Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/09/2016 18:52 (01/09/2016 18:52) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-155dc1eb0863f1cc1546007500e6c788@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (1h & 20m) > Sandman |
In article <090120161159146632%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
Sandmannospamnospam
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.
It's still quoted above; "the amount of light at iso 3276800".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.nospam
read it again, this time the entire sentence rather than just one part.
nospamSandmannospam
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.Sandman
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.
i didn't say that.
it's clear you're in well over your head. again.It's a fun quote, I'll save it:
nospam 01/09/2016 11:24:28 AM <090120160524285459%nospam@nospam.invalid>
"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."
nospam thinks a specific ISO setting denotes how many photons hit the sensor.
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
