ISO is fake? (Page 5): 😳🥴🤔🤤😎😎 REALLY?

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

BebuLamar wrote:

It is FAKE!

😳🥴🤔🤤😎😎 REALLY?

BebuLamar

47greyfox wrote:

😳🥴🤔🤤😎😎 REALLY?

Yup the BS Spray is a fake! You won't find it in store!

47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range

BebuLamar wrote:

Yup the BS Spray is a fake! You won't find it in store!

Damn, the bad luck!! 😀

BebuLamar

47greyfox wrote:

Damn, the bad luck!! 😀

But you can try to buy it at the Northrup website. They may have it available but I don't know which carrier they use to ship it though.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

I was scanning through this topic with no intention of commenting (really!) But something dawned on me, it’s all about perception. The average user thinks that by increasing ISO they are increasing the cameras sensitivity. We know that is not true, that we cannot make the sensors in our cameras more sensitive. That if our camera’s base ISI is 100, that is all it will ever be. That raising the ISO amplifies the sensor out put and circuit noise.
ISO isn’t fake but teaching that raising the ISO number on a camera increases the camera’s sensitivity is false (AKA; a lie).
When we raise the ISO number, we boost the data after the shutter has been squeezed.
For all intents and purposes, we have begun post processing by ‘pushing’ development.
What is needed is a new name for that amplification device that is now called an ISO control.
Something clever like “Amplification”

(I haven't watched the tape and hope this isn't agreeing with TN as I do not respect him)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Longshadow wrote:

Good question!

(I tried to come up with a retort but couldn't........

)

This was of interest to me. I tried to figure out why. The best I could ever do was that defining things so that objects appear as rotating and revolving counter clockwise when viewed from above...sort of a "right hand rule." Look at the way the fingers of your right hand curl when you look at it from above.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Rich1939 wrote:

I was scanning through this topic with no intentio... (show quote)

Rich---
I am on sort of the same wavelength as you. Changing the ISO setting on our cameras gives the illusion of changing to faster or slower film. But that is not what we are doing. We are just shifting the output to be able to access the part of it that is useful to us.

If instead, we were adjusting a bias voltage or control voltage to cause the only output from the sensor to match the image brightness and exposure controls, then we would be emulating film.

Of course, there really is a very significant argument hiding in all this. If the sensor itself is really sensitive to the full range of these widely varying brightness levels, then the piddly 8 or 10 or 12 stops of dynamic range that we are presented represent an artificial limitation imposed by the processing circuitry and systems in our cameras. HDR shou (or at least could) be a native mode of the camera if the manufacturers chose to make it so. We should never have to set exposure. Just point and snap and fix it later.

Hamltnblue Loc: Springfield PA

Another question is, Why do the vast majority of companies use ISO 100 as the base?
With a few exceptions, after years of development, digital cameras only start at 100, regardless of price and technology.
You would think that by now, the standard would be lower like 10, 25, 50 etc.

Rich1939 Loc: Pike County Penna.

Hamltnblue wrote:

Another question is, Why do the vast majority of companies use ISO 100 as the base?
With a few exceptions, after years of development, digital cameras only start at 100, regardless of price and technology.
You would think that by now, the standard would be lower like 10, 25, 50 etc.

Or higher like 800

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Some people stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.......

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

larryepage wrote:

Rich--- br I am on sort of the same wavelength as ... (show quote)

There are two main limitations to the DR of the system - the sensor and the A/D. The DR is bound on the high end by the max output of the sensor or the MSB of the A/D and the low end by the sensor noise. The amplifier may contribute some, but amplifiers with a S/N of 90 dB (15 stops) are easy to design. A/Ds of 16 bits are readily available, so it comes down to the sensor as the limiting factor.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

TriX wrote:

There are two main limitations to the DR of the system - the sensor and the A/D. The DR is bound on the high end by the max output of the sensor or the MSB of the A/D and the low end by the sensor noise. The amplifier may contribute some, but amplifiers with a S/N of 90 dB (15 stops) are easy to design. A/Ds of 16 bits are readily available, so it comes down to the sensor as the limiting factor.

What's a "DR"???

...the DR of the system"

(I know what an A/D Converter is.)

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

DR would be dynamic range.

My point is that the same sensor sees all of the light...from the starlight on the foreground of my milky way images to the brightest highlights in direct sunlight. The camera does not have sunglasses nor night vision goggles. The sensor responds directly to light at those levels and anywhere in between. So with suitable electronics (sufficient bits of intensity response) it should be possible to directly capture and save any of it.

I'm not saying it would be practical or affordable...just that it should be possible.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

larryepage wrote:

DR would be dynamic range.
...
...

Thanks! Appreciate it.

I suppose it's too much trouble to type the words.
Everyone I know says the words, not DR.
(Ever see "DR" in a camera manual?)
But then IIWII.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Rich1939 wrote:

I was scanning through this topic with no intentio... (show quote)