Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/09/2016 15:02 (01/09/2016 15:02) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-5c913ed06dc4d3885380f775febf981e@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (2h & 56m) > Sandman |
In article <090120160524285459%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
It's still quoted above; "the amount of light at iso 3276800".nospamnospam
it's not physically possible, no matter how good sensors or electronics will get.the amount of light at iso 3276800 per pixel for saturation is far too low, with the number of photons in the single digit range.Sandman
ISO does not denote an amount of light,
i never said it did.
There is no "amount of light" at ISO 3,276,800. It's an arbitrary number that has no relation to the amount of light hitting the sensor.
Sandmannospam
The quality of the end result of said amplification is what is being improved.
you can't get water out of stone.
at iso 3276800, there simply aren't enough photons hitting the sensor to produce a quality image, even with an ideal sensor and ideal amp.
physics, again.Ironic, coming from the guy that again is saying that the ISO setting determines the amount of photons hitting the sensor, which you said again above.
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
