nospam
i told you a reply is forthcoming and it is. the more you act like an asshole, the longer you are going wait.

Sandman
Only, I'm not waiting - I *know* there will never be an answer. And I just find it funny to rub your nose in it.

nospam
you *hope* i don't answer. you have no way to know what i will or will not do.

Sandman
It's been over two weeks. Like I said, I'm not holding my breath :-D

nospam
during that time, i had the flu along with other things that are more important than arguing with you. you may have noticed that i didn't post *at all* for several days last week.

you can either wait patiently or continue to act like an asshole.

your choice, but each time you do the latter, i'm *less* motivated to bother and it shows just how terrified you are that you'll be pwned.

)

Sandman
This is what you do - *ALWAYS*. There has been many many MANY threads where you have been proven 100% incorrect and your only course of action has been to abandon the thread. At no point have you ever gone "Oh right, I didn't think about that and got things mixed up, sorry about that".

nospam
nope.

Sandman
Indeed. I have no idea why you have so much pride invested in this.

nospam
projection.

you keep bringing up the thread, wondering when i'm going to reply.

you know you're wrong so you attack instead. classic ad hominem attack.

I've said it before - when proven wrong, nospam either snips the proof or quietly leaves the thread. He would never admit to being wrong, so this is as close as we'll ever get to him admitting to claiming that ISO is a logarithmic scale was an incorrect claim - he abandoned the thread. :-D

The funnies part is all the energy he spent into making sarcastic remarks along the way, and when he realized he was 100% incorrect, he just left with his tail between his legs. :-D

In article <sandman-a44afc81fec44d91dbc0fd8667abcb98@individual.net>, Sandman

Sandman
<snip ignorance>

Last chance, I'll help you.

Here's the "scale" you see in your head:

<>

And you're going - yeah, ISO is totally logarithmic. But that's because you're not understanding what it is measuring. See the column with "photons", being a label for amount of light really. See how it also doubles in value for each step?

Yeah, that's because in photography infancy, it was determined that one "stop" is twice the amount of light. It makes sense, of course, since amount of light grows exponentially when using a circular aperture.

So, the thing we're actually measuring is light, with me so far? And light doesn't come in either 2000 photons or 4000 photons, it comes in any number of photons, and the scale actually looks like this:

<>

See how for every 1,000,000 photons we let in, the amount of light grows linearly? And see how exposure times are spread out further and further apart? That's because the step between 1/60 and 1/30 lets in *far* more light than the step between 1/500 and 1/250. basic math - 100% of the preceding value will always grow larger and larger.

And since ISO also measures stops, it follows the exact linear curve along the amount of light. DIN, being logarithmic, does not. For each stop it moves a fixed amount.

Compare with another logarithmic scale - f-stops, using the same graduation in light:

<>

It has the same correlation to the graduation, meaning it measures a doubling of data, but the scale itself is not linear (arithmetic), it is logarithmic. Each step is not linearly corrpssondant to what it is measuring.

So, a good example here is the Richter scale. Just like the DIN scale, it is also logarithmic. One fixed step in the scale equals ten times the graduation (earthquake amplitude). If the richter scale would be arithmetic like ISO, each step in the scale would be 10 times higher than the preceding value, since it is measuring something that is 10 times more than the preceding value.

Hope this helped.