Slaginfected

You mean these fancy things which are much larger with higher res cameras than with lower res cameras towards higher ISOs and less available light? And if we stray from daylight type light it gets ...

The problem is people working with files, seeing differences, stumbling over DR diagrams and then wondering why they show different results than they experienced. That question is stated for ...

It shows that things are not holding up there. You see it both when pushing things too far and also if the ISOs go to far (and any combination of these two). Yes, I'm aware of DxO, and this is with ...

Because I'm evil, here something for you: People wrote back in the days that the D750 is better suited for low-light images than the D810. And it seems like it doesn't stop there, you see similar ...

Well, the info is just out there. For example: ...

Ah, so you are saying that for example the color cast of the 14 bit RAWs compared to the 16 bit ones out of GFX100 and GFX100s is just a matter of fixing the black point? Hmmm .... There is a lot ...

"If the signal is sufficiently dithered ..." Look at that. This is what is called a precondition. Now imagine we are pushing things up 4 stops or why not 5 stops, pulling tonal values and also ...

But that is the often stated conclusion out of ISOless sensors, which I just put into a more extreme example where it is obvious that it cannot really work. Which in return means as soon as you ...

The problem is simple: (1) Processing is part of digital photography. Just talking about effects you see when analysing and comparing RAW data is certainly interesting, but without processing all that ...

Now, we can somewhat correct the A9 image by pulling things down (which makes some stuff more difficult to see, but we have only the resulting JPGs, unfortunately): I tried to make it somewhat ...

I mean I don't see a difference at ISO100 between a 5D3 and a D750, yet if you start underexposing and pushing things up the well known problems with the 5D3 will become visible. This doesn't make ...

Look at the posterization problem from pushing things around (too much) and people telling me there is none. "ISO-invariant! All the same!". Ok, then well, D810 ISO64 vs. ISO12800 maybe? Because ...

That the A7s3 offers more processing latitude than the A9 at higher ISOs hands down. You could replace the A9 with an A7III or -- if you want to get smacked badly -- an A7rIV. The result with the ...

What really stumps me is the ignorance I've come to encounter here by supposedly really intelligent people. Where is the curiosity? Where is this "why are there always these discussions, why are ...

You mean something objective like A7s3 vs. A9 @ ISO10k +3 ?

Life lesson: Don't ever tell anyone how their reality is supposed to look like. I had to endure this for years, not only in these forums, and despite evidence being available left and right that my ...

But the pushing is rendering the lower bits "empty" or fixed, i.e. noiseless. That is the problem. For example, you may have 32 (2⁵) tonal steps with noise. If you shift that up 3 bits, you have 4 ...

Well, if you are so knowledgable, show me something I can use in actual reality which makes away with a good number of artifacts. For example: Why are files at higher ISOs from the A7s line of ...

https://blog.kasson.com/a7riii/a7riii-shadow-noise-isos-640-10000-2/ Look at that pushed up ISO640 shot vs. the ISO10k one. The ISO640 shows much coarser transitions, plus the colors fall apart ...

It is very telling that all the people here are completely incapable of dealing with that question. That is one of the reasons why I have to butt my head time and again against a wall of concrete, ...