LCD more saturated than real picture?

JaKing wrote:

OutsideTheMatrix wrote:

and then I found out 'boosted' doesn't mean anything because on digital cameras all ISO is 'digital' so it's just as good as 'regular' ISO

OtM, there are two different kinds of amplification - analog and digital. Usually (warning, warning ... ) analog is preferable and less noisy than digital. After that it gets complicated ...

Most "ISO" adjustment these days appears to be before the analog/digital converter (ADC), and apparently the ADC is mostly on the sensor itself now.

But do our cameras have both analog and digital or only digital? If ISO adjustment is before the converter does that mean it's all analog? Then I wonder what "boost" means.

Also, and this will only add to the confusion- when I compare cameras using DxOMark why do they seem to want to penalize Olympus camera ISO by one stop? Is there really something in that, is ISO being overstated, or is this just a different usage of the definition of ISO?

Add to all this my experimentation with long exposure photography at high ISO, and I have found that light pollution is particularly susceptible to high ISO, and the dynamic range also gets limited. As an example, doing 2 second exposures at ISO 3200 I found that to be the limit for where I can detect colors in stars, anything higher than that and star color clips to white. Paradoxically enough doing 13 second exposures, I found that I could still go to ISO 1600 and still maintain star colors, even though the length of the exposure was almost 3 stops more. Light Pollution is actually more sensitive to higher ISO so I keep the ISO within the 400-800 realm regardless of whether the exposure is 2 sec or 13 sec long and use stacking to simulate a longer exposure.