Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 01/09/2016 20:26 (01/09/2016 20:26) |
| Message-ID | <sandman-7358cd6d9855d70b93f0ee901a759857@individual.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | nospam |
| Followups | nospam (4m) > Sandman |
In article <090120161412447213%nospam@nospam.invalid>, nospam wrote:
Haha!Sandman
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
yep. that's exactly correct.
once again, you don't understand what was written, and instead of asking for clarification, you immediately start arguing based on your misunderstanding.I would ask for clarification if I cared about what you were talking about. As it is, since you're nothing but a troll, I don't.
Indeed you did.Sandmannospam
nospam thinks a specific ISO setting denotes how many photons hit the sensor.
i didn't say that.
try reading the entire sentence next time.That was it. At ISO 3,276,800, there simply aren't enough photons. Haha :)
what i said was that there aren't enough photons to produce a quality image, even with an ideal sensor/amp.At ISO 3,276,800, not at a specific exposure, but at ISO 3,276,800. :-D So regardless of exposure, if that exposure is then taken with ISO 3,276,800, there aren't enough photons to make a quality picture. :-D
Funny stuff, and funnier that you're defending it instead of just going "Fine, in an *exposure* where ISO 3,276,800 would probably be used, there *probably* wouldn't be enough photons to make a quality picture".
But hey, if you did, you'd make sense. Can't have that! :)
-- Sandman
01/06/2016-
