr 26, 2019 07:56:31 #
Longshadow wrote:
The sensor is a silicon based integrated circuit which is sensitive to light, in only one way.
Changing the ISO in the camera will not alter the characteristics of the sensor's sensitivity to light.
Changing the ISO simply modifies the way the information from the sensor is handled (processed).
Changing the ISO in the camera will not alter the characteristics of the sensor's sensitivity to light.
Changing the ISO simply modifies the way the information from the sensor is handled (processed).
For most of us, without a background in the science if how to design and manufacture a digital sensor that replaces film, it never occurs to ask / wonder "how does it do it?" With any basic understanding of film sensitivity to light for a given ISO / ASA value, it just seems logical the digital sensor "gets more sensitive" when another ISO value is set on the camera, something magical as if another film ISO had been loaded for a single frame. Although you can readily find detailed information about the technical details of how a digital sensor actually works, it wasn't until I was investigating digital noise that I was exposed to the truth behind ISO and digital cameras. And, I can only understand the concept, none of the science.
Apr 26, 2019 07:57:42 #
The video is well done and the premise is basically correct - the ISO setting on your camera really controls amplification of it to produce images. And, surprise! - makers fool with the ratings all the time for marketing reasons.
I’m not a big Northrop fan, but this video has a lot of truthiness.
Andy
I’m not a big Northrop fan, but this video has a lot of truthiness.
Andy
Apr 26, 2019 07:58:58 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
For most of us, without a background in the scienc... (show quote)
Perception...
With film, they used different chemical compositions that had different light sensitivity characteristics.
Apr 26, 2019 07:59:26 #
Apr 26, 2019 07:59:48 #
Apr 26, 2019 08:00:07 #
orrie smith wrote:
It does not matter what you call it, the reality is that cameras produce noise in certain conditions, this noise is called ISO, you need to adjust and/or post process your image to compensate. No standards, no debates, only reality. Just my opinion. Accept the facts and make your individual adjustments, and know your cameras limits, simple as that.
Usually, I'm the one making absurdly sarcastic misstatements. But here, I fear there is no attempt at humor in this absurdity ...
Apr 26, 2019 08:01:16 #
mborn wrote:
Noise(digital) = grain (film)
It's an analogy, not an equality, when comparing digital noise at higher ISOs to the grain of film at higher ISOs ... the source and reasons are fundamentally different even if the effect within the image is similar.
Apr 26, 2019 08:01:17 #
Apr 26, 2019 08:09:17 #
OK, there is an ISO standard for ISO settings for cameras. And, ISO is a standard-making body that addresses many, many widely different areas, not just photography. However, does it really matter that there 'might be' a slight difference in ISO as used by the various camera Manufacturer's? I think not... In my opinion, it is much more important how 'your' camera handles ISO usages, and the various increments. As mentioned above, the sensor 'sees' just the base ISO and adds some correction, as its algorithms dictate. Exactly how those calculations vary is why there may be some differences. Just use your camera, have fun, enjoy!👍
Apr 26, 2019 08:09:32 #
I like to think of your ISO setting like the volume control on a speaker. You can turn it up as high as you’d like, but at a certain point in either the “noise” becomes unacceptable. Where that point is depends on your equipment’s age and quality.
Andy
Andy
Apr 26, 2019 08:44:25 #
olemikey
Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' h... (show quote)
Great one paragraph explanation, IMHO.Apr 26, 2019 08:44:50 #
This is about all we need to know for ISO in relation to digital cameras.
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' h... (show quote)
Apr 26, 2019 08:45:37 #
Not to mention that the term “crop sensor” is invalid, at least to my way of thinking. That would be like saying that that the FX or 35mm equivalent size is the only real size, and anything smaller is cropped. I did a google search on the dimensions of the first digital sensor by Kodak, but came up empty, but I do believe that it was smaller than the 35 mm format. So calling a sensor a “crop” sensor actually has no meaning. Why would 35mm or FX not be a crop of medium format?
Apr 26, 2019 08:47:49 #
banjonut wrote:
.....
Why would 35mm or FX not be a crop of medium format?
.....
Why would 35mm or FX not be a crop of medium format?
Well, it would be.
It depends on the reference point.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.