Why 'more or less stopped using ISO'?

Started 10 months ago | Questions
Luke Kaven
Veteran MemberPosts: 5,306
Like?
Lovely and suspect properties
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

[Due to flat nesting, I can't tell where the preceding comment comes from.]

There is a way to nail down a distinction Bob is making here from analytical philosophy.

The property of brightness is in a class of relational properties (sometimes called "mere Cambridge properties").  This is a problem.  Brightness is dependent not just on the object itself, but a variety of other environmental and psychological conditions.  So there can be a change in the brightness of an object without any change in the object itself.

This is in contrast to monadic properties, such as the property of being 'round'.  A property of this sort cannot be changed without a corresponding change in the object itself.

The problem with relational properties is that they are artifacts of logical possibility (and linguistic possibility) that cannot be squared with nature insofar as we can see.  For example, I might have the property of being 'fifty miles south of a burning barn' (to quote a famous example due to Jaegwon Kim) one day, and not the next, but not due to any change in me.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Lovely and suspect properties
In reply to Luke Kaven, 10 months ago

Luke Kaven wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

[Due to flat nesting, I can't tell where the preceding comment comes from.]

There is a way to nail down a distinction Bob is making here from analytical philosophy.

The property of brightness is in a class of relational properties (sometimes called "mere Cambridge properties"). This is a problem. Brightness is dependent not just on the object itself, but a variety of other environmental and psychological conditions. So there can be a change in the brightness of an object without any change in the object itself.

This is in contrast to monadic properties, such as the property of being 'round'. A property of this sort cannot be changed without a corresponding change in the object itself.

The problem with relational properties is that they are artifacts of logical possibility (and linguistic possibility) that cannot be squared with nature insofar as we can see. For example, I might have the property of being 'fifty miles south of a burning barn' (to quote a famous example due to Jaegwon Kim) one day, and not the next, but not due to any change in me.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to jackdan, 10 months ago

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

'Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'. That was what you wrote, was it not?

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought you were asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xpatUSA
Senior MemberPosts: 3,808Gear list
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought [crames was] asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

Indeed, especially if combined with the oft-quoted ISO1600 and the miniscule pixels of, say, a D800. The probability of getting any electrons in the proverbial bucket at all seems quite remote!

ISO100 rules.

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 Sigma SD14 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
crames
Regular MemberPosts: 192
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

'Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'. That was what you wrote, was it not?

Brightness, a perception, does not have the units of luminance. You think that means that brightness has nothing to do with luminance? That would be like saying the perception of loudness has nothing to do with sound intensity.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

Yes, you showed this before. I keep looking at this but nowhere do I see the word "brightness" mentioned. Lets see, there's definitely a luminance component of exposure, but nowhere do I see a mapping from a physical luminance component to a perceptual brightness scale. Did you leave something out in your cut & paste?

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought you were asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

"Sunny 16," rule, but really irrelevant for the ISO->brightness question that you've managed to avoid.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,336
Like?
Re: Lovely and suspect properties
In reply to Luke Kaven, 10 months ago

As a reflection of this, in some languages brightness and luminance are the same word, and the physics textbooks state units as cd/m^2 - typical luminosity. It is the Tower of Babel problem. For example, in Italian ‪luminosità‬ is brightness, while ‪chiarezza‬ (clarity) is luminosity

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
xpatUSA
Senior MemberPosts: 3,808Gear list
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

I keep looking at this but nowhere do I see the word "brightness" mentioned.

Veering off a little, I once used the word "brightness" some years ago, before I knew everything. Was using a D50 to measure the "brightness" of luminous watch hands. I said:

"So, how could we measure the actual brightness of the hands and markers of this watch?"

You can read more here:

http://tcktek.blogspot.com/2011/06/exposing-lume.html

-- hide signature --

Cheers,
Ted

 xpatUSA's gear list:xpatUSA's gear list
Sigma SD9 Sigma SD10 Sigma SD14 +2 more
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

'Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'. That was what you wrote, was it not?

Brightness, a perception, does not have the units of luminance. You think that means that brightness has nothing to do with luminance?

If brightness has 'something to do with luminance' then the units of brightness (whatever they are) must be derivable from the units of luminance (and possibly other units too, if there are other things that are something to do with brightness).

Here's a hint, the Wikipedia article on 'luminance' says it quite nicely:

Brightness, the subjective impression of luminance.

and the one on 'Brightness' says

Brightness is an attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to be radiating or reflecting light

That would be like saying the perception of loudness has nothing to do with sound intensity.

So, what do you think is the sound power output of a pair of iPod earphones? Can that give the same perception of loudness as a 100W amplifier and loudspeaker?

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

Yes, you showed this before. I keep looking at this but nowhere do I see the word "brightness" mentioned.

What do you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

Lets see, there's definitely a luminance component of exposure,

For sure, the standard even tells you what it is:

but nowhere do I see a mapping from a physical luminance component to a perceptual brightness scale. Did you leave something out in your cut & paste?

As I said, what would you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought you were asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

"Sunny 16," rule, but really irrelevant for the ISO->brightness question that you've managed to avoid.

I haven't avoided it, you've just put the blinkers on. Why would you use a rule that gives such a silly choice of f number and shutter speed? And if using it ended up with you having the image a stop too dark, why would you go on using it and adjust the ISO? Why wouldn't you find some more sensible method of exposure management?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jackdan
Contributing MemberPosts: 892
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I am guessing you thought I was someone else. What I said was, "So although there are no units for brightness there are units for the measurment of the perceived brightness to the human eye." Those units, of course, being for luminance".

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jackdan
Contributing MemberPosts: 892
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

Sorry, I was not able to delete this.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to jackdan, 10 months ago

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I am guessing you thought I was someone else. What I said was, "So although there are no units for brightness there are units for the measurment of the perceived brightness to the human eye." Those units, of course, being for luminance".

I probably have got confused between you and crames. So, the units for measurement of the perceived brightness to the human eye are candela per square metre? Really?

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,336
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I am guessing you thought I was someone else. What I said was, "So although there are no units for brightness there are units for the measurment of the perceived brightness to the human eye." Those units, of course, being for luminance".

I probably have got confused between you and crames. So, the units for measurement of the perceived brightness to the human eye are candela per square metre? Really?

loudness is "that attribute of auditory sensation in terms of which sounds can be ordered on a scale extending from quiet to loud". ‪sone is a unit of perceived loudness proposed by Stanley Smith Stevens in 1936. in acoustics, loudness is the subjective perception of sound pressure. it is a non-SI unit.‬

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
jackdan
Contributing MemberPosts: 892
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I am guessing you thought I was someone else. What I said was, "So although there are no units for brightness there are units for the measurment of the perceived brightness to the human eye." Those units, of course, being for luminance".

I probably have got confused between you and crames.

Crames is the one who know what he is talking about.

So, the units for measurement of the perceived brightness to the human eye are candela per square metre? Really?

Only in so far as "luminance is the measurable quantity which most closely corresponds to brightness."

(Brightness, Luminance, and Confusion. from Information Display March 1993 (vol . 9, iss. 3, pp. 21-24). By Charles P. Halsted )

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
crames
Regular MemberPosts: 192
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to bobn2, 10 months ago

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

'Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'. That was what you wrote, was it not?

Brightness, a perception, does not have the units of luminance. You think that means that brightness has nothing to do with luminance?

If brightness has 'something to do with luminance' then the units of brightness (whatever they are) must be derivable from the units of luminance (and possibly other units too, if there are other things that are something to do with brightness).

This is something that you obviously just made up.

Here's a hint, the Wikipedia article on 'luminance' says it quite nicely:

Brightness, the subjective impression of luminance.

and the one on 'Brightness' says

Brightness is an attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to be radiating or reflecting light

It seems that you're missing an important distinction, and are confusing the measurable physical stimulus: luminance, with the psychological impression of the stimulus: brightness. The luminance can be measured, while the psychological impression is determined using psychophysical methods.

It's the same with L* (CIELAB lightness), you input measured tristimulus values for the color of interest along with the tristimulus values of a reference white, what you get out is a mapping to a uniform lightness scale between 0 and 100 in L* lightness units. Can you guess whether the other dimensions of CIELAB, a*, b*, Chroma, and hue have physical units?

That would be like saying the perception of loudness has nothing to do with sound intensity.

So, what do you think is the sound power output of a pair of iPod earphones? Can that give the same perception of loudness as a 100W amplifier and loudspeaker?

The point is, what is the unit for Loudness (Sones (N) or Phons (L))? Again it's perceptual.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

Yes, you showed this before. I keep looking at this but nowhere do I see the word "brightness" mentioned.

What do you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

That particular value gives an L* lightness of 50 in the sRGB space, so I would say it's a target lightness.

Lets see, there's definitely a luminance component of exposure,

For sure, the standard even tells you what it is:

but nowhere do I see a mapping from a physical luminance component to a perceptual brightness scale. Did you leave something out in your cut & paste?

As I said, what would you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

As I said, it appears to map a target luminance to lightness L*= 50, perceptual middle gray. Still no sign of brightness anywhere!

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought you were asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

"Sunny 16," rule, but really irrelevant for the ISO->brightness question that you've managed to avoid.

I haven't avoided it, you've just put the blinkers on. Why would you use a rule that gives such a silly choice of f number and shutter speed? And if using it ended up with you having the image a stop too dark, why would you go on using it and adjust the ISO? Why wouldn't you find some more sensible method of exposure management?

Now you're just jerking my chain.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,336
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

The point is, what is the unit for Loudness (Sones (N) or Phons (L))?

Phons are not the units for loudness, they are for loudness level, and they are just units to compensate the perception dependency on frequency.

Neither are used in metrology.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
crames
Regular MemberPosts: 192
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to Iliah Borg, 10 months ago

Iliah Borg wrote:

The point is, what is the unit for Loudness (Sones (N) or Phons (L))?

Phons are not the units for loudness, they are for loudness level, and they are just units to compensate the perception dependency on frequency.

Neither are used in metrology.

-- hide signature --

Thanks for the correction - and confirmation.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to jackdan, 10 months ago

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

jackdan wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

I found the post where your "Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' " originated, but have not found the origin of "'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance,". Can you point me to that post please?

It came from you, 'candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'.

-- hide signature --

Bob

I am guessing you thought I was someone else. What I said was, "So although there are no units for brightness there are units for the measurment of the perceived brightness to the human eye." Those units, of course, being for luminance".

I probably have got confused between you and crames.

Crames is the one who know what he is talking about.

I'm sure he does, but he doesn't appear to be able to make the right connections in this case.

So, the units for measurement of the perceived brightness to the human eye are candela per square metre? Really?

Only in so far as "luminance is the measurable quantity which most closely corresponds to brightness."

(Brightness, Luminance, and Confusion. from Information Display March 1993 (vol . 9, iss. 3, pp. 21-24). By Charles P. Halsted )

Well, yes - but 'most closely corresponds' is hardly a tight relationship.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
bobn2
Forum ProPosts: 32,303
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

crames wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

How does brightness figure into this? That is, CIE brightness, or are you using another definition?

I don't see how the connection between luminance and brightness would cause there to be "no such thing as ISO."

You can calculate a brightness for an sRGB value of 118, since the viewing conditions are defined and you have enough info to plug into a CIECAM02 calculator.

What would be the brightness for an sRGB value of 118, in candela per square metre?

-- hide signature --

Bob

CIECAM02 brightness correlate Q of the 8 bit sRGB value (118,118,118), Q=102.28.

Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness, so your question doesn't make sense.

You're obviously fishing around for something, without explaining how brightness, that is CIE brightness as discussed in this sub-thread, has anything to do with the existence or non-existence of "ISO."

Apparently "'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' ".

While you mull things over,

Sorry, you have the mulling the wrong way round. It's you that needs to be mulling. Apparently 'brightness' is dependent on 'absolute luminance of the stimulus' and yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance, so mull that one over.

"And yet we find that 'brightness' has nothing to do with luminance..."

I really don't think "we" have found that to be the case at all. Certainly nothing I have posted agrees with that.

Where in the world did you get that from?

'Candelas per square meter are the units for luminance, not the unit-less brightness'. That was what you wrote, was it not?

Brightness, a perception, does not have the units of luminance. You think that means that brightness has nothing to do with luminance?

If brightness has 'something to do with luminance' then the units of brightness (whatever they are) must be derivable from the units of luminance (and possibly other units too, if there are other things that are something to do with brightness).

This is something that you obviously just made up.

It's a basic principle of physics and metrology. If you have units which measure related phenomena, it must be possible to define that relationship.

Here's a hint, the Wikipedia article on 'luminance' says it quite nicely:

Brightness, the subjective impression of luminance.

and the one on 'Brightness' says

Brightness is an attribute of visual perception in which a source appears to be radiating or reflecting light

It seems that you're missing an important distinction, and are confusing the measurable physical stimulus: luminance, with the psychological impression of the stimulus: brightness. The luminance can be measured, while the psychological impression is determined using psychophysical methods.

The 'Psychophysical methods' if they end up with a metric that is at all normative, have to boil that 'psychological impression' down to some constants, conversion factors and formulae so that these values can be determined from measurable physical phenomena. That was what CIE is all about.

It's the same with L* (CIELAB lightness), you input measured tristimulus values for the color of interest along with the tristimulus values of a reference white, what you get out is a mapping to a uniform lightness scale between 0 and 100 in L* lightness units. Can you guess whether the other dimensions of CIELAB, a*, b*, Chroma, and hue have physical units?

They are all derivable from physical units. Otherwise there would be no way of engineering devices to CIE standards.

That would be like saying the perception of loudness has nothing to do with sound intensity.

So, what do you think is the sound power output of a pair of iPod earphones? Can that give the same perception of loudness as a 100W amplifier and loudspeaker?

The point is, what is the unit for Loudness (Sones (N) or Phons (L))? Again it's perceptual.

here's a question for you, Bob:

I take a picture at f/16 1/100 ISO 100. Now I want to take another shot where the final image is twice as bright. What ISO setting should I use?

I wouldn't be using f/16, 1/100 in the first place, so it's a hypothetical. But I wouldn't be using 'ISO' or exposure to set the brightness, whatever.

Good for you. However I believe you have stated in various threads that ISO is a brightness control, so I was just trying to establish what might be the relationship between the two.

That is easy, you'll find it in the ISO standard:

Yes, you showed this before. I keep looking at this but nowhere do I see the word "brightness" mentioned.

What do you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

That particular value gives an L* lightness of 50 in the sRGB space, so I would say it's a target lightness.

Think also that the standard demands that the white balance be set so R,G and B channels yield the same value. What now is the relationship between 'lightness' and 'brightness'.

Lets see, there's definitely a luminance component of exposure,

For sure, the standard even tells you what it is:

but nowhere do I see a mapping from a physical luminance component to a perceptual brightness scale. Did you leave something out in your cut & paste?

As I said, what would you think 461/1000 x Omax represents?

As I said, it appears to map a target luminance to lightness L*= 50, perceptual middle gray. Still no sign of brightness anywhere!

See above. In any case, it makes not difference to the fundamental discussion, that 'gain' or 'amplification' is not a part of 'ISO', whether it's 'lightness' or 'brightness'.

You didn't need me to tell you that. Sorry, I thought you were asking for advice. I was wondering why you'd ever choose f/16, 1/100, it seems a pretty unlikely combination to me.

"Sunny 16," rule, but really irrelevant for the ISO->brightness question that you've managed to avoid.

I haven't avoided it, you've just put the blinkers on. Why would you use a rule that gives such a silly choice of f number and shutter speed? And if using it ended up with you having the image a stop too dark, why would you go on using it and adjust the ISO? Why wouldn't you find some more sensible method of exposure management?

Now you're just jerking my chain.

No, I'm not. Really just returning this long and mostly futile sub-thread to the topic.

-- hide signature --

Bob

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Iliah Borg
Forum ProPosts: 16,336
Like?
Re: Maybe this will help.
In reply to crames, 10 months ago

crames wrote:

Iliah Borg wrote:

The point is, what is the unit for Loudness (Sones (N) or Phons (L))?

Phons are not the units for loudness, they are for loudness level, and they are just units to compensate the perception dependency on frequency.

Neither are used in metrology.

Thanks for the correction - and confirmation.

A confirmation would be to show an industry-standard mixer calibrated in sones / phones. There are none.

-- hide signature --
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads