The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Should I or not?

Shashin

Well-known member
Didn't have time to plot a DR axis. I'll describe: DR stays the same in the orange part, but continues to decrease in the blue part, then stays the same in the green part.
DXO mark shows a decrease in DR from ISO 35 to ISO 100. Perhaps your data is wrong.

ISO 35 is nothing better than ISO 100. If you use the same shutter speed and the same aperture, you do not get better image quality if you shoot at ISO 35, when compared against shooting at ISO 100.
The point of ISO is a change in the S/N ratio. Why shoot them at the same exposure? Don't you want better S/N?

On the other hand, ISO 100 would be better than anything above ISO 100.
Sure. And below ISO 100 is better too.

Anything below ISO 100 is just extended ISO (marketing hype).
No, it is not. Even if your assertion that DR does not change is true (DXO Marks shows something different), you are getting a better S/N ratio at ISO 35. You yourself point out noise in your evaluation of images. Shooting to minimize noise is a valid method. There is more to image quality than DR.
 
DXO mark shows a decrease in DR from ISO 35 to ISO 100. Perhaps your data is wrong.

The point of ISO is a change in the S/N ratio. Why shoot them at the same exposure? Don't you want better S/N?

Sure. And below ISO 100 is better too.

No, it is not. Even if your assertion that DR does not change is true (DXO Marks shows something different), you are getting a better S/N ratio at ISO 35. You yourself point out noise in your evaluation of images. Shooting to minimize noise is a valid method. There is more to image quality than DR.
dxomark has no plot for any DR below ISO 100. sensorgen has no either.

DR is bound by two things:

a) SNR in the shadow, and

b) highlight details.

At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 35 and ISO 100, you have the same SNR in the shadow, as well as the same amount of highlight details, hence the same DR, and also the same image quality.

At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 100 and ISO 200, you have (about) the same SNR in the shadow, but one stop difference of highlight details, hence less DR for ISO 200.

Sure, of course, you can shoot at ISO 35 and 40 seconds but I can also shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds and achieve the same image quality and DR as yours.

When I shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds, if you shoot at ISO 200 and 40 seconds, you have less highlight details as I have; if you shoot at ISO 200 and 20 seconds, although you have the same amount of highlight details as I have, you have less SNR in shadow, hence inferior image quality.
 

Shashin

Well-known member
dxomark has no plot for any DR below ISO 100. sensorgen has no either.

DR is bound by two things:

a) SNR in the shadow, and

b) highlight details.

At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 35 and ISO 100, you have the same SNR in the shadow, as well as the same amount of highlight details, hence the same DR, and also the same image quality.

At the same shutter speed and aperture between ISO 100 and ISO 200, you have (about) the same SNR in the shadow, but one stop difference of highlight details, hence less DR for ISO 200.

Sure, of course, you can shoot at ISO 35 and 40 seconds but I can also shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds and achieve the same image quality and DR as yours.

When I shoot at ISO 100 and 40 seconds, if you shoot at ISO 200 and 40 seconds, you have less highlight details as I have; if you shoot at ISO 200 and 20 seconds, although you have the same amount of highlight details as I have, you have less SNR in shadow, hence inferior image quality.
You are saying is that if I ignore ISO and shoot at any give exposure I end up with the same thing regardless if the ISO is at 100 or 35. But that is not news--if I do the same thing I usually get the same result. But if you shoot one image at ISO 35 and one at ISO 100 you are getting better S/N at the ISO 35 exposure. Kind of the point of ISO. Not everything in photography is just about DR. Exposure and S/N are actually important.
 

Paul2660

Well-known member
You are saying is that if I ignore ISO and shoot at any give exposure I end up with the same thing regardless if the ISO is at 100 or 35. But that is not news--if I do the same thing I usually get the same result. But if you shoot one image at ISO 35 and one at ISO 100 you are getting better S/N at the ISO 35 exposure. Kind of the point of ISO. Not everything in photography is just about DR. Exposure and S/N are actually important.
I believe this is the whole misconception of CCD and raising the ISO. As I understand it all you are changing is the metadata there is no signal increase as with CMOS. This an issue the I have brought up many times.

Wayne Fox over a year ago showed a great test that also pretty much proved this. It was a post on this site but I can't find it anymore.

The exception to this is sensor plus where you do in effect increase the gain 4:1 by pixel binning. Totally different than increasing gain on a chip as is done with raising the ISO on CMOS.

I welcome any dealer to please chip in here with any facts that prove me wrong on this as I have been trying get a straight answer for years, is there really a such a thing as higher ISO than base on a CCD or is it just a metadata setting and no gain is being done on the chip.

As to the look of CCD vs CMOS this is a person by person decision as everyone will see it differently.

Paul
 

Shashin

Well-known member
I believe this is the whole misconception of CCD and raising the ISO. As I understand it all you are changing is the metadata there is no signal increase as with CMOS. This an issue the I have brought up many times.

Wayne Fox over a year ago showed a great test that also pretty much proved this. It was a post on this site but I can't find it anymore.

The exception to this is sensor plus where you do in effect increase the gain 4:1 by pixel binning. Totally different than increasing gain on a chip as is done with raising the ISO on CMOS.

I welcome any dealer to please chip in here with any facts that prove me wrong on this as I have been trying get a straight answer for years, is there really a such a thing as higher ISO than base on a CCD or is it just a metadata setting and no gain is being done on the chip.

As to the look of CCD vs CMOS this is a person by person decision as everyone will see it differently.

Paul
Paul, you are talking about a CCD being ISOless. That is true. But this is a different topic about exposure.

Voidshatter simply believes where the point there is no longer a loss in DR is the native ISO and there is no point in using another value for exposure. I am saying that signal can be a valid reason for using a lower ISO than the point Voidshatter believes to be the "base" ISO. In this case, ISO 35 on the IQ180. The ISO 35 will give greater signal and that has a positive effect on the image as you are increasing signal to noise--noise is not going to be changing, but your signal increases. From the positive responses I see from IQ180 users, it appears they see the benefits as well. ISO 35 in this case is more than a gimmick.

There are plenty of times I "overexpose" when I know I can increase quality at base ISO. There is no impact on DR, but there is an impact on image quality. I am sure I am not the only photographer that understands the benefits of more signal regardless of impact on DR.
 
You are saying is that if I ignore ISO and shoot at any give exposure I end up with the same thing regardless if the ISO is at 100 or 35. But that is not news--if I do the same thing I usually get the same result.
You do not get the same result between ISO 100 and anything above ISO 100. ISO 100 is the turning point, hence the lowest native ISO setting. Anything below ISO 100 is useless (extended, marketing hype).
But if you shoot one image at ISO 35 and one at ISO 100 you are getting better S/N at the ISO 35 exposure. Kind of the point of ISO. Not everything in photography is just about DR. Exposure and S/N are actually important.
Show us proof that ISO 35 gets you better image quality.
 
I believe this is the whole misconception of CCD and raising the ISO. As I understand it all you are changing is the metadata there is no signal increase as with CMOS. This an issue the I have brought up many times.
Actually there is signal increase (i.e. in the blue part of my plot). Anything above ISO 100 for the IQ280 results in real ISO sensitivity increase, affecting the data recorded in the RAW file.
 
Paul, you are talking about a CCD being ISOless. That is true. But this is a different topic about exposure.

Voidshatter simply believes where the point there is no longer a loss in DR is the native ISO and there is no point in using another value for exposure. I am saying that signal can be a valid reason for using a lower ISO than the point Voidshatter believes to be the "base" ISO. In this case, ISO 35 on the IQ180. The ISO 35 will give greater signal and that has a positive effect on the image as you are increasing signal to noise--noise is not going to be changing, but your signal increases. From the positive responses I see from IQ180 users, it appears they see the benefits as well. ISO 35 in this case is more than a gimmick.

There are plenty of times I "overexpose" when I know I can increase quality at base ISO. There is no impact on DR, but there is an impact on image quality. I am sure I am not the only photographer that understands the benefits of more signal regardless of impact on DR.
If your claim is true, then you are saying that anyone who shoots a D810 at ISO 64, D800E at ISO 100, 5D3 at ISO 100 is a fool. They should have been shooting a D810 at ISO 32, D800E at ISO 50, 5D3 at ISO 50, right?
 

jerome_m

Member
is there really a such a thing as higher ISO than base on a CCD or is it just a metadata setting and no gain is being done on the chip.
It really depends on the camera design. Some CCD cameras use a variable amplifier before the ADC, some simply shift the digital value. With a well designed 16 bits ADC, the second system is not necessarily worse than the first.

A CCD (and Cmos) pixel is just like a bucket that will fill up with photons till the bucket is full. The full value is typically about 50-60 thousands photons for the sizes used in MF sensors (about 6 µm). With 16 bits, the ADC can count between 0 photon, 1 photon, 2 photons, ... till 65535 photons. So it can count all possible values.

Doubling the analog gain means that for each photon, we count 2. So the ADC will count: 0, 2, 4, ... 65534, when we have 0, 1, 2, 131068 photons. But we cannot get 131068 photons, the bucket never holds that many, so we lose some possible values.

Doubling (or quadrupling) the analog gain makes sense if we only have a 12 or 14 bits ADC. A 12-bits ADC can only count up to 4095 values, far less than the 50 thousands a pixel can hold. So, when we have lots of light and the well may fill up, we count the photons by groups of 16 and everything is fine. When we know that we may only get about 16 thousands photons, because it is darker, we may raise the analog gain and count them by groups of 4. If it is very dark and we get at most 3-4 thousands photons, we may want to count them one by one.

That is how it works when there is no noise (except the noise inherent to the discrete nature of photons), of course. But noise does not fundamentally change the model, it just adds a small random number of photons to each bucket (typically up to 10-20).
 

jianghai

Member
Paul, you are talking about a CCD being ISOless. That is true. But this is a different topic about exposure.

Voidshatter simply believes where the point there is no longer a loss in DR is the native ISO and there is no point in using another value for exposure. I am saying that signal can be a valid reason for using a lower ISO than the point Voidshatter believes to be the "base" ISO. In this case, ISO 35 on the IQ180. The ISO 35 will give greater signal and that has a positive effect on the image as you are increasing signal to noise--noise is not going to be changing, but your signal increases. From the positive responses I see from IQ180 users, it appears they see the benefits as well. ISO 35 in this case is more than a gimmick.

There are plenty of times I "overexpose" when I know I can increase quality at base ISO. There is no impact on DR, but there is an impact on image quality. I am sure I am not the only photographer that understands the benefits of more signal regardless of impact on DR.
Again with the :OT:

:banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

IMO you're both talking around each other on different topics. Void is apparently talking about the CCD being ISO-less. As in the native ISO of the IQ160/180 is ISO 100 (whether that meets ISO 100 spec is up for debate). And anyone using ISO35 is simply doing the ETTR. What you are saying is that you like exposing at ISO 35 because it is cleaner, i.e. ETTR.

So in actuality both of you are "right". My interpretation is:

Exposure ISO - Actual ISO - ETTR (stops)
35 - 100 - +1 2/3
50 - 100 - +1
100 - 100 - 0

So yes you can choose to shoot at any of these ISOs, but what you are doing is "ETTR" which is, from what I read, what you want. Now whether you shoot at ISO35, or ISO 100 with +1 2/3 exposure compensation and then use C1 to reduce exposure, the net effect would be the same (as I understand it)

Void on the other hand is all about shadow retrieval so he thinks folks who shoot at ISO35 or 50 (when the actual ISO is 100 and all you're doing is "ETTR") are fools. I personally feel that ETTR makes a modicum of sense if one can get the desired shot (no shake, etc) so I am fine shooting at fake ISO35/50 and not having to dial exposure back in software (if indeed that is required) but I am also fine shooting at ISO100 to get higher shutter speeds. Horses for courses.

That is all. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.
 

steve_cor

Member
I believe this is the whole misconception of CCD and raising the ISO. As I understand it all you are changing is the metadata there is no signal increase as with CMOS. This an issue the I have brought up many times.

Wayne Fox over a year ago showed a great test that also pretty much proved this. It was a post on this site but I can't find it anymore.

Paul
I remember reading it too, but I can't find it either. But it is also mentioned here starting at #19:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/46346-p-iso-push-processing.html


--Steve.
 
I remember reading it too, but I can't find it either. But it is also mentioned here starting at #19:
http://www.getdpi.com/forum/medium-format-systems-digital-backs/46346-p-iso-push-processing.html


--Steve.
That was only for the old backs and not even accurate for the P45+.

The P45+ has two real ISO settings: 50 and 100. Anything above 100 is ISO-less (i.e. the same as 100).

The IQ280 is ISO-less between 35 and 100, but would really start to increase ISO sensitivity and clip highlight after 100.
 

gerald.d

Well-known member
By panning you would get spherical information, which would be less than ideal when you stitch a very wide angle of view in the 4:3 or 3:2 format. You would get rather soft corners in the output image if you force a rectilinear stitch out of the spherical information. If you fail to find the correct nodal point you also risk getting parallax.

On a technical camera such like the Alpa MAX or Arca RM3Di or the Cambo equivalent you can have lateral movements and vertical movements at the same time. This is the easiest way to get parallax-free rectilinear stitching. It is essentially a way to help you enjoy what can be captured by a sensor as large as the whole image circle of the lens. You simply have a sensor with size beyond the current technology :)
I'm a little confused by the statements I've highlighted.

Firstly, with regards perspective, it doesn't matter how you go about capturing a "very wide" field of view - nodal or shift makes no difference whatsoever. It's how you choose to project the captured stitch that is important.

Secondly, you are always working with "spherical information" when taking photos. If you shift stitch, you're relying on the lens to "force" a rectilinear projection. if you nodal stitch, it's the output from the sitching software that determines the projection. There are of course a multitude of different projections that can be chosen - some of which are actually much more suited to extreme wide-angle shots than rectilinear.

(Determining the correct nodal point is a no-brainer if you choose to stitch that way, so that's a bit of a red herring.)

Kind regards,


Gerald.
 
Top