How to measure ISO

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
In fact, I'm the only one that have posted
substantiations in support of my factual statements.

nospam:
just because you say they're factual does not make it so.

Sandman:
Just because you say they're not doesn't make them disproven.

i and several other people did quite a bit more than just say so.

Empty claims are empty claims. Post a Message ID or shut the **** up.

nospam:
if what you say is 'factual', then why hasn't anyone else agreed
with these supposed 'facts'?

Sandman:
Facts needn't be "agreed" on. If you disagree with them, just
fine. If you want to dispute them you have to disprove them.

they were disputed.

Incorrect.

nospam:
if they were truly facts, then *someone* would have agreed, yet
nobody has. not a single person.

Sandman:
So? I mean, we have Eric Stevens and nospam here, arguing
semantics and details without understanding the basic concepts.

no.

what we have is *everyone* telling you that you're wrong.

Yes, "telling", not "showing", not "proving", not "debunking". Just empty
claims from trolls. What is that to me? Nothing.

Sandman:
It's not like either of you have much of credibility when it
comes to these kind of things.

given that we're all correct and you are not, yes we do have
credibility and quite a bit of it.

Hahahahahahahhaahhaha!!!!!

Sandman:
In fact, you disagreeing with the facts makes them even stronger,
given your track record.

another ad hominem and my alleged track record is irrelevant anyway.

either something is true or it's not.

Indeed - something is true regardless of how much you're on the floor crying.

nospam:
if they were truly facts, then there would also be extensive
objective evidence that *isn't* fabricated by you. there isn't.

so much for facts.

Sandman:
So much for hot air.

that's all you can do.

None is so blind as those that will not see.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
This has already been supported by me:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/cameras_since_2013.png

nospam:
that's nothing more than a list of cameras made in the past
couple of years. that's not support of anything.

Sandman:
It shows that contemporary MFT cameras have smaller photo sites
than contemporary FF cameras. When comparing cameras, you would
rarely do so with a gap of a decade like you want to. But you can
add the word "contemporary" to the fact listed above if it makes
you feel better. It's always hard to foresee what insignificant
detail you trolls will semantically attack next.

translated: you're wrong, so you try to narrow the field to just
contemporary cameras

I have only ever talked about contemporary cameras. Sorry to burst your little
imaginary bubble.

Sandman:
But it does depend on what is being talked about, and I was only
concerned with contemporary cameras, or at least comparing
cameras from the same time period, since a lot has happened since
2001, and not only in photo site size.

again, facts apply to *all* sensors,

Not if the facts concern contemporary cameras. Again, learn to read.

Sandman:
I.e. it's impossible to compare noise between a 20MP FF sensor and
a 5MP MFT sensor, since even though they are equally amplified,
the lower resolution would result in an image that wasn't
comparable.

nonsense.

Something else that you're ignorant about, color me shocked!

Sandman:
The topic has always been making comparable photos.

nope.

Sorry, that's what I've been talking about. Your denial means exactly nothing
here.

Sandman:
All my examples have used identical resolutions.

no they haven't. even your list has numerous cameras with different
resolutions.

Again - all my examples have used identical resolutions. Learn to read.

Sandman:
FACT: For a smaller sensor with smaller photo
sites to achieve the same brightness as a larger sensor
with larger photo sites, the signal needs to be amplified

nospam:
no.

Sandman:
Note: no support for opposing view. Fact remains
factual.

nospam:
you meant to say no support for existing views.

Sandman:
Still no support for opposing view. Fact remains undisputed.

nonsense to both.

Still no support for opposing view. Fact remains undisputed.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Posting a list you have pinched from somewhere
else without explanation doesn't offer support for anything.

Sandman:
I made that list, from data from dpreview. Do you
have a better list? No? Then it is valid.

nospam:
it doesn't work that way.

Sandman:
Sorry, you don't get to decide what "it" is in my comparison data.

i didn't decide.

a cherry-picked a list is not proof of *anything*. end of story.

It's not cherry-picked, it's the "it" in my comparison data, which you don't
get to decide.

Sandman:
Those are the MFT and FF cameras released since April
2013 as listed by dpreview. Do you disagree with the list?

nospam:
who cares. it's nothing more than a list of cameras made in the
past few years. big deal. that says *nothing* about photosite
sizes. nothing at all.

Sandman:
It says everything about photo site sizes between those cameras,

but not as a general rule.

For contemporary cameras, yes. You will argue about *anything* for days and
days and days. It's an amazing ability, little troll.

Sandman:
if you understand the physics.

*far* more than you do.

Hahahahahhahahahahaha!!!!!!!!

you've gotten *so* much wrong that i've lost track.

Poor little nospam, on the floor crying without being able to show anything.

Sandman:
This is how proof works. One has a claim, one posts
supporting data, which remains valid until it has been
invalidated. Merely claiming it isn't valid is just
nospam-like hot air.

nospam:
claiming that a list of recent cameras is somehow proof of
something is beyond ludicrous. it's truly ****ed up.

Sandman:
Best endorsement I could ever get.

be glad that's what you got.

Yes, your insults shows you have nothing.

nospam:
put simply: you're full of ****.

Sandman:
Ah, personal attacks, the trolls last resort when he's crying on
the floor.

it's not a personal attack. it's a statement of fact.

Whatever you say, retard.

what you've said is wrong. simple as that.

You just can't show it, simple as that.

worse, you're too stubborn to admit it and learn something.

Hahahahahahhahahhahahahhahaha!!!!!

Eric Stevens:
Are you trying to say that a contemporary
camera which has smaller photosites has a smaller sensor?

Sandman:
No, all contemporary cameras with smaller sensors
have smaller photosites. This was obvious from my sentence
above.

nospam:
facts do not care what's contemporary and what's not.

Sandman:
When the fact concerns contemporary cameras, it does.

facts are not limited to only certain cameras.

They are when that is being used as an example, retard.

either it applies to all sensors or it's void.

Ignorance about the word "fact" duly noted.

a single example is all that's needed to prove you wrong and several
have been provided.

You failed, always failed and probably will always fail.

Sandman:
snip empty claims and hot air from nospam

You've been doing this for twelve days now - making empty claim
after empty claim. It's like you're allergic to supporting your
view.

it ain't just me.

No, Eric is making lots of empty claims as well. But he at least had a
momentary lapse of reason where he was actually able to discuss these matters
for period of time. I think until he made a mathematical observation that
agreed with my math and he had to start blocking.

*many* people have shown just how wrong you are during the 12 days.

You just can't show any of those instances. Great, so your claim is then just
as empty as the hundreds you made before it. Good job!

you refuse to learn.

you're *so* ****ed up that you don't even realize just how wrong you
really are.

Whatever you say, retard.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

snip

I realized that you were already agreeing with me. No need for you to display
your ignorance any mo

nospam
How to measure ISO
11/11/2015

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs
between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n
ratio as ISO 800 on FF.

that part is true, but a separate issue.

And, "that part", is exactly what I have been talking about for the last thirteen
days, even if you want to claim it's a "separate issue" because you didn't
understand the context.

ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF, meaning that the level of
amplification is different between the cameras.

Glad we could lay this all to rest now.

--
Sandman

On 24 Nov 2015 07:08:15 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
In order to do this, the troll often snips out the
context in which a statement was made, and attack the
statement on its own, isolated from the context, like you did
in this part of the thread, reference he



Eric Stevens:
Those statements stand on their own.

Sandman:
But have to be taken out of their context to be attacked
semantically by a troll.

Bull****.

Great comeback.

Sandman:
I have, correctly, used the terms as used by people.
This very thread has the subject "How to measure ISO". ISO is
amplification of signal (unless it's the base ISO), and this
is what people refer to as sensor sensitivity. Very much like
you did he

Eric Stevens:
Back to the beginning. You haven't learned or (more likely)
understood a thing.

Sandman:
Such as? Don't be afraid to be specific.

Lots of people have been specific in the past. What's the point of
being specific once again?

So you can't be specific, figures. So now we have two trolls with nothing but
hot air. And you were doing so great for a short while.

There is no point in being specific with you.

Eric Stevens:
What is more you use words in a very loose fashion entirely
unsuitable for the discussion of a technical subject.

Sandman:
This wasn't a technical subject from the start.

That's what you thought, even though you made a technical
pronouncement.

But not on a technical level.

Maybe not to an ignoramus like you.

Sandman:
It gradually became more and more technical when nospam couldn't
wrap his head around the facts. Then you joined and you did get
it, your math corroborated my math and it would have been just
nice if you hadn't gone south when you realized you agreed with
me.

nospam has definitely got his head around the facts. It is you who
is away in lala land.

Sorry, Eric. I am the one that have provided support for my claims, you and
nospam are the ones that have not (other than the equations you did that
confirmed my support).

Your support is quicksand. The more you wriggle the deeper you sink.

As long as you're one the floor crying, your words mean exactly nothing.

Sandman:
"See
https://photographylife.com/what-is-iso-in-photography "In
very basic terms, ISO is the level of sensitivity of your
camera to available light."" / Eric Stevens- 11/11/2015

Eric Stevens:
True.

Sandman:
"Amplification is NOT sensor sensitivity." / Eric Stevens-
11/21/2015

Funny you should ignore this contradiction and your wiggling.

That's a contradiction? Don't be dumber than you really are.

With a given exposure, a MFT sensors receives
(roughly) one fourth the amount of light as a FF sensor.
If you were to give the MFT sensor the same amount of
total light (I trust you are familiar with how to operate
a camera to give a sensor more light), the signal
amplification will be comparable.

Eric Stevens:
False. Completely false.

Sandman:
So prove it wrong - merely blowing hot air in my general direction
says exactly nothing.

I've already done so.

No, you have not. All you need is to post a message-ID to where you think you
did so. I know you won't, you'll just claim you did and hope no one notices
you're just blowing hot air yet again.

I'll say to you what you say to to others: I've already posted it. Go
look up the thread.

Eric Stevens:
You still haven't understood, have you? Are you talking about
the level of illumination (e.g. Lux) or are you talking about
the total exposure (e.g. Lux x Seconds)?

Sandman:
Both. Pick one.

It's not up to me. You are the one putting up the argument. It's up
to you to tell us what you are talking about.

I have done just that, many times. I don't know how many times you want me to
say the same thing if you didn't understand it the first fifteen times.

I want you to be specific each time you talk about the level of
illumination. I personally doubt that you know enough to be specific.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 24 Nov 2015 07:37:38 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

snip

I realized that you were already agreeing with me. No need for you to display
your ignorance any mo

nospam
How to measure ISO
11/11/2015

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs
between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n
ratio as ISO 800 on FF.

That's strange. I thought you wrote:

"ISO is the amount of light gathered by a given physical space, like
a square inch. Since you have fewer such square inches on a smaller
sensor, less total light is being gathered. ISO should be
abandoned and light sensitivity should be measured in total amount
of light.

With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs
between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n
ratio as ISO 800 on FF."

Your first paragraph is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

No wonder you deleted it.


that part is true, but a separate issue.

And, "that part", is exactly what I have been talking about for the last thirteen
days, ...

Which is why people have kept telling you you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

... even if you want to claim it's a "separate issue" because you didn't
understand the context.

ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF, meaning that the level of
amplification is different between the cameras.

But you can't prove that: you don't know enough about how these things
work.

Glad we could lay this all to rest now.

Is it really laid to rest now? Goody.
But I bet you come back. :-(

ttfn.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

There is no point in being specific with you.

Maybe not to an ignoramus like you.

Your support is quicksand. The more you wriggle the deeper you sink.

That's a contradiction? Don't be dumber than you really are.

I'll say to you what you say to to others: I've already posted it.
Go look up the thread.

More empty claims... Ah well.

--
Sandman

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Sandman:
snip

I realized that you were already agreeing with me. No need for you
to display your ignorance any mo

nospam How to measure ISO 11/11/2015


In article
, Sandman
wrote:

With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio
differs between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has
the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF.

That's strange. I thought you wrote:

"ISO is the amount of light gathered by a given physical space, like
a square inch. Since you have fewer such square inches on a
smaller sensor, less total light is being gathered. ISO should
be abandoned and light sensitivity should be measured in total
amount of light.

Yes, that's me talking about the old ISO standard for film, where you measure
the amount of light that was gathered for a given unit area, calculate the
speed point (where optical density exceeds the base + fog density by 0.1). The
value is then rounded to the nearest standard speed in a table found in ISO
6:1993.

With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs
between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n
ratio as ISO 800 on FF."

Your first paragraph is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Source? No?

nospam:
that part is true, but a separate issue.

And, "that part", is exactly what I have been talking about for
the last thirteen days, ...

Which is why people have kept telling you you are WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Except nospam, that is agreeing with it, of course.

Sandman:
... even if you want to claim it's a "separate issue" because you
didn't understand the context.

ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n ratio as ISO 800 on FF, meaning
that the level of amplification is different between the cameras.

But you can't prove that

I have proven that. Here, I'll post it again:

This is a shot with the same exposure and same ISO:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/same_iso.png

The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not same exposure)
and the ISO adjusted by the crop factor squared:

http://jonaseklundh.se/files/iso_adjusted.png

Equal brightness, equal noise, equal amplification. I.e. what I said he

"With less total amount of light, the signal to noise ratio differs
between sensor sizes, meaning that ISO 200 on MFT has the same s/n
ratio as ISO 800 on FF."

To which nospam replied:

"that part is true"

Sandman:
Glad we could lay this all to rest now.

Is it really laid to rest now? Goody. But I bet you come back.

Only if you keep trolling, Eric.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Called "ISO". The user sets the ISO, which controls the
signal amplification, which is what is called setting the
sensitivity.

Whisky-dave:
No the user sets a number on a dial which
relates to how a colour negative film would react to light
if it had that ISO rating.

Sandman:
Called "ISO", just like I just said.

Whisky-dave:
Nothing like what yuo said you've been claiming the ISO is
something to do with teh sensor.

Sandman:
I can't parse that sentence.

Luckily that isn't my problem.

Nor mine, I'll just ignore it

Whisky-dave:
When ISO was set years before electonic sensors existed. ISO
came from ASA/DIN but yuo donlt seem to understand this.

Sandman:
I.e. just like I said in my second post in this thread, 12 days
ago.

After I pointed it out to you

Of course not, you hadn't yet responded to me at that point. Nice try, though.

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Troube

Ok...

--
Sandman