If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
On 9/10/2017 3:27 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: snip Sandman: Furthermore, EV+5 on one camera is NOT the same as EV+5 on another camera, like ISO is trying to be. Because adaptation of methods of exposure varies, ISO should not be considered an absolute measurement of sensitivity, but merely a reasonable guideline. That is one of the reasons a lot of us bracket exposures. But the point is, ISO *was* an absolute measurement of sensitivity, meaning that one film of ISO400 and another film of ISO400 was equally sensitive to light, that was the entire point of ISO. Now, when digital rolled around, they adopted ISO to mean sensor amplification, but the problem was that ISO is sensitivity over a unit area, not over the exposed area (since that was pretty much the same back in 135 days), but digital cameras can't use a standard that is relevant to unit areas when each camera had different amount of such unit areas And there WAS a item I could do a six minute mile. We are discussion what is, reality, and how to make the best use of it, -- PeterN |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
On 10 Sep 2017 09:43:33 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: PeterN: Because adaptation of methods of exposure varies, ISO should not be considered an absolute measurement of sensitivity, but merely a reasonable guideline. That is one of the reasons a lot of us bracket exposures. Sandman: But the point is, ISO *was* an absolute measurement of sensitivity, meaning that one film of ISO400 and another film of ISO400 was equally sensitive to light, that was the entire point of ISO. Now, when digital rolled around, they adopted ISO to mean sensor amplification, but the problem was that ISO is sensitivity over a unit area, not over the exposed area (since that was pretty much the same back in 135 days), but digital cameras can't use a standard that is relevant to unit areas when each camera had different amount of such unit areas They can, when what matters is not the total amount of light falling on the entire sensor but the amount of light which falls on a unit area of sensor. Incorrect on several accounts. First, the amount of light that falls on a unit area is never "the matter" to the photographer. The end result is. The photographer has no ability to assess the end result until after the exposure is made. He has no role in determining the ISO sensitivity. Secondly, when you have different amount of unit areas in play, whatever "iso" one unit area may or may not be in relation to is irrelevant. Would you care to rewrite that? I can't understand what you are trying to say. Thirdly, ISO for digital cameras does NOT means X amount of light gathered per unit area, that's the *film* usage of ISO. "ISO" for digital cameras is an arbitrary value to match the *lightness* of the film-equivalent of that ISO setting. For the full definition of ISO you need to read the specification ISO 12232:2006. Unfortunately that is pay-walled but the next best thing is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_s...:2006_standard So when you talk about "ISO" in digital cameras, it has absolutely nothing to do with light per unit area other than the camera trying to emulate the result of a ISO analog film. Which, depending on your sensors size means you have to amplify it more or less than another camera. Emulation of analog film has nothing to do with it. Those pixels in the unit area don't care what is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All that matters to them is the amount of light which falls upon them. They are also not more "sensitive" depending on your ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light, the signal needs to be amplified more to match the brightness of the film ISO emulation step. Agreed. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
On 10 Sep 2017 09:45:57 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Eric Stevens: Same logical errors. Sandman: Same hot air from the trolls of rpd I could explain it but it requires diagrams which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is too complicated to be published in a text news group. One day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of work. Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. If I want to explain things properly I *have* to use diagrams and mathematical symbols. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
In article , Eric Stevens
wrote: Eric Stevens: Same logical errors. Sandman: Same hot air from the trolls of rpd I could explain it but it requires diagrams which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is too complicated to be published in a text news group. One day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of work. Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. If I want to explain things properly I *have* to use diagrams and mathematical symbols. that explains why posts don't include links to photos. oh wait... |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
On Sep 10, 2017, nospam wrote
(in ) : In , Eric Stevens wrote: Eric Stevens: Same logical errors. Sandman: Same hot air from the trolls of rpd I could explain it but it requires diagrams which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is too complicated to be published in a text news group. One day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of work. Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. If I want to explain things properly I *have* to use diagrams and mathematical symbols. that explains why posts don't include links to photos. oh wait... I guess you better wait, seeing as it is your posts which never include links to photos. Your photos anyway. -- Regards, Savageduck |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
In article .com,
Savageduck wrote: And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. If I want to explain things properly I *have* to use diagrams and mathematical symbols. that explains why posts don't include links to photos. oh wait... I guess you better wait, seeing as it is your posts which never include links to photos. Your photos anyway. according to eric, it's a text only group and that would be against the rules. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
snip Eric Stevens: Those pixels in the unit area don't care what is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All that matters to them is the amount of light which falls upon them. Sandman: They are also not more "sensitive" depending on your ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light, the signal needs to be amplified more to match the brightness of the film ISO emulation step. Agreed. Finally -- Sandman |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
In article , Eric Stevens wrote:
Eric Stevens: Same logical errors. Sandman: Same hot air from the trolls of rpd Eric Stevens: I could explain it but it requires diagrams which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is too complicated to be published in a text news group. One day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of work. Sandman: Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. Yes, rec.PHOTO.digital is text-only, which has been a problem for all the photographers here that hasn't managed to find a way to share their photographies in any way, shape or form. We're all stuck trying to describe our photos using words to get feedback. :-D -- Sandman |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
In article ,
Sandman wrote: In article , Eric Stevens wrote: Eric Stevens: Same logical errors. Sandman: Same hot air from the trolls of rpd Eric Stevens: I could explain it but it requires diagrams which I can't put on rpd and it requires algebra which is too complicated to be published in a text news group. One day I might produce it as a PDF, but it's quite a lot of work. Sandman: Like I said - more hot air from the trolls. :-D And it's also ironic that Eric, in a photography usenet group, seem to want to claim there is no way to convey something other than text here :-D Please read my words again. RPD is a text-only news group. Yes, rec.PHOTO.digital is text-only, which has been a problem for all the photographers here that hasn't managed to find a way to share their photographies in any way, shape or form. We're all stuck trying to describe our photos using words to get feedback. :-D The USENET and r.p.d are for discution. If you wanna show your pictures and don't have an online site: https://www.flickr.com/ I have rolled my own: http://tinyurl.com/oxhflsw -- teleportation kills |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
dpreview also tries to teach the trolls about ISO/aperture :)
On 11 Sep 2017 05:34:13 GMT, Sandman wrote:
In article , Eric Stevens wrote: snip Eric Stevens: Those pixels in the unit area don't care what is happening in the neighbouring unit area. All that matters to them is the amount of light which falls upon them. Sandman: They are also not more "sensitive" depending on your ISO settings. They are fixed. With less total light, the signal needs to be amplified more to match the brightness of the film ISO emulation step. Agreed. Finally No, not finally. Not at all while you twist words the way you have in your reply. Honesty is the best policy. Yours isn't even the next best. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Teach dullish Brit police how to do their own jobs | George Kerby | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | July 21st 10 07:24 PM |
What a Greek Wedding Can Teach You About Relationships | es8zzp3j | 35mm Photo Equipment | 1 | January 26th 08 10:18 PM |
What a Greek Wedding Can Teach You About Relationships | [email protected] | Photographing People | 0 | January 26th 08 06:20 PM |
What a Greek Wedding Can Teach You About Relationships | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 26th 08 06:19 PM |
In-camera aperture vs. In-lens apertu What's the difference? | LooksLikeRain | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | May 10th 07 05:52 AM |