ISO vs Boosted ISO

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

Alex Ethridge said:
I want to thank everyone for their answers. A lot of it flies right over my head; but, at least some does get absorbed. I think I have at least absorbed enough to know I want to avoid boosted when possible for better IQ.

For the time being, that works for me.

I'd recommend that the main takeaway you should get is that unlike film, in the digital world, you have an option to alter ISO per shot.

So for the best image quality, always capture as much light as possible first (aperture, shutter speed, or scene lighting) without overexposing at your camera's base ISO (usually 100).

Then if it's still metering dark, adjust the ISO. Better yet, use Auto-ISO and don't worry about ISO.

ISO (regardless of whether it's boosted or not) is something you have almost no control over if you're prioritizing exposure.

This is in direct contrast to film, which prioritizes ISO over exposure.

In film, suppose you had ISO 800 film in the camera. While a digital camera can always capture enough light to saturate ISO 100 (base) by changing ISO's, this film camera can only capture enough light to saturate ISO 800 film.

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

bobn2 said:
Xasan said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

Those are implemented with some extra steps or non-standard manipulations down the image processing pipeline, often it is digital scaling.

Click to expand...

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'. The ISO standard does not mandate how the standardised results should be achieved.

The root fallacy that these very common but incorrect ideas of what ISO is are based on an idea that what a camera is doing taking light in and putting light out, so if you want a brighter image from less light you need to 'amplify' or 'scale' the input. This is wrong. What is coming out of a camera is not 'light', it is grey scale (or at least a three colour primary version of grey scale). Think of what a camera is doing as painting by numbers. The sensor measures exposure pixel by pixel. The camera then chooses a (virtual) paint tone to go with each of those numbers. To get a brighter image, you don't have to amplify or scale anything, you just choose a different palette.

bobn2 · Jan 4, 2018

Porky89 said:
bobn2 said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

You are getting the standard answers, only one is right, it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean. Generally, the numbered ISO range are those that give what the manufacturer thinks is acceptable quality. The un-numbered one (Hi-1, etc) are ones where the manufacturer isn't prepared to put their name to the ISO setting, but lets you have it any way.

The answer that 'boosted ISO' is when 'amplification' stops is quite wrong, but you hear it frequently, because many digital photography web sites give out this false information. Intrinsically, ISO has nothing to do with 'amplification'. It simply has to do with determining an output image brightness for a given exposure. However, the engineers who design cameras do generally make an internal property called 'voltage gain' change over some part of the ISO range. Sometimes they also change a property called 'conversion gain' (it's a tell-tale sign of a Sony sensor these days). Both those changes have to do with optimising the camera electronics for the expected exposure, they are not 'ISO'. It is rarely the case that the range of ISOs over which the voltage gain is changed matches the range which the manufacturer puts ISO numbers on.

Click to expand...

FingerPainter · Jan 4, 2018

Porky89 said:
bobn2 said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

You are getting the standard answers, only one is right, it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean. Generally, the numbered ISO range are those that give what the manufacturer thinks is acceptable quality. The un-numbered one (Hi-1, etc) are ones where the manufacturer isn't prepared to put their name to the ISO setting, but lets you have it any way.

The answer that 'boosted ISO' is when 'amplification' stops is quite wrong, but you hear it frequently, because many digital photography web sites give out this false information. Intrinsically, ISO has nothing to do with 'amplification'. It simply has to do with determining an output image brightness for a given exposure. However, the engineers who design cameras do generally make an internal property called 'voltage gain' change over some part of the ISO range. Sometimes they also change a property called 'conversion gain' (it's a tell-tale sign of a Sony sensor these days). Both those changes have to do with optimising the camera electronics for the expected exposure, they are not 'ISO'. It is rarely the case that the range of ISOs over which the voltage gain is changed matches the range which the manufacturer puts ISO numbers on.

Click to expand...

D Cox · Jan 4, 2018

Alex Ethridge said:
Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

The ISO setting in a digital camera is not like the number printed on a film carton, because all sensors have an ISO speed of roughly 100 (they do vary slightly). There are no 25 or 400 ISO sensors, unlike films.

The ISO number that you can set on a camera is like pushing a film. You can, for instance, shoot Tri-X at its real speed of 400, or at 800 or even 1600. You then increase the development accordingly.

In digital, you "increase the development" mainly by multiplying the numbers in the digital data by some factor. This gives a brighter image, but the signal-to-noise ratio goes down, as it does with pushed film. Noise can be concealed somewhat by blurring the image.

Alex Ethridge said:
I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

It means heavy noise reduction has been slathered over the image in an attempt to make it acceptable (which it may be, if the alternative is no image at all).

D Cox · Jan 4, 2018

kli said:
Alex Ethridge said:

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

In film terms, you can think of the higher "boosted" ISO settings as the digital version of push processing, and the lower "extended" ISO settings as the digital version of pull processing.

You can think of all the ISO settings other than 100 as push (or very rarely pull) processing.

Xasan · Jan 4, 2018

bobn2 said:
Xasan said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

Those are implemented with some extra steps or non-standard manipulations down the image processing pipeline, often it is digital scaling.

Click to expand...

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

bobn2 said:
The root fallacy that these very common but incorrect ideas of what ISO is are based on an idea that what a camera is doing taking light in and putting light out,

I don't believe that cameras are putting the light out.

Xasan · Jan 4, 2018

Porky89 said:
bobn2 said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

You are getting the standard answers, only one is right, it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean. Generally, the numbered ISO range are those that give what the manufacturer thinks is acceptable quality. The un-numbered one (Hi-1, etc) are ones where the manufacturer isn't prepared to put their name to the ISO setting, but lets you have it any way.

The answer that 'boosted ISO' is when 'amplification' stops is quite wrong, but you hear it frequently, because many digital photography web sites give out this false information. Intrinsically, ISO has nothing to do with 'amplification'. It simply has to do with determining an output image brightness for a given exposure. However, the engineers who design cameras do generally make an internal property called 'voltage gain' change over some part of the ISO range. Sometimes they also change a property called 'conversion gain' (it's a tell-tale sign of a Sony sensor these days). Both those changes have to do with optimising the camera electronics for the expected exposure, they are not 'ISO'. It is rarely the case that the range of ISOs over which the voltage gain is changed matches the range which the manufacturer puts ISO numbers on.

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

Click to expand...

What a load of tosh. Voltage Gain and Conversion Gain are both terms for different kinds of amplification.

Doesn't look like you know what those words actually mean.

Porky89 said:
ALL digital cameras amplify (or attenuate) the output from the sensor to give a working range of effective photographic sensitivities

Absolutely not the goal.

Porky89 said:
comparable to the sensitivity range of photographic film, which is why the same ISO scale is used for both.

It was decided that keeping dB scale in digital would inconvenience photographers. It has nothing to do with sensitivity range.

Porky89 said:
Extended ISO ranges (included those labelled Boosted) are achieved by increasing or reducing the brightness of the digital image after it has been taken.

No. In a lot of cases it is scaling of RAW data.

Porky89 said:
In the case of a Boosted ISO setting the exposure is made at the camera's maximum ISO setting

You are in good company. Adobe intern made the same mistake recently, it was considered a bug and fixed in the consequent release.

Porky89 said:
and then the brightness of the digital image is increased by one or two stops.

--
The most startling incident in my life was the time I discovered myself to be a poet, which was in the year 1877.
William McGonagall

bclaff · Jan 4, 2018

bobn2 said:
Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

You are getting the standard answers, only one is right, it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean. Generally, the numbered ISO range are those that give what the manufacturer thinks is acceptable quality. The un-numbered one (Hi-1, etc) are ones where the manufacturer isn't prepared to put their name to the ISO setting, but lets you have it any way.

The answer that 'boosted ISO' is when 'amplification' stops is quite wrong, but you hear it frequently, because many digital photography web sites give out this false information. Intrinsically, ISO has nothing to do with 'amplification'. It simply has to do with determining an output image brightness for a given exposure. However, the engineers who design cameras do generally make an internal property called 'voltage gain' change over some part of the ISO range. Sometimes they also change a property called 'conversion gain' (it's a tell-tale sign of a Sony sensor these days). Both those changes have to do with optimising the camera electronics for the expected exposure, they are not 'ISO'. It is rarely the case that the range of ISOs over which the voltage gain is changed matches the range which the manufacturer puts ISO numbers on.

Sure. Conversion gain (charge to voltage) happens in the pixel and for sensors with dual conversion gain I would argue that those sensors have two different sensitivities.
(I don't think these are necessarily Sony sensors; eg. Aptina etc.)

Analog gain (voltage to voltage) is downstream from the pixel and prior to the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC); absent only in a handful of cameras (eg. Sigma)

In addition to analog gain there is often what I call digital scaling (DN to DN) downstream from the ADC.

At PhotonsToPhotos I try to locate and indicate where digital scaling starts using a triangle symbol, for example (the Nikon D800E is one of the OPs cameras):

ac12699371df4b9ca2726160e99b55d0.jpg.png

Note that the last ISO setting before the triangles is ISO 1600.

Regards,

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

Xasan said:
bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

a99fb3105a6c4371a4e25f434a18bb90.jpg.png

9eebac1870b24cffa1c3b21adb53cd18.jpg.png

bclaff · Jan 4, 2018

beatboxa said:
Xasan said:

bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

FWIW. Unfortunately determination of where digital scaling starts is not entirely automated in the sensor analysis at PhotonsToPhotos.
I have a strong suspicion that there is digital scaling there and that the ought to be triangle symbols at some point.

I'll review it.

Regards

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

bclaff said:
beatboxa said:

Xasan said:

bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

Click to expand...

FWIW. Unfortunately determination of where digital scaling starts is not entirely automated in the sensor analysis at PhotonsToPhotos.
I have a strong suspicion that there is digital scaling there and that the ought to be triangle symbols at some point.

I'll review it.

Regards

Xasan · Jan 4, 2018

beatboxa said:
Xasan said:

bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

Very good point, doesn't even matter if the numbers are entirely accurate.

Suppose they are, it is 2/3 of a stop difference. Companies try to keep things simple, numbers even, customers warm and comfortable. On the other hand, if Nikon is comfortable with the results at ISO 12800, they can pronounce it standard. Doesn't mean it is not one of the boosted values technically. Maybe "boosted" is whatever the company calls "boosted" is a better definition, but not all the companies even use this term.

beatboxa said:

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

Xasan said:
beatboxa said:

Xasan said:

bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

Click to expand...

Very good point, doesn't even matter if the numbers are entirely accurate.

Suppose they are, it is 2/3 of a stop difference. Companies try to keep things simple, numbers even, customers warm and comfortable. On the other hand, if Nikon is comfortable with the results at ISO 12800, they can pronounce it standard. Doesn't mean it is not one of the boosted values technically. Maybe "boosted" is whatever the company calls "boosted" is a better definition, but not all the companies even use this term.

Yeah. I think a more extreme example would be the Nikon D610, obviously with Bill's caveats noted.

The D610 seems to begin digital scaling as early at ISO 1600, even though its native ISO is also listed as 6400.

605c5e91214b4bcf8e3f81aa471ab743.jpg.png

So my interpretation of ISO is:

"Native ISO" means when the image is rendered as a JPEG, it has the appropriate brightness, noise, etc. that conforms to generally accepted definitions of ISO.
"Boosted / Extended ISO" means that when the image is rendered as a JPEG, it has the appropriate brightness; but other aspects (such as noise) do not conform to generally accepted definitions of ISO

MarshallG · Jan 4, 2018

First, the higher the ISO, the lower your image quality.

BUT....
New cameras do and excellent job through at least ISO 800 and even 3200 or 6400 can look great

AND... the quality of the light and your exposure matters more than the ISO. You can get noise at ISO 100; you can get noise in dark areas and it doesn’t matter what the ISO is. Post processing with your computer can filter out a lot of noise artifacts if you have them.

Last... you have to shoot, shoot, shoot and learn how different ISO values look on your camera. Just understand that it’s much more about the quality of light than the ISO setting.

bclaff · Jan 4, 2018

beatboxa said:
Xasan said:

beatboxa said:

Xasan said:

bobn2 said:

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

Click to expand...

I agree that this is how "boosted ISOs" are achieved in most cases; but I don't think this is what sets them apart by definition.

One such example: the Nikon D750 . This has a "native range" of ISO 100-12800. "Boosted ISO" begins above 12800.

However, we see that the digital scaling / "boosting" begins earlier, with analog scaling ending at ISO 8045:

Click to expand...

Very good point, doesn't even matter if the numbers are entirely accurate.

Suppose they are, it is 2/3 of a stop difference. Companies try to keep things simple, numbers even, customers warm and comfortable. On the other hand, if Nikon is comfortable with the results at ISO 12800, they can pronounce it standard. Doesn't mean it is not one of the boosted values technically. Maybe "boosted" is whatever the company calls "boosted" is a better definition, but not all the companies even use this term.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I think a more extreme example would be the Nikon D610, obviously with Bill's caveats noted.

The D610 seems to begin digital scaling as early at ISO 1600, even though its native ISO is also listed as 6400.

So my interpretation of ISO is:

"Native ISO" means when the image is rendered as a JPEG, it has the appropriate brightness, noise, etc. that conforms to generally accepted definitions of ISO.

"Boosted / Extended ISO" means that when the image is rendered as a JPEG, it has the appropriate brightness; but other aspects (such as noise) do not conform to generally accepted definitions of ISO

That's not my definition of native ISO; to me native and "base" are synonymous and that's ISO 100 in this example.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )

beatboxa · Jan 4, 2018

MarshallG said:
First, the higher the ISO, the lower your image quality.

BUT....
New cameras do and excellent job through at least ISO 800 and even 3200 or 6400 can look great

AND... the quality of the light and your exposure matters more than the ISO. You can get noise at ISO 100; you can get noise in dark areas and it doesn’t matter what the ISO is. Post processing with your computer can filter out a lot of noise artifacts if you have them.

Last... you have to shoot, shoot, shoot and learn how different ISO values look on your camera. Just understand that it’s much more about the quality of light than the ISO setting.

How do people still believe this about ISO?

For a given exposure, the higher the ISO, the higher the quality. Lower ISO simply allows you to expose more, which is what really leads to higher quality, not the lower ISO itself.

Case in point: from your equipment list, it looks like you have a Canon 5Div. Below, let's compare the ISO's for a given exposure. On the left, you'll see ISO 100; and on the right, ISO 6400:

d85d0ce791114407836b34b8408603c2.jpg.png

ISO 6400 is cleaner than ISO 100.

But what ISO 100 allows you to do is to expose higher. This is the root cause of the better image quality, not the ISO.

This goes back to my digital vs. film workflow: In film, you set ISO first, then expose, then process--so your exposure is already limited by the film's ISO.

In digital, you can expose first, then set ISO--which moves the overexposure limit to that of the base ISO.

Xasan · Jan 4, 2018

MarshallG said:
First, the higher the ISO, the lower your image quality.

Wrong.

It's a mystery why people keep saying that.

bobn2 · Jan 4, 2018

bclaff said:
bobn2 said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

You are getting the standard answers, only one is right, it means whatever the manufacturer wants it to mean. Generally, the numbered ISO range are those that give what the manufacturer thinks is acceptable quality. The un-numbered one (Hi-1, etc) are ones where the manufacturer isn't prepared to put their name to the ISO setting, but lets you have it any way.

The answer that 'boosted ISO' is when 'amplification' stops is quite wrong, but you hear it frequently, because many digital photography web sites give out this false information. Intrinsically, ISO has nothing to do with 'amplification'. It simply has to do with determining an output image brightness for a given exposure. However, the engineers who design cameras do generally make an internal property called 'voltage gain' change over some part of the ISO range. Sometimes they also change a property called 'conversion gain' (it's a tell-tale sign of a Sony sensor these days). Both those changes have to do with optimising the camera electronics for the expected exposure, they are not 'ISO'. It is rarely the case that the range of ISOs over which the voltage gain is changed matches the range which the manufacturer puts ISO numbers on.

Click to expand...

Sure. Conversion gain (charge to voltage) happens in the pixel and for sensors with dual conversion gain I would argue that those sensors have two different sensitivities.
(I don't think these are necessarily Sony sensors; eg. Aptina etc.)

Originally it was an Aptina patented technology. Sony gained the technology in a Patent swap with Aptina, whereby Aptina gained access to Sony patents and Sony gained access to Aptina patents. Since then, Aptina has been acquired by On semicondictor. I don't believe that there is a current digital still camera using an Aptina sensor. The first two generations of Nikon 1 cameras used Aptina sensors (without the DRPix feature) but since then moved to a Sony sensor with BSI and DRPix. BSI is not so much a matter of patent availability but technological capability. Any sensor with BSI and DRPix is almost certainly a Sony. Any current sensor wit DRPix is almost certainly a Sony, since there has been no announcement of Aptina licensing it to anyone else (and very likely the terms of the Sony swap would preclude it, since on paper, Aptina gained a lot more than Sony did, regardless of the fact that Sony has been able to make much better use of the patents it gained from Aptina).

bclaff said:
Analog gain (voltage to voltage) is downstream from the pixel and prior to the Analog to Digital Converter (ADC); absent only in a handful of cameras (eg. Sigma)

Analog agin downstream from the pixel is present in avery single camera. What you are talking about is variable voltage gain, which is, as you say, present in every camera save a few Sigmas and medium format cameras. Apart from Foveon, all the present manufacturers of DSC sensors (Sony, Canon, TPSC) include programmable voltage gain ob the sensor chip. That is completely different from say the analog voltage gain is 'ISO' or hat its use is essential for a 'standard' or 'real' ISO as people suggest. It's also the case that whilst most cameras change the voltage gain over some part of the company sanctioned ISO range, not all of them change it over the whole of that range, and that the changes in gain are not always proportional to the set ISO. Once again, it;s not possible to say that variable gain 'is' ISO.

bclaff said:
In addition to analog gain there is often what I call digital scaling (DN to DN) downstream from the ADC.

I know, bur 'scaling' is fundamentally misleading also. The question is, what needs to be 'scaled'. The whole thing is that the translation of exposure (the input) to grey scale (the output) necessitates the normalisation of exposure before the translation, which is fundamentally erroneous.

bclaff said:
At PhotonsToPhotos I try to locate and indicate where digital scaling starts using a triangle symbol, for example (the Nikon D800E is one of the OPs cameras):

Note that the last ISO setting before the triangles is ISO 1600.

Which is way short of the top of the 'official' ISO range. Thanks for nicely demonstrating that so-called 'boosted' ISOs do not start where analog gain change stops.

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

bobn2 · Jan 4, 2018

Xasan said:
bobn2 said:

Xasan said:

Alex Ethridge said:

Most all of my understanding of ISO comes from the days of film.

I see in camera specifications on DPR ISO, Boosted ISO (minimum) and Boosted ISO (maximum).

What does "boosted" mean?

Click to expand...

Those are implemented with some extra steps or non-standard manipulations down the image processing pipeline, often it is digital scaling.

Click to expand...

There are no 'non-standard manipulations'.

Click to expand...

Most of the cases boosted ISO are achieved differently from the ISO values in the standard range. That's what sets them apart.

But even that is a simplification. Marianne Oelund once did a very detailed analysis of how Nikon sets up the read chain for different ISO settings. Essentially, every ISO setting is achieved 'differently' from every other one. If 'boosted ISO' means anything at all, then the definition, the ones the company doesn't sanction with an ISO number is about the only one that makes sense.

Otherwise, think on this. If the difference truly was that 'amplification' is achieved by analog means in one case and digital means in the other, then digital 'amplification' is noiseless, and therefore 'boosted' ISOs are better than 'non-boosted' ones.

Xasan said:
Xasan said:

The root fallacy that these very common but incorrect ideas of what ISO is are based on an idea that what a camera is doing taking light in and putting light out,

Click to expand...

I don't believe that cameras are putting the light out.

LOL

ISO vs Boosted ISO

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts