How to measure ISO

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

Why

Why, what?

--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

and some foreign ****er that has a reasnable crasp of english but
tries to manipulate it to proves he's right.

I find it ironic beyond belief when Drunk Dave talks about "reasnble crasp of
english".



--
Sandman

In article , Whisky-dave
wrote:

and it's still the same for sensors that's the pijnt and it goeed
back before ISO to teh days of ASA, we might ebven invent a new
scale such as the jonas joke scale(JJC), where 100 ISO equals 5
million JJSs. It doesn;t matter how you measure the number of JJSs
if you measure it but if yuo get 5 million that will be the same as
100 ISO or 100 ASA or 21 DIN

Stop banging your head on the keyboard while drunk, Dave. You make even less
sense than usual.

--
Sandman

On 24 Nov 2015 08:24:32 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

What kind of film is it that uses the 'smaller sensor' you were going
on about?

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?

Try

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.

Is that English? It doesn't parse like English.

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

That's a shot? What with? How? A monochrome camera?

That's not a shot: that's a constructed image.

The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not same exposure) ...

Sloppy use of terms once again. What meanings do you attribute to
'total light' and 'exposure' this time?

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.

Asking you questions you find hard to answer is trolling? Gercha!
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/24/2015 4:01 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 24 Nov 2015 08:24:32 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

What kind of film is it that uses the 'smaller sensor' you were going
on about?

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?

Try

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.

Is that English? It doesn't parse like English.

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

That's a shot? What with? How? A monochrome camera?

That's not a shot: that's a constructed image.

The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not same exposure) ...

Sloppy use of terms once again. What meanings do you attribute to
'total light' and 'exposure' this time?

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.

Asking you questions you find hard to answer is trolling? Gercha!


Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what he says.

--
PeterN

On 2015-11-24 21:33:30 +0000, PeterN said:

Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what he says.

+1

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Eric Stevens 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.

Sandman:
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.

What kind of film is it that uses the 'smaller sensor' you were
going on about?

None, that's the entire point, where the old standard, which concerns unit
areas, is not applicable to digital sensors in the way one might be led to
think.

nospam:
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."

Eric Stevens:
Your first paragraph is WRONG WRONG WRONG.

Sandman:
Source? No?

Try

That's just your above message. I wanted you to post support for your empty
claim that it is "WRONG WRONG WRONG". You didn't (as expected).

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

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

Eric Stevens:
Which is why people have kept telling you you are WRONG WRONG
WRONG.

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

Is that English? It doesn't parse like English.

Yes, usual troll tactic, attack the semantics instead of the subject. And yes,
I made a grammar mistake above. I make plenty of those, and I know of them,
even spot them myself after the fact.

I don't call out every mistake you make, because that's just childish.

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.

Eric Stevens:
But you can't prove that

Sandman:
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

That's a shot? What with? How? A monochrome camera?

That's not a shot: that's a constructed image.

Constructed by whom and with what? Support for your claims, please.

Sandman:
The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not
same exposure) ...

Sloppy use of terms once again. What meanings do you attribute to
'total light' and 'exposure' this time?

What part is confusing you?


--
Sandman

In article , PeterN wrote:

Eric Stevens:
Asking you questions you find hard to answer is trolling? Gercha!

Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what
he says.

Please, of course he doesn't. I second this desire for him to stop.

--
Sandman

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:33:30 -0500, PeterN
wrote:

On 11/24/2015 4:01 PM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On 24 Nov 2015 08:24:32 GMT, Sandman wrote:

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.

What kind of film is it that uses the 'smaller sensor' you were going
on about?

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?

Try

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.

Is that English? It doesn't parse like English.

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

That's a shot? What with? How? A monochrome camera?

That's not a shot: that's a constructed image.

The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not same exposure) ...

Sloppy use of terms once again. What meanings do you attribute to
'total light' and 'exposure' this time?

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.

Asking you questions you find hard to answer is trolling? Gercha!


Now that you made your point. Please stop. Do you really care what he says.

Only when he says it about me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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.

Eric Stevens:
But you can't prove that

Sandman:
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

That's a shot? What with? How? A monochrome camera?

That's not a shot: that's a constructed image.

Constructed by whom and with what? Support for your claims, please.

whoosh.

Sandman:
The smaller the sensor, the noisier the signal.

Here is the same shot with the same amount of total light (not
same exposure) ...

Sloppy use of terms once again. What meanings do you attribute to
'total light' and 'exposure' this time?

What part is confusing you?

he's not confused.