ISO is not real In Digital Camra's

[Tim Tucker 2]

I was talking to a camera insider the other day and asked. Her response was "LOL, it doesn't do anything." Apparently it stands for In Search Of (an answer) until some boffin re-named it Internet Standard Opinion which kinda stuck. She said that it wan't actually connected to anything and was just a load of numbers on a twiddly dial. It was really there for the placebo effect because they found out that people really did think their photographs were better if there were more knobs on the camera to twiddle. Most of the research these days, she said, went on inventing credible numbers that impressed without being un-believable. Apparently they have a sweepstake about when somebody can invent the *Mega* ISO and have it taken seriously. The trigger, or proof, is a supporting post by Ysarex on TPF. She dismissed DPreview as she said that most of the stuff they post is beyond the realms of reason anyway and that they had started discussing it as fact some years ago. In fact so heated was the debate that it was rumoured the Russians had hacked it and interfered with the outcome, (Russian cameras had broken the MegaISO barrier back in the Soviet era). The Russians of course are denying any knowledge of ISO and asked for proof which kicked off the whole argument again.
There is even a cell of conspiracy theorists who believe that it's all a smoke screen to deflect attention from the way a camera really works (and the fake moon landings). They say that all these arguments about dials are preventing us from seeing the real output of cameras which are actually about spying on us by taking pictures out of the rear screens, and explains the increase in selfies on the internet.
So there you have it, from the horses mouth...
Pg 11 anyone??

 

[DigiFilm]

I was talking to a camera insider the other day and asked. Her response was "LOL, it doesn't do anything." Apparently it stands for In Search Of (an answer) until some boffin re-named it Internet Standard Opinion which kinda stuck. She said that it wan't actually connected to anything and was just a load of numbers on a twiddly dial. It was really there for the placebo effect because they found out that people really did think their photographs were better if there were more knobs on the camera to twiddle. Most of the research these days, she said, went on inventing credible numbers that impressed without being un-believable. Apparently they have a sweepstake about when somebody can invent the *Mega* ISO and have it taken seriously. The trigger, or proof, is a supporting post by Ysarex on TPF. She dismissed DPreview as she said that most of the stuff they post is beyond the realms of reason anyway and that they had started discussing it as fact some years ago. In fact so heated was the debate that it was rumoured the Russians had hacked it and interfered with the outcome, (Russian cameras had broken the MegaISO barrier back in the Soviet era). The Russians of course are denying any knowledge of ISO and asked for proof which kicked off the whole argument again.
There is even a cell of conspiracy theorists who believe that it's all a smoke screen to deflect attention from the way a camera really works (and the fake moon landings). They say that all these arguments about dials are preventing us from seeing the real output of cameras which are actually about spying on us by taking pictures out of the rear screens, and explains the increase in selfies on the internet.
So there you have it, from the horses mouth...
Pg 11 anyone??

See, this is how rumors get started. I had heard that a small, unnamed camera manufacturer had decided to discredit the ISO claims of a large, unnamed camera manufacturer by creating a fake dossier which describes exactly what you set forth about the Russians, but it turned out to be faked. It was purchased and assembled through a retired agent. This is all corroborated by several unnamed sources. In addition, other unnamed sources are trying to hide the fact that camera lenses are designed to show an artificially curved horizon on what is in reality a flat earth.

 

[vintagesnaps]

This thread goes to 11. I had to wait 11 seconds to post.



This is more than 11 seconds' worth of possibly NSFW.

 

[limr]

This thread goes to 11. I had to wait 11 seconds to post.



This is more than 11 seconds' worth of possibly NSFW.

 

[riddell]

There is a very simple way to disprove (or prove if you want to argue) your theory.

Go out in the dark, meter and set the ISO correctly. Use whatever aperture you need to get high ISO, pretty much as high as your camera will go. ISO3200+ You should get a nice looking shot, grainy of course, but the camera doing the best of its abilities.

Then adjust the ISO right down. ISO100 or 50. You've probably got a virtually black, if not pure black image.

Now go into your chosen software and adjust the exposure so its the same level as your correctly metered image.

Does it really look the same? Same quality? As much details in the darker areas? I wouldn't be surprised if you can't even raise it much above the pure black, because there is no info there to pull details out.

 

[Braineack]

Does it really look the same? Same quality? As much details in the darker areas? I wouldn't be surprised if you can't even raise it much above the pure black, because there is no info there to pull details out.

if the sensor is iso invariant, then yes -- they WILL look identical... same quality, same detail; ISO doesn't change the information captured during the exposure.

 

[Fujidave]

OMG 11 pages, I`m a Believer

 

[phlash46]

Geez

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..
Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...






go to 3:50 time line on this video for the ISO TOPIC

Donny

Geez...get a life.

 

[bchalifour]

Yes Donny you are right. All sensors have a basic (fixed) sensitivity to light, usually these days 100 or 200 ISO equivalent which is where they are the most effective (dynamic range and data to noise ratio). The more one increases (even decreases but not much leeway there) the ISO setting, and in doing so processes the information further through the processor and firmware, the more the dynamic range decreases and the noise increases. Now, in time, it is not "way after", not in human time at least.... ;o) but almost for us in real time as we can see the results in our real time on the LCD back screen or in the EVF of our cameras. The amplification process (of the light signal) is not as simple as shooting everything at the nominal 100 or 200 ISO and then manipulating the data in our image processors (Photoshop, Lightroom, Affinity, DxO, etc.) on our computers, tablets or cell-phones. You are not going to get the same results by doing so as by letting the allied processor/firmware of your camera do it (first because even in case of using a (less-processed) raw-format image, it is not as pristine in terms of data as the one that comes straight from the sensor and is processed into RAW and JPG (far more processed than RAW of course) by your image-capturing tool [camera, cell-phone, etc. ....]).

 

[timchuma]

Why is this stupid thread part of the "highlighted posts".

I quit this stupid site.

 

[willard3]

Why does anybody pay attention to this poop?
The OP is only encouraged to post further poop by anyone's response.

 

[jimbotexas]

Sorry, you're flat wrong for several very simple and very logical reasons:

Since it was standardized in 1974, ISO defines the speed of film and, effectively, it's sensitivity to light. Reference Wikipedia.

With digital sensors, the same thing applies. Reference Canon and Digital Photography School.

Digital sensor technology is far more complex than you apparently realize. Reference Canon White Paper: Advances in CMOS Image Sensors and Associated Processing.

Even without references, simple observation and logic dictates that advances in technology have greatly increased sensor sensitivity over the last 20 years.

Twenty years ago, I shot with an early Minolta camera that had an ISO range of 100-800. Shots at 800 were so grainy as to be virtually unusable.
Ten years ago, I shot with a Canon 40D that ranged 100-1600. Shots at 1600 were terrible as well but 800 was usable.
Eight years ago, I shot with a Canon 5D Mark II that ranged 100-6400 and was a massive improvement in affordable sensor technology. I regularly used 1600 for low-light that produced great results. I even used 3200 on occasion and produced usable results.
These days, a Canon 5D Mark IV produces fantastic results at 12,800 ISO that would be completely unimaginable 20 years ago.

To say ISO is "gain" is not simply untrue but an outright lie.

No one is being "manipulated" except you.

Ok so i said this before, about ISO not real in Digital Camera's.

here is the True fact, the ISO setting in your camera is not applied at the time the picture is taken,
it's applied AFTER THE PICTURE IS TAKEN, all it is, is applied GAIN to amplify the Exposure for lower lighting that is it and it degrades your picture doing that as well the higher the Applied gain (ISO) Setting the more noise and degradation in your image.

Turing up your ISO is just like taking your under exposed picture in lightroom and increasing the Exposure setting to make the picture well exposed, that is all it is..

The ISO is applied well after your picture is taken..
Before some of these guys who think they know it all argued me telling me i was wrong, but what i'm saying is the truth,

here is another fact if you take a picture with one full frame camera at 800 ISO
and compare it to another full frame camera by another camera manufacture company the images will not always be the same in other words some camera manufactures misrepresent what ISO 100 or 500 really is, to make it look like their camera take better pictures at a higher ISO setting them other which is all a lie.

Are you feeling manipulated yet??

yeah ISO is NOT part of the exposure triangle at all. NOT IN DIGITAL Photography!!!!

ISO is really applied gain..
don't believe me here is 2 other sources who say the exact same thing...






go to 3:50 time line on this video for the ISO TOPIC

Donny

 

[Overread]

And I think that might be a good time to draw it to a close ladies and gentlemen.


Remember remain respectful to each other; don't believe into all the click-bait youtube channels out there today.
Go out and have some fun taking some photos.