One million ISO (equivalent)

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:
-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Scott

On Wed, 06 Jun 2007 00:38:14 -0000, Scott W wrote:

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Shhh. Million, shmillion. Don't encourage him.

On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Scott

Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

"Rich" wrote in message
oups.com...
-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485


I like the cheeky grin on the little child peeking around the third tree
from the left. Priceless!

R.

And lo, Rich emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Scott

Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

Maybe someone can explain the point of this experiment?

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

"Aaron" wrote:
Rich emerged from the ether and spake thus:
On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

Maybe someone can explain the point of this experiment?

Some crazed 5D partisan put up this series of high-ISO images and the
smaller-sensor fans have been trying to outdo that ever since...

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

And lo, David J. Littleboy emerged from the ether
and spake thus:

"Aaron" wrote:
Rich emerged from the ether and spake thus:
On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

Maybe someone can explain the point of this experiment?

Some crazed 5D partisan put up this series of high-ISO images and the
smaller-sensor fans have been trying to outdo that ever since...

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Look at that! Another crazy person with too much time on their hands.
I have to say, though, as a 5D owner, the noise that the 5D produces
is so much more aesthetically pleasing than that of my 10D. It "feels"
more like film noise.

While I have yet to do real experiments or publish any kind of
results--I speak anecdotally at best--it seems like the 5D noise is
more of a luminosity variation, while the 10D produced noise with a
lot of color variation (which is easy to pick out as digital noise and
is pretty gross-looking, IMHO).

Especially when working in black and white, I find that I don't even
bother running my 5D images through Noise Ninja because I like the way
they look.

--
Aaron
http://www.fisheyegallery.com
http://www.singleservingphoto.com

Aaron wrote:
And lo, Rich emerged from the ether
and spake thus:
On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.
http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485
10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Scott
Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

Maybe someone can explain the point of this experiment?


The best solution would be to print it, sign it "Mark Rothko" and put it
on the art market as a recently discovered work, and his only known
attempt at photography.
Allen

On Jun 6, 10:06 am, Aaron wrote:
And lo, David J. Littleboy emerged from the ether
and spake thus:





"Aaron" wrote:
Rich emerged from the ether and spake thus:
On Jun 5, 8:38 pm, Scott W wrote:
On Jun 5, 2:22 pm, Rich wrote:

-10 stops under exposure of a scene at 100 ISO. 49 metered points.
Olympus E-330. I'm sure someone with a low-noise FF Canon or a 1.3
could do a good deal better. The image is of a scene with trees in
the foreground, buildings on the horizon and clouds in a blue sky.
You can just see some hint of the trees.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/80049485

10 stops is 1000, x your iso of 100 you get 100,000 not 1,000,000.

Right you are. Hardly seems worth it now.

Maybe someone can explain the point of this experiment?

Some crazed 5D partisan put up this series of high-ISO images and the
smaller-sensor fans have been trying to outdo that ever since...

http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/75359389/original

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

Look at that! Another crazy person with too much time on their hands.
I have to say, though, as a 5D owner, the noise that the 5D produces
is so much more aesthetically pleasing than that of my 10D. It "feels"
more like film noise.

While I have yet to do real experiments or publish any kind of
results--I speak anecdotally at best--it seems like the 5D noise is
more of a luminosity variation, while the 10D produced noise with a
lot of color variation (which is easy to pick out as digital noise and
is pretty gross-looking, IMHO).


If you look at current Nikon output, you'll find the same thing. The
idea being luminance noise is film-grain like and therefore less
objectionable.