Difference between ISO 100 pushed 6 stops and ISO 6400?

[Iliah Borg]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

 

[Iliah Borg]

... such as in this review of the Panasonic Lumix DC-GH5S - see the Dual Gain sub-heading; specifically the last para.

That comes from the Panasonic press materials and like much such material is very misleading.

A relatively early paper from Boise, fun to read 9 years later http://cmosedu.com/jbaker/students/...d Dual Conversion Gain CMOS Image Sensors.pdf

 

[JDC1958]

two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification.

Please elaborate.

Yet they cannot produce one document to validate their thesis from a University or major camera manufacturer.

Have you already familiarized yourself with the standard on ISO speed?

What you do produce is one document from ISO that not one manufacturer claims to adhere to.

Have you already familiarized yourself with corresponding CIPA documents (CIPA DC-004) ?

Have you looked at pp. 25 and 26 of DC-004?

While this site as well as many others use the term amplification and gain hand in hand.

I would say it is you who view the world as flat; given the huge minority of people who share your opinion.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same.

--
http://www.libraw.org/

The document you cite has nothing to do with how the ISO or REI is acquired in camera. They do use the words exposure, speed, and sensitivity but do not define how this is acquired.

The electronics. Give me the electronics you so dearly believe in. We are talking about what happens in camera, amplification and gain, when you change the ISO setting. Try and stay on topic.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same.

 

[Iliah Borg]

two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification.

Please elaborate.

Yet they cannot produce one document to validate their thesis from a University or major camera manufacturer.

Have you already familiarized yourself with the standard on ISO speed?

What you do produce is one document from ISO that not one manufacturer claims to adhere to.

Have you already familiarized yourself with corresponding CIPA documents (CIPA DC-004) ?

Have you looked at pp. 25 and 26 of DC-004?

While this site as well as many others use the term amplification and gain hand in hand.

I would say it is you who view the world as flat; given the huge minority of people who share your opinion.

The document you cite has nothing to do with how the ISO or REI is acquired in camera.

I don't talk in bold.

Your point being?

And what do you mean, exactly, saying "ISO or REI"?

I asked you to elaborate, on "two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification", above. Please do so.

Give me the electronics you so dearly believe in.

The electronics you don't know or wish to know? What for?

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[confused circle]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

 

[crashpc]

Bhaha guys, I have good time reading this thread. Too bad it will max out on posts soon.

 

[Iliah Borg]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

--
http://www.libraw.org/

 

[JDC1958]

two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification.

Please elaborate.

Yet they cannot produce one document to validate their thesis from a University or major camera manufacturer.

Have you already familiarized yourself with the standard on ISO speed?

What you do produce is one document from ISO that not one manufacturer claims to adhere to.

Have you already familiarized yourself with corresponding CIPA documents (CIPA DC-004) ?

Have you looked at pp. 25 and 26 of DC-004?

While this site as well as many others use the term amplification and gain hand in hand.

I would say it is you who view the world as flat; given the huge minority of people who share your opinion.

The document you cite has nothing to do with how the ISO or REI is acquired in camera.

I don't talk in bold.

Your point being?

And what do you mean, exactly, saying "ISO or REI"?

I asked you to elaborate, on "two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification", above. Please do so.

Give me the electronics you so dearly believe in.

The electronics you don't know or wish to know? What for?

--
http://www.libraw.org/

Answering a question with a question. Classic. We are talking about cameras; digital cameras to be specific. If you don't know what ISO and REI mean in that context, please bow out of the discussion.

I bold important points so they are not easily missed or ignored. It is not used in the same manner as all caps ( screaming at someone ). Go back to school. They will teach you how to use and read bold text.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same.

 

[Iliah Borg]

two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification.

Please elaborate.

While this site as well as many others use the term amplification and gain hand in hand.

I would say it is you who view the world as flat; given the huge minority of people who share your opinion.

The document you cite has nothing to do with how the ISO or REI is acquired in camera.

I don't talk in bold.

Your point being?

And what do you mean, exactly, saying "ISO or REI"?

I asked you to elaborate, on "two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification", above. Please do so.

Give me the electronics you so dearly believe in.

The electronics you don't know or wish to know? What for?
Answering a question with a question. Classic.
Indeed.

Remember my question above?

Iliah Borg, post: 60753407, member: 1686146"]

JDC1958, post: 60753407, member: 1686146"]
two to three people who think ISO is somehow related to gain but not amplification.

Please elaborate.

Where is your answer? Oh. You don't know what to say and start obfuscating.

We are talking about cameras; digital cameras to be specific. If you don't know what ISO and REI mean in that context, please bow out of the discussion.

Indeed, please bow out. "ISO or REI"

I bold important points

In this case you used bold to make your lack of understanding more pronounced. Is that what you wished for?
--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[confused circle]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

 

[Bill Ferris]

I wonder why so many people are determined to believe that 'ISO' is 'amplification' when they don't have the requisite expertise to understand what 'amplification' is, or how the application of voltage gain works in the design of analog circuits.

I'll take a stab at that. Most of us who talk about or describe the function of ISO are non-technical. We use that term, amplification, in a non-technical way. Our use is colloquial. We know that, the larger the ISO, the lighter the image appears. We also know that changes to ISO do not add or remove light from the scene captured in the photograph.

So, to get from here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 100



to here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 3200



to match the lightness of this photo, here...


f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 100



we conclude that the last image is much lighter because 16-times the light from the scene was recorded during the shutter actuation. The first image is much darker because 1/16th the amount of light was captured as in the last image.

We know that increasing ISO to make the first image appear as light as the last does not add any light from the scene. Therefore, we conclude some manipulation of the minimal volume of light captured during that first exposure was needed to achieve the final outcome of a much brighter image.

Amplification, describes what we understand to be the nature of that manipulation or enhancement of the light. It's not adding more light. Rather, it's taking a fixed volume of light and making it appear brighter. It's similar to the amplification of sound. The voice on the stage can be quiet - almost inaudible - to the person seated at the back of the house until the voice is amplified. Another analogy might be the addition of bread crumbs to meatloaf. Yes, the bread crumbs function as a binding agent. Bread also adds volume to the loaf so it can be used to feed a larger group of people. No more meat is in the loaf but, since every bite contains at least some meat, you still get the experience of eating a tasty meatloaf.

If there is a term other than amplification that adequately describes the fact that increasing ISO results in a photograph appearing lighter without actually adding more light from the scene, I would be happy to give that term consideration as a replacement for, amplification. Until then, I (and I suspect others) will continue to use the term in this colloquial context: increasing ISO amplifies or manipulates light to render a lighter image of the scene without capturing more light from the scene.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ

http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

 

[Iliah Borg]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

Conversion gain is about difference,

When my neighbor has a huge crop of apples, while I have oranges, and we establish the conversion as 2 apples per 1 orange, is it about the difference?

Conversion gain is the reciprocal of capacitance at the pixel (primary sense node, often called "floating diffusion", FD), thus it is intrinsic pixel property.

 

[confused circle]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

Conversion gain is about difference,

When my neighbor has a huge crop of apples, while I have oranges, and we establish the conversion as 2 apples per 1 orange, is it about the difference?

Conversion gain is the reciprocal of capacitance at the pixel (primary sense node, often called "floating diffusion", FD), thus it is intrinsic pixel property.

 

[Iliah Borg]

The following thread illustrates real life difference between amplification and multiplication:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

To me it means that we better not mix the two.

I wonder why so many people are determined to believe that 'ISO' is 'amplification' when they don't have the requisite expertise to understand what 'amplification' is, or how the application of voltage gain works in the design of analog circuits.

I'll take a stab at that. Most of us who talk about or describe the function of ISO are non-technical. We use that term, amplification, in a non-technical way. Our use is colloquial. We know that, the larger the ISO, the lighter the image appears. We also know that changes to ISO do not add or remove light from the scene captured in the photograph.

So, to get from here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 100

to here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 3200

to match the lightness of this photo, here...


f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 100

we conclude that the last image is much lighter because 16-times the light from the scene was recorded during the shutter actuation. The first image is much darker because 1/16th the amount of light was captured as in the last image.

We know that increasing ISO to make the first image appear as light as the last does not add any light from the scene. Therefore, we conclude some manipulation of the minimal volume of light captured during that first exposure was needed to achieve the final outcome of a much brighter image.

Amplification, describes what we understand to be the nature of that manipulation or enhancement of the light. It's not adding more light. Rather, it's taking a fixed volume of light and making it appear brighter. It's similar to the amplification of sound. The voice on the stage can be quiet - almost inaudible - to the person seated at the back of the house until the voice is amplified. Another analogy might be the addition of bread crumbs to meatloaf. Yes, the bread crumbs function as a binding agent. Bread also adds volume to the loaf so it can be used to feed a larger group of people. No more meat is in the loaf but, since every bite contains at least some meat, you still get the experience of eating a tasty meatloaf.

If there is a term other than amplification that adequately describes the fact that increasing ISO results in a photograph appearing lighter without actually adding more light from the scene, I would be happy to give that term consideration as a replacement for, amplification. Until then, I (and I suspect others) will continue to use the term in this colloquial context: increasing ISO amplifies or manipulates light to render a lighter image of the scene without capturing more light from the scene.

--
Bill Ferris Photography
Flagstaff, AZ
http://www.billferris.photoshelter.com

--

About LibRaw | LibRaw

www.libraw.org

 

[Iliah Borg]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

Conversion gain is about difference,

When my neighbor has a huge crop of apples, while I have oranges, and we establish the conversion as 2 apples per 1 orange, is it about the difference?

Conversion gain is the reciprocal of capacitance at the pixel (primary sense node, often called "floating diffusion", FD), thus it is intrinsic pixel property.

And it matters because at some point you run out of oranges to exchange for his apples. If you didn't, what would be the point of iso settings and worrying about highlights.

The point of amplification is to optimize the conditions for ADC to achieve accurate measurements. When I have a very good ADC providing low error and high linearity across a wide range of reverence voltages, I skip PGA/VGA altogether, I use programmed reference for the ADC instead. Or I can use a combination.

Please have a look at this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60752961

 

[JDC1958]

ISO as it relates to the camera setting is known as standard output sensitivity, also known as SOS. REI, recommended exposure index means the same thing.

In a nutshell, set your camera dial to ISO 100 and you have in effect set it to both SOS 100 and REI 100. I find it funny that they use the words exposure and sensitivity in the definitions; yet there are those who argue that changing the ISO camera dial impacts neither.

--
Common sense is common knowledge; not everyone's common knowledge is the same.

 

[bobn2]

I wonder why so many people are determined to believe that 'ISO' is 'amplification' when they don't have the requisite expertise to understand what 'amplification' is, or how the application of voltage gain works in the design of analog circuits.

I'll take a stab at that. Most of us who talk about or describe the function of ISO are non-technical. We use that term, amplification, in a non-technical way. Our use is colloquial. We know that, the larger the ISO, the lighter the image appears.

So, for a non-technical person how is the term 'amplification' linked to 'lighter'.?

We also know that changes to ISO do not add or remove light from the scene captured in the photograph.

So, to get from here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 100

to here...


f/16, 1/20, ISO 3200

to match the lightness of this photo, here...


f/2.8, 1/20, ISO 100

we conclude that the last image is much lighter because 16-times the light from the scene was recorded during the shutter actuation. The first image is much darker because 1/16th the amount of light was captured as in the last image.

We know that increasing ISO to make the first image appear as light as the last does not add any light from the scene. Therefore, we conclude some manipulation of the minimal volume of light captured during that first exposure was needed to achieve the final outcome of a much brighter image.

Amplification, describes what we understand to be the nature of that manipulation or enhancement of the light.

And that is exactly the error in thinking and why I continue to argue against this. Once you start to believe that 'light' has been 'amplified' you no longer can understand the rest of the photographic processes, what is a colour space, what is the nature of the image that is produced as the end result.

It's not adding more light. Rather,

Then why talk about 'amplification'?

it's taking a fixed volume of light and making it appear brighter.

In fact, it is nothing of the sort. It's like just using lighter paint. If you paint your grey walls light your room gets brighter. Nothing gets 'amplified'.

It's similar to the amplification of sound. The voice on the stage can be quiet - almost inaudible - to the person seated at the back of the house until the voice is amplified. Another analogy might be the addition of bread crumbs to meatloaf. Yes, the bread crumbs function as a binding agent. Bread also adds volume to the loaf so it can be used to feed a larger group of people. No more meat is in the loaf but, since every bite contains at least some meat, you still get the experience of eating a tasty meatloaf.

Both of those are faulty analogies, and just highlight how this 'amplification' nonsense leads to false thinking, No volume is added, no extra light is added.

If there is a term other than amplification that adequately describes the fact that increasing ISO results in a photograph appearing lighter without actually adding more light from the scene, I would be happy to give that term consideration as a replacement for, amplification. Until then, I (and I suspect others) will continue to use the term in this colloquial context: increasing ISO amplifies or manipulates light to render a lighter image of the scene without capturing more light from the scene.

As i said, all that happens is you use lighter paint for the same exposure. The idea that to do that something has to be 'amplified' leads to all kinds if misconception.

I'm still amazed that so many people who clearly know very little about this fight so hard to persist in this faulty 'amplification' metaphor.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob

 

[bobn2]

And yet you can disagree about the necessity to interrelate gain and amplification?

Could you please specify what gain is it?

The ratio of input to output.

Conversion gain? V/PGA gain? Some other?

The gain that's necessary to perform amplification. Just wondering what form of amplification doesn't include a difference between input and output. No one wants to discuss actual operative differences when asked, so maybe we can get the semantics settled.

Conversion gain is not about difference, not about amplification, it is conversion of number of electrons to voltage (µV/e- is how such gain is often cited), or to data numbers (DN/e-).

You may know Albert Theuwissen's blog, http://harvestimaging.com/blog/

Conversion gain is about difference,

When my neighbor has a huge crop of apples, while I have oranges, and we establish the conversion as 2 apples per 1 orange, is it about the difference?

Conversion gain is the reciprocal of capacitance at the pixel (primary sense node, often called "floating diffusion", FD), thus it is intrinsic pixel property.

And it matters because at some point you run out of oranges to exchange for his apples. If you didn't, what would be the point of iso settings and worrying about highlights.

The point of amplification is to optimize the conditions for ADC to achieve accurate measurements. When I have a very good ADC providing low error and high linearity across a wide range of reverence voltages, I skip PGA/VGA altogether, I use programmed reference for the ADC instead. Or I can use a combination.

Please have a look at this: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/60752961

 

[Iliah Borg]

set your camera dial to ISO 100 and you have in effect set it to both SOS 100 and REI 100

No. Please read CIPA and ISO documents.

 

[bobn2]

ISO as it relates to the camera setting is known as standard output sensitivity, also known as SOS. REI, recommended exposure index means the same thing.

No, it doesn't 'mean the same thing'. Before making such incorrect statements, I would advise actually reading the ISO standard,

In a nutshell, set your camera dial to ISO 100 and you have in effect set it to both SOS 100 and REI 100. I find it funny that they use the words exposure and sensitivity in the definitions; yet there are those who argue that changing the ISO camera dial impacts neither.

I find it funny that people who have clearly not read the ISO standard would lay down the law about what it means.

The term ins 'Standard Output Sensitivity'. It means the sensitivity of the output to exposure - you cannot separate the words 'output' and 'sensitivity'.