Re: ISO value names are bec...nospam
|Subject||Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous|
|Date||01/09/2016 11:24 (01/09/2016 05:24)|
|Followups||Sandman (3h & 37m) > nospam|
In article <email@example.com>, Sandman <firstname.lastname@example.org>wrote:
i never said it did.SandmannospamSandmanSandmanEric Stevens
And thus, most people can easily calculate in their head how many stops of difference there is between ISO 800 and ISO 3,200.
But, how many stops are there between ISO 51,200 and ISO 3,276,800?
It's becoming increasingly unwieldy.
Or at least it will be if these levels become the normal operating range for photographers.
Eventually they will, of course. They're not today, and won't be for a while. But both sensor technology and in-camera amplification/noise control is getting better and better.
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.
ISO does not denote an amount of light,
only amount of signal amplification.iso is not signal amplification, and before you start arguing about that again, its definition does not matter here.
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.