How to measure ISO

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
In the end - it doesn't matter how much semantics you
want to throw at this, the core facts remains the same.

Whisky-dave:
Depends who you are and how much you want or need to understand
this.

Sandman:
I understand it completely.

no you definitely do not.

that much is *very* clear.

Best endorsement I could ever get - hot air from nospam.

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

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

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

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

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

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

So? I mean, we have Eric Stevens and nospam here, arguing semantics and details
without understanding the basic concepts. It's not like either of you have much
of credibility when it comes to these kind of things. In fact, you disagreeing
with the facts makes them even stronger, given your track record.

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.

So much for hot air.

--
Sandman

The time has come to kill this flame war. 773 futile posts to this
thread and no sign of agreement, round and round and I am getting dizzy.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
This has already been supported by me:

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

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

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.

Sandman:
FACT: Smaller photo sites capture less light

nospam:
true, but that's independent of sensor size.

Sandman:
Incorrect, given the fact that all contemporary cameras have
smaller photo sites if they have smaller sensors.

facts do not depend on what's contemporary, what's in stock at b&h
or what dpreview chooses to review.

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.

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. The topic has always been making
comparable photos. All my examples have used identical resolutions.

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.

you meant to say no support for existing views.

Still no support for opposing view. Fact remains undisputed.

--
Sandman

In article , nospam wrote:

Sandman:
FACT: Smaller sensors have smaller photo sites.

nospam:
no.

the photosites *might* be smaller, but it's not always the
case. they might be the same size or even larger.

*if* the megapixel count is the same on both sensors, *then*
the photosites will be smaller on the smaller sensor. if
it's different the you have more variables in the mix.

Sandman:
This has already been supported by me:

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

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.

it doesn't work that way.

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

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

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.

It says everything about photo site sizes between those cameras, if you
understand the physics.

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.

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

Best endorsement I could ever get.

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

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

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.

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

When the fact concerns contemporary cameras, it does.

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.

--
Sandman

On 23 Nov 2015 22:09:54 GMT, Sandman 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



Those statements stand on their own.

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

Bull****.

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

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

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?

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

This wasn't a technical subject from the start.

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

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.

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

True.

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

Sandman:
"ISO is only concerned with sensitivity." / Eric Stevens-
11/14/2015

True

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

Sandman:
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.

False. Completely false.

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

I've already done so. nospam has done so. Alan Browne has done so.
Whisky Dave has done so. So too have other people whose names I can't
recall at the moment. This is not a topic where you can win by being
stubborn.

I have proven it correct, using math and example footage. You have been 100%
unable to disprove any substantiation I have supplied, so they remain valid to
this day, regardless of the amount of whining you do.

Eric Stevens:
That's all very fine, but what are the units of measure to
enable you to define whether or not the same amount of light has
been received?

Sandman:
The actual amount is irrelevant. The fact that one receives 25% of
the other is what is relevant. We're discussing a comparison, not
how to measure amount of light.

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)?

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.

Sandman:
Simple physics.

Which requires the precise use of language to describe.

Only for a troll that would rather argue semantics than admit to being wrong.

It's sad that your education has left you thinking that technical
matters are a subject for wooly discussion.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 23 Nov 2015 22:36:48 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , nospam wrote:

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

if anyone is spewing hot air, it would be you.

it's been shown to be wrong multiple times by multiple people.

Message-ID? No? Didn't think so.

Sandman:
I have proven it correct, using math and example footage. You have
been 100% unable to disprove any substantiation I have supplied,
so they remain valid to this day, regardless of the amount of
whining you do.

you haven't proven anything.

Incorrect. The word "proof" doesn't inherently mean that something is factual in
itself. It is something that supports a position.

Aristotle is rotating in his grave.

I have provided many pieces of
evidence that support my position. You have provided exactly none.

Pieces maybe, but they don't assemble into a coherent whole.

cite a peer-reviewed source that supports your claims or stfu.

Like you did? Hahahahahahaha!!!

snip trolling
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 17:05:00 -0500, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

All my claims have been with equal focal length and f/stop.

Shouldn't you have scaled the focal length according to the crop
factor?

yes, and f/stop too. otherwise it's not equivalent.

Providing he scales the focal length, the f/stop is self-scaling.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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

if anyone is spewing hot air, it would be you.

it's been shown to be wrong multiple times by multiple people.

Message-ID? No? Didn't think so.

if you'd been paying attention, you'd have read the *numerous* posts
where it was explained.

but you haven't. all you're doing is spewing, oblivious to anything
else.

Sandman:
I have proven it correct, using math and example footage. You have
been 100% unable to disprove any substantiation I have supplied,
so they remain valid to this day, regardless of the amount of
whining you do.

you haven't proven anything.

Incorrect. The word "proof" doesn't inherently mean that something is factual
in
itself. It is something that supports a position. I have provided many pieces
of
evidence that support my position.

no you haven't.

you might think you have, but you *definitely* have not.

You have provided exactly none.

yes i did, as did others.

cite a peer-reviewed source that supports your claims or stfu.

Like you did? Hahahahahahaha!!!

you're the one making the claims, so *you* need to back them up.

absent that, you're blowing smoke.

but that much is obvious.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

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

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

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.

you haven't offered any proof other than what you created yourself.

that's like asking a bank robber what the facts were.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

So much for hot air.

that's all you can do.

In article ,
Sandman wrote:

Sandman:
This has already been supported by me:

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

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

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 in a desperate and feeble attempt to avoid
admitting that smaller sensors can (and do) have larger photosites.

Sandman:
FACT: Smaller photo sites capture less light

nospam:
true, but that's independent of sensor size.

Sandman:
Incorrect, given the fact that all contemporary cameras have
smaller photo sites if they have smaller sensors.

facts do not depend on what's contemporary, what's in stock at b&h
or what dpreview chooses to review.

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 the ones you happen to choose
to fit your bogus claims.

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.

in fact, that's the *very* comparison that sensor designers make every
day. more pixels can resolve more detail but they will be smaller and
have more noise. fewer pixels will be larger and have less noise, but
at the cost of not resolving as much detail. it's a tradeoff.

The topic has always been making
comparable photos.

nope. it's been a wide variety of things and changes as often as the
wind.

All my examples have used identical resolutions.

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

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.

you meant to say no support for existing views.

Still no support for opposing view. Fact remains undisputed.

nonsense to both.