Google| Subject | Re: ISO value names are becoming ridiculous |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2016-01-09 17:59 (2016-01-09 11:59) |
| Message-ID | <090120161159136548%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Sandman |
| Followups | Sandman (1h) > nospam |
In article <sandman-6fa741d6993cb0551719b4a6ebf436b1@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
you snipped the definitions and the explanations again!!nospamSandman
i see you snipped your own links that confirm it's logarithmic. no real surprise there.
You have your work cut out for you, these are some of the people and authors you need to convince:
what's hilarious is that *you* provided the links that prove you wrong so it's no surprise you keep snipping them.
here they are *again*:
In article <sandman-452242993369c375b8198929c57627b8@individual.net>, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:
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"ask a math professor to explain it to you.
I.e, a doubling of the value (ISO 100 ->200 ->400) is related to a doubling of the scale (for instance).
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.
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.
however, i doubt you will. you'll just insist you're correct, even though you proved yourself wrong.
2016-01-06-
