What does 'hi' means?

[rsbones]

Bull. Crap. Just because you are preserving the blown highlights, does NOT mean you have captured a greater dynamic range. You underexposed by 6 stops in the example, so CLEARLY your highlights won't be blown. Where the theory falls flat, is that by underexposing the image by 6 stops, you just lost the majority of your shadow detail

If the shots were taken at the same aperture and shutter speed, the sensor captures the same amount of "shadow detail" regardless of where you set the ISO. ISO is always post-processing, whether you let your camera do it (where gain worked better than photoshop on older sensors without flat read noise curves) or now do it with raw converter or photoshop (when shooting with these new sensors).


It's going to take some time to get used to this possibility. But I suspect in the near future, ISO will simply be a meta-data. It'll exist in the jpg so that the preview on your camera lcd will be viewable, but the actual raw data will not include any permanent iso adjustment.

I'm not going to go research it because I'm busy with something else, but I'll go out on a limb and say that switching to different ISO has no noteworthy impact in dynamic range at all... and CERTAINLY not a 2x impact. I'm pretty certain there isn't a camera on the market that isn't capable of capturing "14 stops of light" without software tricks such as "HDR".


Also, no one is going to say that any particular setting for ISO on a camera is properly exposed without knowing the scene in question. I say this merely as an additional emphasis that you're probably not quite as informed as you may think.

You don't have to go out on a limb. All the data about dynamic range available at each ISO setting is available for you at Sensorgen.info data for Nikon D7000 for the D7000. You are correct about one thing: i'm not as informed as I think, and I'm simply passing on info to you guys from the links quoted where the discussion really is being informed by some really smart people, including those working in the sensor engineering industry.


It was never my intention here to argue this case. I simply wanted to pass along some brand new information that leads to exciting possibilities in photography. If you want to disagree with them, you're going to need to take that discussion elsewhere I'm afraid because there is not much more I can do to present this side than show you all the data linked above and the discussions linked above. FWIW, it's pretty well accepted that the D7000 and Pentax that uses the same sensor are "ISOless". Google that term and have fun reading all about this paradigm shift.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Its clearly explained in the manual what it does and performance not good, not that i read mine either.

 

[manaheim]

Its clearly explained in the manual what it does and performance not good, not that i read mine either.

Oh yeah, I meant to make a snarky remark to this effect as well, but was distracted by the ISO/DR thing.

So many posts, so little time to snark.

 

[MTVision]

If the shots were taken at the same aperture and shutter speed, the sensor captures the same amount of "shadow detail" regardless of where you set the ISO. ISO is always post-processing, whether you let your camera do it (where gain worked better than photoshop on older sensors without flat read noise curves) or now do it with raw converter or photoshop (when shooting with these new sensors).

It's going to take some time to get used to this possibility. But I suspect in the near future, ISO will simply be a meta-data. It'll exist in the jpg so that the preview on your camera lcd will be viewable, but the actual raw data will not include any permanent iso adjustment.

You don't have to go out on a limb. All the data about dynamic range available at each ISO setting is available for you at Sensorgen.info data for Nikon D7000 for the D7000. You are correct about one thing: i'm not as informed as I think, and I'm simply passing on info to you guys from the links quoted where the discussion really is being informed by some really smart people, including those working in the sensor engineering industry.

It was never my intention here to argue this case. I simply wanted to pass along some brand new information that leads to exciting possibilities in photography. If you want to disagree with them, you're going to need to take that discussion elsewhere I'm afraid because there is not much more I can do to present this side than show you all the data linked above and the discussions linked above. FWIW, it's pretty well accepted that the D7000 and Pentax that uses the same sensor are "ISOless". Google that term and have fun reading all about this paradigm shift.

I'll do a test and post the results. I don't have a d7000 but I have a d5100 and they have the basically the same/similar sensor!

 

[bazooka]

Ok, I spent basically all morning reading that book of a thread in between some work done. I'm still not quite sure what the "ISO-less" crowd is claiming. It seems there are so many different variables being argued by different people at the same time. At one point, someone actually claimed shooting in RAW disabled the ISO setting altogether. There were also massive arguments over semantics... exposure, density, even ISO itself.

And most of it theory, with very little actual evidence... ie photos with no differences other than ISO (including modifications to contrast, saturation, NR, etc....). The most telling was the above comparison shot posted by bones. However, I don't believe that post specified what processing was done. Destin, even in your shot you specify that you had to use many different settings to get the images to look roughly the same. How about we compare apples to apples?

Two shots, same "exposure", meaning shutter time and aperture. One ISO set high (1600?) to properly expose highlights (no clipping other than specular), and then reset to base. When in RAW processor, turn all settings *FROM DEFAULT* to 0. Only modifications to the exposure are allowed. And to make it even more fair (because many on the thread preached against ACR not having accurate or appropriate algorithms), I recommend using RT and RPP which were brought up several times.

Oh yeah, and this apparently doesn't apply to *ANY* Canon DSLR, and many Nikon DSLR's (or any other camera with a non-linear read-noise slope). So that counts me out... I suppose I could do my own test to, like Destin said, prove what I already know. Heck, I might learn something.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

 

[Destin]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

 

[fjrabon]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

This isn't true in the same way that clipping highlights works. The only way a shadow is completely 'clipped' in a RAW image is if not enough photons even hit the sensor from that area of the image. However, that's an extremely low threshold. There are very few images taken where you can't retrieve the detail from shadows to a pretty decent extent. The problem is (normally, I guess) that you pay for it in noise, because you're amplifying small amounts of light to great extents, you pick up the extraneous photons/electrons that don't correspond to the image and are amplifying them too. With clipping highlights, the sensor gets maxed out, and for that spot in the image, any further incoming photons don't get processed as part of the image, and it shows up in the picture as pure white.

Now, in post, you can change your black point on an image, so any areas that fall below your defined threshold do become 'blocked out', but that's set by you, on purpose.

But clipping highlights is extremely different from 'clipping' shadows. You don't lose information in the same way. That's why we have the saying "the left side of the histogram holds a heckuva lot more information than does the right side." The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

 

[fjrabon]

you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you can amplify a noisy image. You might not want to do it, but you certainly can. With today's DSLRs, that's exactly how you get visible noise in the first place, by amplifying an image where parts of the actual image are no brighter than the stray electrons created by the camera's operation, and thus when you amplify that enough, you get visible noise.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you can amplify a noisy image. You might not want to do it, but you certainly can. With today's DSLRs, that's exactly how you get visible noise in the first place, by amplifying an image where parts of the actual image are no brighter than the stray electrons created by the camera's operation, and thus when you amplify that enough, you get visible noise.

That's right! You can't amplify detail that is not there!

 

[EchoingWhisper]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

You can't clip shadows. I'm not joking. The reason it gets clipped is because of the black levels.

 

[fjrabon]

you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

That doesn't even make sense. Of course you can amplify a noisy image. You might not want to do it, but you certainly can. With today's DSLRs, that's exactly how you get visible noise in the first place, by amplifying an image where parts of the actual image are no brighter than the stray electrons created by the camera's operation, and thus when you amplify that enough, you get visible noise.

That's right! You can't amplify detail that is not there!

SO you're talking about where the 'source/image photons' are so low that they are completely indistinguishable from the 'stray/noise electrons'?

Even that being said, you can still amplify it. It just looks ugly. The idea of 'amplifying detail' doesn't even make sense. Amplification is amplification, it doesn't make a difference if the source it is amplifying is noisy or perfectly noise free.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

I may have used the wrong words - but using higher ISO doesn't mean you can get detail where it is not possible in low ISOs.

 

[EchoingWhisper]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

One more thing - if you read my previous post - underexpose by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip shadows. I didn't say that it was not possible to clip shadows - what I said may not be what you're thinking. What I meant is that underexposing by using a lower ISO wouldn't clip more shadows compared to using a higher ISO. A monitor capable of displaying high bits would show that it isn't really clipped.

 

[Destin]

D7000 has very low read noise - so digitally amplifying it wouldn't increase much noise, as long as there is sufficient bits/dithering. Underexposing using lower ISO doesn't decrease dynamic range - you can only clip highlights, you can't clip shadows - it can only be covered by noise. When you increase ISO, you are essentially throwing away the highlight information, you can't amplify detail that is covered by noise because there is no detail.

BS. YOU CAN ABSOLUTELY CLIP SHADOWS. If you take a photo that is severely underexposed the shadow areas will be SO DARK THAT THE CAMERA DOES NOT RECORD DETAIL IN THEM.

The left side only gets blocked out when the amount of photons hitting the sensor falls to an EXTREMELY low number. You can bring back a shadowed out area most of the time, if you're willing to deal with the noise. And with today's digital noise removal improvements and sensor improvements, that's going away faster and faster. Whereas a highlight, when it's gone, it's gone.

You mean like shooting a scene at f/4, 1/30th, and iso 100, when the proper exposure is f/4, 1/30th, and iso6400. I'm pretty sure you just proved the point that i've been trying to prove throughout this entire thread for me.