Skip to main content
news

Re: ISO value names are bec...

nospam
SubjectRe: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous
Fromnospam
Date01/09/2016 23:26 (01/09/2016 17:26)
Message-ID<090120161726475817%nospam@nospam.invalid>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsSandman
FollowupsSandman (1d & 50m)

In article <sandman-c21f32c452f8877d1c0744526c5d36a0@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
Your reading comprehension problems is of no concern to me.

nospam
i don't have a reading comprehension problem nor do i have a math comprehension problem.

Sandman
Haha!

don't laugh too hard because everyone else is laughing at you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arithmetic%20scale "a scale on which the value of a point corresponds to the number of graduations the point is from the scale's zero"

I.e, a doubling of the value (ISO 100 ->200 ->400) is related to a doubling of the scale (for instance).

I.e. ISO is arithmetic.

nospam
nope.

Sandman
Indeed it is.

nope.

nospam
read the definition. the value of the point does *not* correspond to the graduations, which means it's *not* arithmetic.

Sandman
Indeed it does, and indeed it means.

nope.

nospam
a change of 25 means something very different at 25->50 (1 stop), 100->125 (1/3rd stop) and 1600->1625 (insignificant).

Sandman
That's because it's arithmetic. A step in the scale corresponds to number of graduations.

1X 2X 3X 4X 5X 6X 7X 8X 100 200 400 800

Arithmetic, the values correspond to the graduation. Basic stuff.

basic stuff, yet you still don't understand it.

notice any similarities with *your* scale above and the logarithmic scale below (other than orientation)? <https://www.mathsisfun.com/definitions/logarithmic-scale.html>

Just because you don't understand it doesn't make it untrue, you know.

nospam
that applies to *you*.

Sandman
Haha!

nospam
once again, you're insisting you're correct in the face of evidence to the contrary and what's hilarious is that this time, *you* provided the evidence!

Sandman
Haha, I've provided what, six-seven links that all agree with me, yet you are here refusing to realize that you have nothing that supports you. Same old, same old.

not only do i have something that supports me, but *you* provided it!!!

the *definitions* that *you* gave contradict what you and the other links you gave claim.

you have yet to explain the discrepancy between the two, and i doubt you will.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logarithmic+scale "a scale on which the actual distance of a point from the scale's zero is proportional to the logarithm of the corresponding scale number rather than to the number itself"

I.e. a step in the value (DIN 1 ->2 ->3) corresponds to a percentage of the scale.

As opposed to ISO, where ISO 100 and ISO 200 are *100* steps, and ISO 400 and ISO 800 are *400* steps apart.

And yes, f-stops are logarithmic and adheres to this, where each step (f1.4 ->f2 ->f2.8) corresponds to a percentage of the scale.

nospam
ask a math professor to explain it to you.

Sandman
Hahahahaha!!!

nospam
that's exactly how he'd react when you try to tell him iso is an arithmetic scale.

Sandman
Hahahaha!!!

that's exactly what will happen, although he may be polite about it and wait until you leave rather than laugh in your face.

Here's a fun exercise for you, open a Numbers document and write ISO values and plot them on a diagram:

<>

Now in the "Axis Scale" popup, change "linear" (arithmetic) to "logarithmic" and see how the Iso scale would look had it been logarithmic.

nospam
apparently you missed where *i'm* the one who suggested graphing it.

Sandman
Well, did you? :)

i don't need to because i understand the math.

nospam
i didn't think you actually would, because you've just proven yourself wrong *again*.

Sandman
Haha!

maybe after you're done laughing you'll decide to discuss things.

doubtful, since you don't actually want to discuss anything.

nospam
notice that when it's set to linear, the graph is a curve and when it's logarithmic it's a straight line. guess what that means.

Sandman
It means that when it's a curve, it's linear. You think a linear scale is a straight line?? Haha!

you didn't just write that, did you??

why yes, you did. holy shit.

i'm *definitely* saving this.

nospam
apparently you don't realize that you've just proven it's a logarithmic scale.

Sandman
My god, this is so fun!

what you call 'fun' is you stubbornly refusing to discuss anything, insisting that you're correct when you're not and digging yourself a deeper hole with every post.

that's an odd idea of fun.

nospam
here's a fun exercise for *you*: put f/stops in the next column and then plot that, just as you did with iso. switch between linear and logarithmic, just as you did with iso.

notice any similarities in the graphs?

with linear, both are a curve and with logarithmic, both are a line.

guess what that means. it means that both f/stops and iso are logarithmic scales.

you've not only provided definitions but you proved it by graphing it. good work!

Sandman
My god you're clueless.

yet another attack, once again avoiding discussing the topic.

This has been so hilarious!

indeed it has, but not for the reasons you think.

did you do what i suggested, graphing f/stops alongside iso?

try it. post the results.

then explain the similarity of the two graphs and why if f/stops is a logarithmic scale, which you agree that it is, how iso is supposedly an arithmetic scale, when the graphs differ only by slope?

bonus points if you explain why the slope is different.

but you won't. you'll resort to more attacks rather than discuss anything.

Sandman (1d & 50m)