Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
ISO is fake?
Page <<first <prev 7 of 14 next> last>>
Apr 27, 2019 06:52:21   #
Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' he was talking about the reality that the digital sensor captures at just 1 (one) ISO setting, the 'base' ISO for that model. This 'base' ISO is typically ISO-100, but some cameras it is ISO-200, or somewhere in this range. When you dial any other ISO value, the 'computer' that is the processor inside the digital camera will process the data from the digital sensor to achieve the specified ISO. And yes, those international standards are how each camera manufacturer determines the amount of 'gain' to add to the sensor data to achieve the specified and standardized ISO setting. The signal from the sensor is 'amplified' and it is this applied amplification to the data that is the source of most digital noise in the resulting image file. This is also why the best noise performance and widest Dynamic Range of the camera occurs at each digital camera's 'base ISO'.
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' h... (show quote)


As always clear explanation which even I can understand - thanks for that!!

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 06:57:48   #
Rathyatra Loc: Southport, United Kingdom
 
rmalarz wrote:
My opinion is that if Tony, or his lovely wife, told me what time it was, I'd hope I had an accurate watch to check for myself. They seem to be a bit full of themselves.
--Bob



Reply
Apr 27, 2019 07:10:49   #
billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy let me explain. He has the controversy topic of crop sensor which caused a lot of disagreement but I don't want to talk about that. His latest claim that ISO is fake and I email him asking him to do a test of his cameras and see if they conform to the ISO standard and heard nothing back from him.
I don't see how ISO is fake because.
1. The ISO organization is real and based in Switzerland.
2. There is the ISO standard for digital still cameras and the latest is ISO 12232:2019 published Feb 2019.
3. Unless you test the cameras against this standard and they don't meet the standard then you can't claim that they are fake.
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)

Sorry to have to say this, BUT, WHO CARES! The only thing I care about are MY results. And my results say I am fine. Have a good day and stop concerning yourself with other's claims. They matter little in the long run.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2019 07:26:08   #
Brucej67 Loc: Cary, NC
 
According to this you are wrong. https://photo.stackexchange.com/questions/2946/how-is-iso-implemented-in-digital-cameras

Longshadow wrote:
The sensor is a silicon based integrated circuit which is sensitive to light, in only one way.
Different sensors have different characteristics.
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).

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 07:37:17   #
rond-photography Loc: Connecticut
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' he was talking about the reality that the digital sensor captures at just 1 (one) ISO setting, the 'base' ISO for that model. This 'base' ISO is typically ISO-100, but some cameras it is ISO-200, or somewhere in this range. When you dial any other ISO value, the 'computer' that is the processor inside the digital camera will process the data from the digital sensor to achieve the specified ISO. And yes, those international standards are how each camera manufacturer determines the amount of 'gain' to add to the sensor data to achieve the specified and standardized ISO setting. The signal from the sensor is 'amplified' and it is this applied amplification to the data that is the source of most digital noise in the resulting image file. This is also why the best noise performance and widest Dynamic Range of the camera occurs at each digital camera's 'base ISO'.
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' h... (show quote)


Also, let us not forget that we "pushed" some films back in the day so we could set our camera to ASA (the old term for ISO) to 400 instead of 100 and gain 2 stops. So, the gain that is electronically controlled is just an easier way of "pushing" film.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 08:05:31   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
BebuLamar wrote:
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy let me explain. He has the controversy topic of crop sensor which caused a lot of disagreement but I don't want to talk about that. His latest claim that ISO is fake and I email him asking him to do a test of his cameras and see if they conform to the ISO standard and heard nothing back from him.
I don't see how ISO is fake because.
1. The ISO organization is real and based in Switzerland.
2. There is the ISO standard for digital still cameras and the latest is ISO 12232:2019 published Feb 2019.
3. Unless you test the cameras against this standard and they don't meet the standard then you can't claim that they are fake.
Before you tell me not to listen to this Tony guy ... (show quote)


Yawn. Nothing new here...

Folks, just test your gear, adjust it for the results you like, and use them. It truly wasn’t different in the film era. Photography requires a SYSTEM.

Tony is controversial on purpose — to get people to watch his channel or buy his book.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 08:14:07   #
John Howard Loc: SW Florida and Blue Ridge Mountains of NC.
 
CHG_CANON wrote:
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' he was talking about the reality that the digital sensor captures at just 1 (one) ISO setting, the 'base' ISO for that model. This 'base' ISO is typically ISO-100, but some cameras it is ISO-200, or somewhere in this range. When you dial any other ISO value, the 'computer' that is the processor inside the digital camera will process the data from the digital sensor to achieve the specified ISO. And yes, those international standards are how each camera manufacturer determines the amount of 'gain' to add to the sensor data to achieve the specified and standardized ISO setting. The signal from the sensor is 'amplified' and it is this applied amplification to the data that is the source of most digital noise in the resulting image file. This is also why the best noise performance and widest Dynamic Range of the camera occurs at each digital camera's 'base ISO'.
Without searching for the video, let's 'pretend' h... (show quote)


If your camera has base ISO of 100 and also lower ISOs of 80 and 64 do dynamic range and noise improve at the lower ISOs or do they start to diminish like they would at 200, 400 ... I often wonder if the only reason to use the lower ISOs is to lengthen the exposure time or if there are other benefits.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2019 08:28:49   #
Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States
 

After reading some of them....
Just more speculation, with some correct info in between.
Authoritative opinions, must be true. Everyone on the net is an authority.
Show me the physics and diagrams from any sensor manufacturer, THEN I'll believe it.
I'm a components engineer, I don't believe four-fifths of what people on the net say about ICs and semiconductors, because it's wrong.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 08:41:20   #
bleirer
 


That is good info. On my camera the instructions warn that you lose some dynamic range below ISO 100, so I assume it must work on the bottom of the range also, that 100 is electronic but below 100 is software driven.

From that article I'm going to be more aware of keeping it 800 or below if I can, which i am somewhat mindful of already, to see if I can trade shutter speed or aperture instead. The auto ISO can be set as a range limit until you get a blinkie at 800 and have to decide to over-ride.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 08:58:09   #
burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC
 
John Howard wrote:
If your camera has base ISO of 100 and also lower ISOs of 80 and 64 do dynamic range and noise improve at the lower ISOs or do they start to diminish like they would at 200, 400 ... I often wonder if the only reason to use the lower ISOs is to lengthen the exposure time or if there are other benefits.


Below base ISO, the highlights of a SOOC JPEG (or 8-bit video) are likely to be clipped, but you get more detail in the shadows. The raw file nearly always will be fine...

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 09:08:06   #
throughrhettseyes Loc: Rowlett, TX
 
He did test several cameras and found a big difference in ISOs across the board no two cameras we the same at similar ISO settings. So I guess there is no regulation for camera manufacturer to be constant as to film ISOs are.

Reply
 
 
Apr 27, 2019 09:13:09   #
camerapapi Loc: Miami, Fl.
 
Is this the same Tony that claimed that the Olympus Zuiko 12-40 f.8 Pro was a so-so lens?

" Unless you test the cameras against this standard and they don't meet the standard then you can't claim that they are fake.
BebuLamar" Digital IS NOT film and I will not elaborate on it since there is plenty of information in the Web. ISO of course is real, for film or digital. The only difference is that amplification of the signal is used in digital but it happens to have the same sensitivity when film is set to the same ISO.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 09:26:11   #
larryepage Loc: North Texas area
 
Longshadow wrote:
After reading some of them....
Just more speculation, with some correct info in between.
Authoritative opinions, must be true. Everyone on the net is an authority.
Show me the physics and diagrams from any sensor manufacturer, THEN I'll believe it.
I'm a components engineer, I don't believe four-fifths of what people on the net say about ICs and semiconductors, because it's wrong.

We unfortunately live in a time of profound ignorance and strong opinion. Papers and articles are widely available to us, but are not in sources where they are refereed for accuracy or conformation to accepted and proven principles before publication. The result is a world built largely on opinion, rather than truth and facts.

In some areas, like art, that is not dangerous or even problematic. In others, that is not so much true. And we also live in an era where we are not even expected to flush our own toilet when we finish our work there, and where it is becoming a popular belief that we shouldn't even have to exercise the responsibility of driving our own car.

My suggestion is that we quit putting ourselves in the position of expecting others to make our decisions for us. Take a deep breath and have the courage to decide a few things for ourselves. If we make a mistake, then make our own decision again to either live with it or fix it. It's all part of growing up.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 09:27:13   #
E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada
 
I believe some the so-called or self-appointed "gurus" wake up every morning and are tired of driving each other nuts so they have to figure out ways of putting out "information" that drives everyone else NUTS.

My experience is with cameras, lenses, electronic flash gear and everything else that has to do with exposure elements, is that there can be minor variations even in brand new identical gear, purchased at the same time and are one serial number apart- it happens.

Anyone who has survived the film era, know that ISO ratings were only starting points for testing and were subject to variations depending on individual tastes and working methods. Film varied from one emulsion batch to another and actual exposure indexes varied widely in various processing developers and methodologies. Nowadays, electronics have to be more stable, predictable and repeatable than any chemical/analog process.

Of course, compared to analog/film technology, digital photography is, in a way, vastly over-engineered. There are software glitches, updates to contend with, having to calibrate aftermarket lenses to name brand camera bodies, etc.

Internal metering systems seldom jibe with handheld meter readings, right out of the box. Some testing and calibrating is usually required. Cameras of different makes and models may vary as well.

My point is unless there are unexplained fluctuations or inconsistencies in exposure within a given camera system, y' all have nothing to worry about. If you want all your cameras to match as to ISO settings, just test and calibrate or just know which cameras do whatever.

As others have alluded to, if you result are good, don't waste time worrying about minor differentials. Too many photographers become preoccupied with comparing the noise to grain and worrying about amplifications stages in digital circuitry. Unless you are a photographic/electronic engineer and have plans to design a new camera system, you are better off taking pictures.

Reply
Apr 27, 2019 09:39:47   #
47greyfox Loc: on the edge of the Colorado front range
 
This is overstating the obvious. The Northrups make videos to entertain and (hopefully) inform in order to get people to watch, which translates to sponsors. Do a search on YouTube like “tony Northrop crop factor” and you’ll see just as many supporting and refuting his postulation.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 7 of 14 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.