What does ISO 4294941760 in the metadata mean?
Jan 1, 2022 02:23:22 #
Shooter41
Loc: Wichita, KS
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice with my Sony ILCE 7RM4 using a 135mm lens; shutter speed 1/1600 second; f 3.2; using aperture priority and "auto" ISO. While editing the image, I checked the metadata to see which ISO the camera had chosen because I set the minimum speed of the shutter at 1/1600 and wanted to see what ISO the camera chose. It chose ISO 4294941760!
For all you Sony shooters out there, have you ever seen an ISO number this high?
I am used to seeing ISO 51,200; 40,000; 32,000; 25,600; 20,000; 16,000; 12,800; 10,000; 8,000; 6,400; 5,000; 4,000; etc. Does anyone familiar with Sony camera know what ISO value that represents? Thank you for your time an expertise in advance. Shooter41
For all you Sony shooters out there, have you ever seen an ISO number this high?
I am used to seeing ISO 51,200; 40,000; 32,000; 25,600; 20,000; 16,000; 12,800; 10,000; 8,000; 6,400; 5,000; 4,000; etc. Does anyone familiar with Sony camera know what ISO value that represents? Thank you for your time an expertise in advance. Shooter41
Jan 1, 2022 02:40:34 #
Jan 1, 2022 03:25:53 #
Shooter41 wrote:
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice w... (show quote)
Canon makes some of the highest ISO cameras with a max ISO of over 4,000,000. Your camera has a max ISO of 102,400. The 4294941760 shown in your meta data is way, way bigger than 4 million or 102,400 and is more than likely a blown field.
Jan 1, 2022 03:30:36 #
Everybody knows that ISOs greater than 2 billion are likely to have a detrimental effect on image quality 
.
.Jan 1, 2022 04:34:18 #
Shooter41 wrote:
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice w... (show quote)
That huge number is obviously not an ISO. No idea what it is other than a Computer O/S or or Image Processor assigned number. Digital brightness value in what units? Too big for a date and would make no sense. You need to view metadata with Ps, Lr or one of their or another editors browser. Where did you see this huge number? Sonys can not be THAT different from Canon, Fuji, Nikon, Pentax, etc. Not for ISOs beyond the hundred thousands. Digital tone values are hexadecimal from 000000 to FFFFFF. Today now is January 1 not April 1.
Jan 1, 2022 04:54:06 #
Shooter41 wrote:
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice w... (show quote)
In addition, nothing in your posted image looks blow. I do see the white balance as off and very Orange. Likely due to the light source being far from daylight or any of your set sources like fluorescent, shade, flash, tungsten, etc. Were they using horrible and impossible to balance Sodium Vapor lights? Yuck! Mercury Vapor shifts to the blues. With my cameras I usually leave the WB set to AWB when shooting Raw. And fix things quickly in ACR. If shooting JPGs with crazy lights and chosen the wrong WB you may be in for a nightmare.
Jan 1, 2022 05:13:27 #
TheShoe
Loc: Lacey, WA
If that ! on the end indicates the factorial function, then that is an amazingly high ISO.
Jan 1, 2022 06:12:03 #
TheShoe wrote:
If that ! on the end indicates the factorial function, then that is an amazingly high ISO.
I know what the factorial function is. That number would be enormous. Not counting ISOs or even Pixels in a wall mural sized monitor, but atoms in say the Earth or Jupiter or more. That 428.9 million ! (factorial) is not even displayible on my HP 11C pocket calculator. It would give a truncated value in scientific notation. And I am not going to play with it right now. Happy New Year. 
Jan 1, 2022 07:54:37 #
Shooter41 wrote:
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice w... (show quote)
What software were you using that displayed the metadata?
Jan 1, 2022 08:34:40 #
therwol
Loc: USA
Shooter41 wrote:
I took the picture attached at a soccer practice w... (show quote)
Looks like you stripped the metadata from the picture you posted, so no one can verify your number independently.
Jan 1, 2022 08:37:40 #
therwol wrote:
Looks like you stripped the metadata from the picture you posted, so no one can verify your number independently.
deleted!
Jan 1, 2022 09:26:02 #
therwol wrote:
Looks like you stripped the metadata from the picture you posted, so no one can verify your number independently.
Ironic
Jan 1, 2022 11:16:39 #
FreddB
Loc: PA - Delaware County
R.G. wrote:
Everybody knows that ISOs greater than 2 billion are likely to have a detrimental effect on image quality .
.Sounds like someting Paul would say 🙄
Jan 1, 2022 12:41:18 #
Shooter41
Loc: Wichita, KS
lamiaceae wrote:
In addition, nothing in your posted image looks bl... (show quote)
Dear lamiaceae...
You are correct. I am shooting at Hartman Arena which uses mercury vapor poor indoor lighting which shifts my images way to the red. (After posting my question I realized that I can correct exposure by going to "balance color" in Exposure 7 and pull the slider all the way to the left on "red" to salvage my images,)
My Sony Alfa camera is set to auto WB and I don't know what to set it to correct white balance for mercury-vapor lighting, so I am correcting manually in post editing to salvage the image. Thank you for the thoughtful suggestions. Do you mind if I put you in my buddy list on UHH? Shooter41
P.S. - I plan to contact the Sony Australian Ambassador, Mark Galer, who is the one who advised me to set ISO on "auto."
Jan 1, 2022 12:50:13 #
FreddB wrote:
Sounds like someting Paul would say 🙄
Even a mirrorless fanboy that talks in riddles (and mixed metaphors) manages to make sense once in a while
.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.