# 1Dx M2 Sensor Resolution - Back of envelop estimate



## RGF (Oct 18, 2015)

The current 5DS / 5DSR can shoot 5 FPS at 50MP. That is 250 MP / second.

At 12 FPS, that is equivalent to 20MP second. Assuming that Canon squeeze another 20-33% in sensory transfer speed, that would make the max possible resolution of the 1Dx M2 resolution at 24-27 MP. If Canon opts for higher FPS the max resolution might be around 25MP.

Of course if Canon could increase the transfer rate even higher, then they could provider higher FPS or higher resolution.

Guess a thought.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.


----------



## RGF (Oct 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.



That's close to a 50% increase in resolution plus a 33% increase in FPS.

The 1D M4 was 16 MP, 10FPS, the 1Dx is 18 MP, 12 FPS. About 30% increase in MP/sec.

You proposal is a 75%. 

Don't think we will see an increase that large. Possible, perhaps.


----------



## Don Haines (Oct 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.
> ...


but we are talking about a change in storage technology with cFast.....


----------



## Dylan777 (Oct 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> 24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.


My number is slightly different to Neuro. My guess is 22mp 14fps slightly better in high iso.


----------



## wtlloyd (Oct 18, 2015)

That would work for me...I've owned a 1D2, 1D3, 1D4 and 1Ds3....but never the X. Really hoping we get a mid-20's MP camera...



neuroanatomist said:


> 24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.


----------



## ERHP (Oct 18, 2015)

My guess is more, more and more than the current model. We have 18MP-12/14FPS now, probably 24MP at 14/15. If Canon goes the CFast route, 540MB/s(3600X) is currently the fastest card available so the buffer bottleneck may be gone. I would still like a ~5FPS 'quiet' mode. The top ISO will most likely be the equivalent of 1M, though like all top expanded ISO's, of limited usability. All conjecture though as Canon will do what Canon thinks Canon needs to do.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 24 MP, 15 fps. That's my guess.
> ...



New math? MP: 24 – 18 = 6; 6 / 18 = 33% more resolution. Frame rate: 15 – 12 = 3; 3 / 12 = 25% higher fps.


----------



## RGF (Oct 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Right. Did those in my head and am a bit under the weather. Still 12FPS x 18 MP = 216 MP/Sec while 15 x 24 MP = 360 MP/Sec, an increase of 68%


----------



## tpatana (Oct 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Sometimes I wish math was mandatory at elementary schools.

Also, data bus speed aside, the mirror physical movement becomes another bottleneck. I don't know much about mechanics, but even the 12fps seems crazy high speed for the mirror to slap around.

I don't like mirrorless that much, but that's one huge advantage for them.


----------



## AlanF (Oct 18, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...


It is 5/3 times greater, an increase of 66 2/3%, or 66.67% rounded.


----------



## rs (Oct 18, 2015)

AlanF said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



To give this a bit of context, the previous Canon speed demon was the APS-H 1D mk IV. It featured 16 MP and 10 FPS, making a nice round 160 MP/Sec. The existing 1D X represents a 35% increase in throughput. But bear in mind the 1D X was announced almost two years to the day after the 1D mk IV. If it were announced today, the 1D X mk II announcement would be four years later. That's enough time for 35% twice (compound of course), so an 82% increase isn't too unreasonable. And the longer they leave it, the more scope for data throughput increases. 

If FPS increases are bound by the physical limits the mirror can flip at, let's go for a mild 15 FPS, so 26MP+ could be a possibility.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 18, 2015)

20MP @ 12fps (18fps in mirror lockup)


----------



## Proscribo (Oct 18, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Also, data bus speed aside, the mirror physical movement becomes another bottleneck. I don't know much about mechanics, but even the 12fps seems crazy high speed for the mirror to slap around.


Indeed. Could it be possible to cut the mirror from the middle? So that upper half would move up and lower half down. I suppose that would allow for higher fps.


----------



## rs (Oct 18, 2015)

Proscribo said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Also, data bus speed aside, the mirror physical movement becomes another bottleneck. I don't know much about mechanics, but even the 12fps seems crazy high speed for the mirror to slap around.
> ...



Bear in mind the viewfinder would end up with a split in the middle with that set up, not to mention the issues with the AF mirror and getting light reliably and accurately to that.

As for 12 FPS, Canon have managed that reliably with the 1D X. And since then they have introduced the Mirror Vibration Control System on the 5DS(r) and 7D mk II. This tech allows the mirror to softly stop at each end of travel instead of slapping into the end stops, allowing for less vibration and quicker settling for viewfinder/AF purposes. This should allow them to push the envelope a little further on their flagship product without breaking a sweat. I imagine 14 FPS could be a given for them, and they could well pull one out of the bag and push it even further.


----------



## Eldar (Oct 18, 2015)

A 15fps mirror mechanism, with enough durability and reasonable damping to avoid image impact, can be expected to be quite expensive. To me 12 fps is enough. I would rather have resolution, DR and good high ISO, combined with some AF improvements (wider spread of AF points, improved tracking of fast moving subjects and more AF points at f8). 

I think Neuro´s guess at 24MP and 15 fps is pretty realistic.


----------



## rs (Oct 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Read the 1DX people.
> 
> At 14fps on the 1DX, the mirror gets locked up. That should tell you all that you need to know.



No-one on here has suggested anything but 12 fps with mirror movement on the 1D X. The previous generation with its smaller sensor ran at 10 fps. We're debating possibilities for the next generation.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Read the 1DX people.
> At 14fps on the 1DX, the mirror gets locked up. That should tell you all that you need to know.



We should all be very glad that Canon doesn't design and build cameras in dilbertland.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 18, 2015)

Canon was promoting frame grabs from video with the 1Dx.
With the next version that is what will likely be pushed even more with 4K video. 
Increasing shutter speed is a redundant increase in technology if Canon believes that technology is headed in that direction.
For that reason I think you see mp increase, ISO and DR performance increase if possible and all balanced to the abilities of the latest greatest processors. 24-28mp should be possible, keep in mind the speed and depth of the buffer can be just as important as frame rate.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Canon was promoting frame grabs from video with the 1Dx.
> With the next version that is what will likely be pushed even more with 4K video.
> Increasing shutter speed is a redundant increase in technology if Canon believes that technology is headed in that direction.



So you're saying the 1D X II will have DPAF and it will be as good as dedicated phase AF for subject tracking?


----------



## Viper28 (Oct 18, 2015)

As well as the physical mirror speed, does the auto aperture close down speed also have to be figured into the equation of how many FPS can be achieved? I assume (I don't know) that the diaphragm cycles between each shoot and that's another thing that gets disabled if you use the current 1DX at 14FPS?


----------



## krautland (Oct 18, 2015)

motion folks: can anyone help me with a comparison to i.e. Red Dragon or Warrior or C300?

struggling to grasp just how big the difference is. 

I have worked with Dragon footage and own a 5d mkiii and I am keenly aware of the difference in footage quality but I don't have the numbers.


----------



## rs (Oct 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> rs said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



10 fps was the limit back in 2009 when they announced the 1D mk IV. 12 fps was the limit back in 2011 with the 1D X. It's now 4 years on, so why do the same limits apply? To add some more credit to this, I'll quote what I said earlier on:



rs said:


> As for 12 FPS, Canon have managed that reliably with the 1D X. And since then they have introduced the Mirror Vibration Control System on the 5DS(r) and 7D mk II. This tech allows the mirror to softly stop at each end of travel instead of slapping into the end stops, allowing for less vibration and quicker settling for viewfinder/AF purposes. This should allow them to push the envelope a little further on their flagship product without breaking a sweat. I imagine 14 FPS could be a given for them, and they could well pull one out of the bag and push it even further.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I think it is safe to say that if moving to 14fps means that the shutter stays open then there's an engineering limit somewhere between 12fps and 14fps that makes it undesirable to move the mirror.



I think it is safe to say that you don't know what the H-E-double-hockey-sticks you're talking about. The shutter does not remain open when shooting at 14 fps on the 1D X. 

The remainder of your post contains a plethora of factual errors and unwarranted assumptions. Typical dilbert.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 18, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon was promoting frame grabs from video with the 1Dx.
> ...



I didn't say that. Then again what does the future hold in technology?

I will say it is my speculation that we will not see a substantial frame rate increase out of the next body. 

Another reason I believe this.
Geeks and gearheads like the fastest, but is a frame rate over 12 fps necessary for most of the photog's and pro's that will buy the 1Dx II? Some will want it, but will Canon think it is worth while to invest the R&D for the mechanical system to do this for those that do? I can only think of a hand full of scenarios that I would want more and in some of those situations no current AF system keeps up. We could ask those on this forum if they need the increased frame rate, I think many here would but it wouldn't be a fair sampling.


----------



## rs (Oct 18, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Canon was promoting frame grabs from video with the 1Dx.
> With the next version that is what will likely be pushed even more with 4K video.
> Increasing shutter speed is a redundant increase in technology if Canon believes that technology is headed in that direction.
> For that reason I think you see mp increase, ISO and DR performance increase if possible and all balanced to the abilities of the latest greatest processors. 24-28mp should be possible, keep in mind the speed and depth of the buffer can be just as important as frame rate.



There are disadvantages to using video for stills capture vs genuine stills. Most are pretty big to overcome, and the only solution is to shoot stills:


video fires off a frame to a precise timeline. Stills can fire off a frame when the conditions are right, e.g. shutter speed, aperture, ISO, anti flicker can all delay the next frame, but for the right reasons
shutter speed
metering per frame
AF
rolling shutter
tracking action


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 18, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Another reason I believe this.
> Geeks and gearheads like the fastest, but is a frame rate over 12 fps necessary for most of the photog's and pro's that will buy the 1Dx II? Some will want it, but will Canon think it is worth while to invest the R&D for the mechanical system to do this for those that do? I can only think of a hand full of scenarios that I would want more and in some of those situations no current AF system keeps up. We could ask those on this forum if they need the increased frame rate, I think many here would but it wouldn't be a fair sampling.



Many users of the 1D X shoot things that move fast, where catching the key moment or peak of action is critical. I've shot action where the frame rate was 12 fps...and I've shot action where the frame rate was as fast as my thumb could push the lever between shots. More is better.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 18, 2015)

rs said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon was promoting frame grabs from video with the 1Dx.
> ...



I wonder if Canon knows that those problems may be to big to overcome, otherwise the may be wasting R&D money on this instead of important things like DR.
I tried to find the article Canon put out when the 1Dx was released. There was a video they released with it. Apparently it a very popular article as it doesn't pop up easily on searches.


----------



## Steve (Oct 18, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Geeks and gearheads like the fastest, but is a frame rate over 12 fps necessary for most of the photog's and pro's that will buy the 1Dx II? Some will want it, but will Canon think it is worth while to invest the R&D for the mechanical system to do this for those that do? I can only think of a hand full of scenarios that I would want more and in some of those situations no current AF system keeps up. We could ask those on this forum if they need the increased frame rate, I think many here would but it wouldn't be a fair sampling.



Eh, yeah I think it would be desirable, especially for sports. Sports photos are often most dramatic at very specific instants and more frames means more chances to catch those moments. Wildlife is often the same and while actual paid professional wildlife photographers are rarer than professional astronauts there are gazillions of amateurs willing to spend tons of money to get those dramatic moments. I think there is definitely a market for boosts to burst speeds.


----------



## RGF (Oct 19, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > I think it is safe to say that if moving to 14fps means that the shutter stays open then there's an engineering limit somewhere between 12fps and 14fps that makes it undesirable to move the mirror.
> ...



A couple of questions

1. at 14 FPS does the mirror go up and down? what is difference between 12FPS and 14FPS (and I don't mean 2 FPS).

2. how does canon video work? Is the mirror up all the time?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2015)

RGF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



1. The mirror is locked up at 14 fps (not at 12). The shutter opens and closes with each exposure at 12 and 14 fps. The mirror being locked up precludes AF between shots, and you're also limited to jpg only. 

2. The mirror is locked up during video shooting.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Is my 1DX broken since I'm using 1/500 at the 12fps?


----------



## RGF (Oct 19, 2015)

Thanks everyone for the replies.

Wonder why the ISO limit?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 19, 2015)

RGF said:


> Wonder why the ISO limit?



Higher ISO means more noise which means larger files. From TDP, a studio scene that yields a 24 MB file at ISO 100 is 32 MB at ISO 25600 and 37 MB at ISO 102400.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 19, 2015)

dilbert said:


> I think that you'll find that you're not getting 12fps, maybe 11.5 or something like that.



Ok, I'll live.

Next time I'll check time stamps to see that's the actual.


----------



## rs (Oct 19, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > RGF said:
> ...



If a higher ISO makes the S/N ratio lower, how doesn't that raise the noise proportion of the signal?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> the noise is lower at higher iso, higher iso means not more noise. as you can se below, but the signal decreases
> so it is wrong to suggest that noise increases with higher ISO



It is wrong to suggest that read noise is the only component of image noise. 

Do you know why a scene shot at ISO 100 that yields a 24 MB file yields a file that's 75% larger (41 MB) when shot at ISO 204800? The short answer is more noise. The long answer is...also more noise, albeit with more details and explanation because it's the long answer.


----------



## RGF (Oct 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Wonder why the ISO limit?
> ...



Is the time limited by read time from the sensor? Does the write time to memory really matter? I thought memory writes were well in excess of 1GB/Sec (perhaps 10 GB/sec). could that be a bottle neck?


----------



## RGF (Oct 20, 2015)

dilbert said:


> RGF said:
> 
> 
> > Thanks everyone for the replies.
> ...



So if I turn off noise reduction I can hit 12 FPS? Need to try that when I get home.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Oh, I see. So, more amplification of something does not mean more ... So, (5 x 25600 widgets) is _not_ more than (5 x 100 widgets). Yeah, that makes so much sense it must be true. 

An image shot at higher ISO has more noise that the same image shot at lower ISO. You can continue to disagree, but you'll only make yourself look foolish (as usual...at least until you disappear again).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



I haven't fallen into any traps, thanks. But then, I'm not the one claiming an image at higher ISO has _less_ noise than at lower ISO...that's you, bub.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> If you do not understand the concept of signal and noise and that noise does not increases at higher ISO there is no point of discussing the question more



You are correct about one thing - there's no point in further discussion with someone who does not comprehend the simple fact that image noise increases with increasing ISO. Perhaps once you learn some basic facts you can try again. 

Use your eyes, really it's not all that challenging. If you think the image on the right has less noise, see an ophthalmologist, or better yet _visit_ a psychiatrist (since an ophthamologist could not fix the underlying problem and you could not _see_ one in any case).


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> If you do not understand the concept of signal and noise and that noise does not increases at higher ISO there is no point of discussing the question more
> 
> You wrote earlier,
> Higher ISO means more noise which means larger files. From TDP, a studio scene that yields a 24 MB file at ISO 100 is 32 MB at ISO 25600 and 37 MB at ISO 102400.



I believe one of you is talking about noise before amplification, the other after (i.e. what's in the actual image.)


----------



## rs (Oct 20, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> filluppa said:
> 
> 
> > If you do not understand the concept of signal and noise and that noise does not increases at higher ISO there is no point of discussing the question more
> ...



Neuro, test shots like that are just there to trick people. The ISO 100 shot has received more light, so that clearly skews the result. No self respecting photographer would ever dream of shooting at higher ISO to compensate for reduced light. Filluppa is clearly a follower of the Test Results are Obviously Ludicrous Lies way of thinking.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> there is no point of discussing the question more



Clearly you even disagree with yourself. How sad.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Again, you're leaving out the fact that those read noise values get amplified. The read noise component that actually goes into the image does in fact increase with increasing ISO.


----------



## midluk (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...


What is actually important for noise reduction in the camera (and also in the image) is noise measured in ADC counts and not in electrons. This is proportional to your noise in electrons divided by the saturation value and clearly rises with higher ISO.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 20, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> In your chart wouldn't the read noise to saturation ratio be what matters?



The real question is which would have more noise – an ISO 100 shot of a QPcard on a barbecue next to a shed pushed 5 stops, or an ISO 100 shot of an awning on a Stockholm street pushed 5 stops. At least, that's the sort of thing that matters to 'filluppa' aka ankorwatt aka Mikael Residal. (Apologies to those newer members who miss the references – you're likely better off, but if you picture the bastard offspring of an unholy tryst between a banned troll and a bad penny you'll understand the gist.)


----------



## midluk (Oct 20, 2015)

filluppa said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...


It always depends on your definition of noise and on whether you keep the number of photons for your image (i.e. shutter speed and aperture) constant or compensate for the change in ISO to get a properly exposed image.
What everybody is talking about here is noise in ADC counts (which is the relevant quantity here that determines file size and perceived noise in the picture). What you are talking about is "noise" in electrons (which is noise in ADC counts divided by the electrons per ADC count). The only thing I can think of that your noise in electrons is useful for is to decide whether it makes sense to increase ISO compared to just push the exposure in post.

Poisson noise (in ADC counts) on the signal increases with ISO (linear or as square root depending on whether you compensate with shutter speed or not). Noise from the ADC itself (in ADC counts) stays constant. Noise (in ADC counts) from the amplification increases with ISO. So noise in ADC counts clearly increases with ISO.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Oct 21, 2015)

Haven't really been following this thread, but how much resolution do people need? I have a 1DX and am more than happy with it's resolution. I have also seen what the 5DSr can do and it's pretty special to say the least! The question is how relevant is it?
Attached is a severe crop of a picture I took earlier this year simply to see what an other photographer was up to.
It is certainly not a good image but it was taken at between 400-500 yds (and is totally unedited!). It clearly shows that they were using a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 and a 5D - BUT which model 5D??? Would a few extra MP have helped? I doubt it. 

P.S. I thought the bokeh was quite nice too.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 21, 2015)

johnf3f said:


> Haven't really been following this thread, but how much resolution do people need? I have a 1DX and am more than happy with it's resolution. I have also seen what the 5DSr can do and it's pretty special to say the least! The question is how relevant is it?
> Attached is a severe crop of a picture I took earlier this year simply to see what an other photographer was up to.
> It is certainly not a good image but it was taken at between 400-500 yds (and is totally unedited!). It clearly shows that they were using a Canon 24-70 F2.8 L Mk1 and a 5D - BUT which model 5D??? Would a few extra MP have helped? I doubt it.
> 
> P.S. I thought the bokeh was quite nice too.



My opinion the 5Ds R is very relevant. Even though you loose the resolution benefit with higher ISO or camera shake, the results are never worse than the older 5D bodies once you apply noise reduction or down sample. So it gives you the ability to have the higher resolution when you are able to get it. My opinion isn't a paper opinion, but one I have formulated over the last few months of use. YMMV

I have a prediction along those lines, we may never see a 5D IV. The 5Ds is the new 5D. What we may see is a new 6D II release though.

But this is a 1Dx thread. Sports photography is not my thing, wildlife, birds and nature are. I would really like to see the next 1D have at a minimum 12fps like the current model with 24mp +.


----------



## rs (Oct 21, 2015)

filluppa said:


> ...
> what I try to explain to Neuro is that the noise does not increase with higher ISO, the signal decreases which is common sensor Physics,and when it comes to use the correct explanation, it is that noise does not increase with higher iso
> ...



Am I missing something? Doesn't increasing the ISO increase amplification? And doesn't this amplify the noise as well as everything else? And am I right in thinking that as the S/N ratio is lower at higher ISO's, and the amplification is set to get the signal back to normal, the noise is higher? Don't we, as photographers, use images which come out of the camera, after amplification? Or am I just looking at this wrong? Should I never look at the images coming out of my camera and just consult you instead? Is the noise lower? Should I be shooting everything with an 8 stop ND filter to help me avoid the noisy low ISO's when shooting hand held?


----------



## Eldar (Oct 21, 2015)

Yet another totally derailed thread ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2015)

dilbert said:


> Correct. The noise doesn't increase (it's baked into the design and manufacturing of the system so is therefore constant) but because the signal decreases as the ISO increases, the ratio of signal to noise drops.



Ahhhh dilbertland. That place where camera manufacturers know in advance every single picture you will ever take with the camera, and bake those pictures into the design and manufacturing of the system so the noise can be constant. No, perhaps that doesn't make sense...Occam's razor and all. Rather, the laws of physics are simply not applicable in dilbertland, and therefore read noise is the sum total of image noise and even then it's not subject to amplification. I hope you and Mikeal are having a good time in your personal alternate reality!


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 21, 2015)

I am not shure if I am repeating trivia (but I don't like the aggressivity in some posts):

ISO 100 means a maximum of 90 000 detected photons, at 50% it means 45 000 detected photons which leads to an error of sqrt(45 000) which is roughly 200 - the relative error is 200 / 45000 or 0.5%.

ISO 6400 means a maximum of 1500 detected photons, at 50% it is 750 detected photons - sqrt(750) = 27 - relative error is 27 / 750 = 3.6 %

While at ISO 100 the camera makes a 0.5 % error between pixels which get the same amount of light the error is seven times higher at ISO 6400.

The compression of RAW (lossless) and JPEG files trys to define areas with the same values to store image information with less computer data. The higher error at ISO 6400 needs to define more but smaller areas so the compression algorithm needs more computer data volume to store the image information.

EDIT: I have written a simple application which simulates sensor noise on pixel base. Images show a 16 x 16 pixel region of a 50% gray where the detected photons are simulated with random numbers. Read noise is too simulated (simple model with equal distribution) but in the demonstrated case it isn't important. Main effect is the statistics of "detected photons".

now the image:


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 21, 2015)

filluppa said:


> So can we all agree, except Nuro, that the correct description is like i wrote in answer 50 earlier
> 
> 
> The noise is lower with less light=higher iso, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher.



I will agree that Neuro has lost in this debate. Read below for explanation.

The original statement you made was about a specific portion of an overall equation that happens when a photo is made at higher ISO. The statement was aimed at a broad statement that Neuro made about the file size and the noise in a finished product. 

It is an mid level troll tactic to make a correct statement about a small slice of a situation to illicit a response from someone who is talking about a finished product or broader subject. Usually that small slice seems to be in conflict with the end result however the slice is usually true. The troll in this situation crafts his answers and responses in such a way as to acknowledge the final product and maintain the accuracy and correctness of his response.

The overall view;
There were a few times your crafted response outside the original point were shaky. However your original slice point was on target. You were able to solicit some responses from yours that helped your cause.

However

You were able to maintain your focus and unhinge Neuro in a few of the posts. At one point he called you "bub". In others there were choice words. As for the effectiveness of the original points it elicited the desired results and response for those reasons I have to say you did win the debate with Neuro.

Sorry Neuro, but I think he got you on this one.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 21, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> filluppa said:
> 
> 
> > So can we all agree, except Nuro, that the correct description is like i wrote in answer 50 earlier
> ...



I dunno. Most of us use the word 'noise' perhaps a little imprecisely, but it's a valid usage nonetheless. Who would say 'higher ISO images aren't noisier'? Nobody I've ever encountered. If the point was 'SNR is what's changed, no noise per se' that's one thing, but it's quibbling over words, and rather beside the point.

Are higher ISO images noisier? Sure. Is that a major reason for their larger file sizes? I've certainly seen that explanation given in a few places - websites as opposed to forums. Does it matter if what we actually mean is 'the signal is weaker compared to the amplified noise' or whatever? Not in any practical way for most purposes.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 21, 2015)

scyrene said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



You do not have to agree that a high ISO picture has more or less apparent noise. By even debating the final product you fall into the trap.
Only the one point is thrown out for validation _"The noise is lower with less light=higher iso, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher."_

That is the small slice used for response. 

But this was a validation post, _"So can we all agree, except Nuro, that the correct description is like i wrote in answer 50 earlier"_

This is the ball spike at the goal line.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 21, 2015)

Mikael Residal (of whom this is but the latest incarnation, undoubtedly temporary), has consistently demonstrated an inability to see the forest for the trees (or the picture for the pixels, as the case may be). His repetitive posting of the Sensorgen data showing decreased pre-amplification read noise with increasing ISO is a perfect example. While that is true in and of itself, it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand. 

Stating that, "The noise is lower with less light=higher iso, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher," is patently false, unless one also specifies that one is referring to the pre-amplification read noise. Shot noise goes down with less light, but preamplification shot noise is independent of ISO. Thermal noise is independent of both light intensity and ISO. So, *takesome1* it would seem there was a penalty flag on the offense and that goal-line ball spike of yours was meaningless. 

Absent the qualifying reference to preamplification read noise, and in the context of the discussion (file sizes) it is apparent to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that what matters is noise in the final image. I won't bore you or anyone else by reposting an image comparison demonstrating that which everyone (probably even Mikael and dilbert) knows to be true – an image taken at high ISO has more noise than an equivalent image taken at lower ISO. 

As for the "debate," there isn't one. Mikael is, as usual, arguing a tangential triviality. If he'd like to address the issue of why achieving 12 fps on the 1D X has a restriction of ISO 25600 or lower, he is free to do so. If he suggests that restriction exists because there is _less_ noise at higher ISO, he'll succeed only in making himself look foolish.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 21, 2015)

To clarify my earlier post, it was my observation he was trying to make a goal line spike, it wasn't my spike.

Maybe not a "debate", but there was "bait" placed next to the bridge.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> I will agree that Neuro has lost in this debate. Read below for explanation.
> ...
> It is an mid level troll tactic to make a *correct statement* about a small slice of a situation to illicit a response from someone who is talking about a finished product or broader subject.
> ...
> ...





takesome1 said:


> To clarify my earlier post, it was my observation he was trying to make a goal line spike, it wasn't my spike.
> 
> Maybe not a "debate", but there was "bait" placed next to the bridge.



To me, your last post seems to be more of a retraction than a clarification, as calling a statement correct and on target generally suggests that one agrees with that statement. Distancing yourself from agreement with those who are frequently wrong is probably a good idea, though. 

Also, where Mikael is from (and in fact, in most of the world), football means something different and spiking the ball may be a non sequitur.


----------



## NancyP (Oct 22, 2015)

Who uses envelopes nowadays? ;D


----------



## scyrene (Oct 22, 2015)

I understand sporting metaphors even less than motoring ones


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> To me, your last post seems to be more of a retraction than a clarification, as calling a statement correct and on target generally suggests that one agrees with that statement. Distancing yourself from agreement with those who are frequently wrong is probably a good idea, though.



Not a retraction, I believe he won. Ill admit on my part debate is a poorly chosen word. Probably a better description would have been "lost in this "or his" game". 

I believe the whole conversation was crafted on his part to culminate with his statement "So can we all agree, except Nuro,..."

For him the discussion about noise was nothing more than a ploy to arrive at that point.
I think you took the Troll's bait.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

NancyP said:


> Who uses envelopes nowadays? ;D



I used one yesterday when I shipped my camera to Canon. I put the service return form to Canon in an envelope and then packed it with my camera.

Occasionaly they have a use


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> I believe the whole conversation was crafted to culminate with his statement "So can we all agree, except Nuro,..."
> 
> For him the discussion about noise was nothing more than a ploy to arrive at that point.
> I think you took the Troll's bait.



Fair enough. I will point out that all except me did _not_ agree. The ploy of making a false statement to garner a response may be the case, and if so that was successful, although I suspect he still believes he is correct, and will persist in doing so regardless of all evidence to the contrary. 

For my part, I know in advance how these things will go, but there's an element of amusing diversion in an otherwise busy day. I don't often get to toss out alliterations like 'tangential trivialities' in general conversation.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> I don't often get to toss out alliterations like *'tangential trivialities'* in general conversation.



Excellent use. Unless you can coin it as a type of trolling I wonder when we would ever see it again.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> To claim that the noise increases with higher ISO just shows ignorance from one person, then not listen to the correct explanation / answer means even more ignorance.then try to explain away the ignorance just gets a lot of text
> _I don't know how it is in Dilbertland as Neuro describe_ it, and would that statement be fun one ? but I understand that there is a lot of ignorance in Neuro Donald "Duck" Country and where they have great problems to stick to the topic.



You over extended. You went outside your original point.

This is what Canon says;

_In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, *you increase* both the signal and the *background noise*, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image._

Canon states it increases.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> This is what Canon says;
> 
> _In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification by setting a higher ISO rating, *you increase* both the signal and the *background noise*, and the noise becomes significant. There is a weak signal-to-noise ratio. The noise shows through, degrading the smooth tones of the image._
> 
> ...



Well, sure...but Canon clearly does not understand sensor physics as well as Mikael. After all, they can't even manage to design a sensor where you can push images of barbecues and awnings 5+ stops in post with as little noise as Sony (which, of course, says nothing about the usability of the resulting images).


----------



## tpatana (Oct 22, 2015)

Soo.... my car goes slower on freeway than local roads, since on freeway the RPM is typically around 1900-2000, and on local roads more like 2500-3500. The car must go slower since the engine is making less rpms. There's nothing else in the car which might impact the speed, and need to be considered since RPM is the metric that all cool people use to determine speed. Yes. And I can find people online who agree with me.

You can't just take one single meaningless metric and decide that's the end result. Even Stevie Wonder knows that higher ISO images have more noise.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Filluppa..... Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction? 

North

Also, I had a special treat tonight, I used both butter AND salt for my popcorn while reading through this post! ;D


----------



## Eldar (Oct 22, 2015)

Northstar said:


> filluppa said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


When you have less light, you need more amplification to generate a usable image. In this amplification you amplify to compensate for less light AND drag the noise, which is stable, into the same amplification. The noise does not change with changing light or your ISO setting. However, the resulting image of an amplified combination of light and noise is more noisy, because the S/N ratio is much worse. And then you can apply noise reduction. 

This whole tread is becoming hard evidence that someone here needs help ...


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

tpatana said:


> You can't just take one single meaningless metric and decide that's the end result. Even Stevie Wonder knows that higher ISO images have more noise.



You mean the winner of a football game (either kind) is not determined by the time of possession? 

Just goes to show, there are none so blind as those that will not see.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

Northstar said:


> Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction?



A) It's there to pacify you, like the 'close door' button in some elevators that when pushed makes no electrical contact click because there's no wiring behind it

B) It's there because Canon doesn't understand sensor physics, and thinks there's more noise at higher ISO

C) It's there because Canon thinks Mikael is correct that there's less noise at higher ISO, but has caved in to the prevailing mindset of the real world that believes high ISO means more noise, so Canon uses the setting as part of a conspiracy theory to hide the truth

D) It's part of an Easter egg - if you enable that setting along with certain others, while disabling certain other settings, your 1D X will actually make popcorn...with butter and salt. 

;D


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



For the most part you had stayed focused on the minor point, some posters were even leaning your way and you were the one insulted. You had the victory.

But now you come back and make a broad statement and use insults. This is the classic inexperienced troll mistake.

You gave away your victory by continuing to play. You should have picked up your ball and taken it home. I think Neuro has a very easy slam dunk on this one now if he chooses.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 22, 2015)

I love these threads  This one is getting quite meta, even better!

To me it boils down to, put two images* side by side, one at low ISO, one at high ISO. Stating that there is less noise in the low ISO image is like saying day is night. What is the extra graininess in the high ISO image if not noise? What bizarre twisting of commonly-used terms must you need to say it's not?

*let's make them of the same scene in the same lighting to avoid ANY leeway.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2015)

A plea for a bit of kindness here.

If Neuro is correct and this is indeed the latest incarnation of Mikael or Angkor What, lets try not to escalate things. That individual clearly has an obsessive disorder of some type and some forum members have gotten their kicks in the past by baiting him to the point that he ultimately gets banned from the site.

The person is not an intentional troll like Dilbert, who just enjoys saying ridiculous things to bait people. This person fixates on obscure minor points and is unable to control his obsession. The exchanges end up going far beyond the usual pointed give and take that is common on this forum. And, while initially, it may seem that baiting him is just good fun, it has become evident over the years that it can easily degenerate into school-yard-bullying of a child. 

Think of it this way. If you knew someone had a fear of insects, an eight-year-old might find it amusing to throw bugs at the person, but mature adults recognize that such behavior is unnecessarily cruel and anti-social. He can't help himself and before this spirals out of control, I'd ask my fellow forum members to just walk away.


----------



## geekpower (Oct 22, 2015)

yeah seriously, why are you guys bothering to argue with somebody who clearly has a mental illness? there is zero chance of changing his mind, and it just clutters up the forum.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

I am at a loss now,

were the last two posts serious or just subtle jabs at his intelligence?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> It is interesting what kind of answers I get in this thread where the issue was whether higher ISO causes higher noise as Neuro say, I say NO in my answer 50
> 
> some of you would have a red card and not yellow card as Eric Fossum suggest in this discussion and when it comes to objectivity
> 
> ...



This is what Eric Fossum said ;
_"Yellow card. Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light.
The noise is lower with *less light*, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher."_

This is what Neuro said; 
_"*Higher ISO *means more noise which means larger files"_

*Less Light* and *Higher ISO* are not interchangeable words. Less light refers to the volume of light. Higher ISO is sensitivity/amplification of the signal.

Sorry but with your own backup and proof you lost your point.
You should have stopped earlier.


----------



## unfocused (Oct 22, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> I am at a loss now,
> 
> were the last two posts serious or just subtle jabs at his intelligence?



I'm serious. If this is the same individual who has posted in the past under other names, he is very intelligent but also very obsessive and has issues that goes far beyond the normal psychosis you find on internet forums. Some folks, not realizing how seriously obsessed he is, try to bait him and he always takes the bait, eventually doing something that gets him banned. It's painful to watch as it spirals out of control.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

Also your statement in post 50;

_ "Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light*= higher iso.*

The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher."_

You added the words higher ISO to the quote.
This made your statement incorrect.

IMO Eric Fossum's statement is correct, yours is not.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

unfocused said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > I am at a loss now,
> ...



Maybe Neuro has his IP address and knows he is the one and the same. If it is as bad as you say being banned is not a bad thing for him, especially on this forum full of sharks and wolves.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Also your statement in post 50;
> _ "Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light*= higher iso.*
> The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher."_
> You added the words higher ISO to the quote.
> ...



_That_ is the difference between someone who actually understands sensor physics and a predictably pathetic poseur pretending percipience.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Also your statement in post 50;
> ...



There's such a thing as *too much* alliteration


----------



## Northstar (Oct 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > Why does my 1dx have a setting (that I use frequently) called High ISO noise reduction?
> ...



awesome comedy Neuro! I especially like A and D!


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Bringing ISO into the picture implies that you're including the effect of amplification in which case yes, the noise does increase as ISO is increased.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

Northstar said:


> awesome comedy Neuro! I especially like A and D!



Thanks!


----------



## scyrene (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



You seem to want to ask questions but not answer them. Here's one: does an image taken at higher ISO (of the same scene yadda yadda) have more noise or less than one at lower ISO?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Qualify your question. Are you asking about the relationship if you just count read noise for saturation at the sensor level?

Or are you asking about the image level?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 22, 2015)

scyrene said:


> There's such a thing as *too much* alliteration



Truly, that thought traipsed tentatively through the tête...then tripped tragically.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 22, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > There's such a thing as *too much* alliteration
> ...



touché.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Let Canon answer it for you;
_"In low light, the signal is weak. If you increase the amplification* by setting a higher ISO rating, you increase *both the signal* and the background noise*, and the noise becomes significant." _

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/exposure_settings/digital_noise.do

Eric Fossum's quote you use was not about the effect of ISO on noise. You will have to find a different quote to back up.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 22, 2015)

filluppa said:


> I have already explain that , read back about noise and amplification
> the purpose is to inform Neuro and others that noise doesn't increases with higher iso as Neuro states
> 
> then anyone can defame my post, answer with childish comments, but physics laws apply
> noise doesn't increase with higher iso



The big problem here is still that you're comparing a few different meanings of noise in a way that just results in a meaningless jumble. 

First, what Eric Fossum was referring to in the post you linked was Poisson noise, or shot noise. Shot noise scales as the square root of the signal so "The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher." is absolutely correct. You equated higher ISO with less light and that's just plainly incorrect, they're not the same thing.

Second, the values in the table you're referencing are called input referred noise values. This essentially tells you how many photons the read noise is equivalent to at the current gain; useful for comparing the relative effects of the read noise and shot noise. An important thing to understand is that the actual noise introduced by the electronics (the read noise) does not change at all with the ISO value or the amount of light hitting the sensor. It's primarily a function of sensor design and temperature. The important criteria for determining read noise in the resulting image is called the output referred noise. This has units of ADU and represents, mostly, what's actually written to the RAW file. The output referred noise, not just the noise to signal ratio, absolutely increases with higher ISO.

I'm sorry but you just clearly don't understand the sources you're quoting.


----------



## zim (Oct 22, 2015)

unfocused said:


> I'm serious. If this is the same individual who has posted in the past under other names, he is very intelligent but also very obsessive and has issues that goes far beyond the normal psychosis you find on internet forums. Some folks, not realizing how seriously obsessed he is, try to bait him and he always takes the bait, eventually doing something that gets him banned. It's painful to watch as it spirals out of control.



+1
If indeed it is the same person, and the style certainly looks like it, I seem to recall he admitted to having some diagnosed issues. I'd ask anyone replying to him to first consider this. He clearly has issues, not engaging is probable in his best interests too.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 23, 2015)

Yes.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

So if I take an exposure at 1/125s, f/4, ISO 100 and then just turn the ISO up to 800, same everything else, the ISO 800 shot doesn't contain more noise? If not, then why is the DR lower?


----------



## scyrene (Oct 23, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Most of you have difficulty understanding the signal / noise ratio and that noise doesn't increase with higher iso
> is it not better if Neuro answer the question, he is claiming that noise increases with higher ISO
> So Neuro does noise increase with higher is
> yes or no



Oh we're not having difficulties at all. You're ignoring our points, and targeting Neuro. Both are rather poor forum etiquette (not least because you're pursuing a line that is at best obtuse, and at worst incorrect). Hey ho.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

Ok, I'll ask again. Equal exposures, ISO 100 has the same noise level as ISO 400?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

Anyone.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

1/125s, f/4, ISO 100 or 1/125s, f/4, ISO 400: which contains more noise?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

And let's assume the lighting hasn't changed at all and I collected the same number of photons.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

It really is beside the point. I would just like the question answered.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 23, 2015)

I'm guessing we arrived at the issue of if I keep the same number of photons collected, and vary ISO, does noise change? I would argue it has to, with higher ISO's being noisier. No?


----------



## rs (Oct 23, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> I'm guessing we arrived at the issue of if I keep the same number of photons collected, and vary ISO, does noise change? I would argue it has to, with higher ISO's being noisier. No?



Noise irrefutably goes up at higher ISO. Unless you've rejoined a forum just to pick a non existent hole in a completely correct statement made by a person you irrationally bear a grudge for. In which case, stick to your guns.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 23, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Most of you have difficulty understanding the signal / noise ratio and that noise doesn't increase with higher iso
> is it not better if Neuro answer the question, he is claiming that noise increases with higher ISO
> So Neuro does noise increase with higher is, please answer without childish comments, Dilbert land etc.
> yes or no
> simple as that



We understand how it works, but you have over trolled this to the point you have made all of Neuro's earlier points about you. He doesn't need to answer your question because he has won the victory.

When you first posted I thought you were just trolling and you knew you were trolling to get at Neuro.
But you didn't stop when a good troll would and you had the best of him. 

Instead you beat the incorrect portions of your claim to the point it appears that others may be right about you and your a half a slice short having a full loaf of bread. You may not even know you are trolling.

Take that lesson with you. Had you stopped earlier you would have had the troll's victory. 
At this point your posts are just silly and pointless.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 23, 2015)

filluppa said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > And let's assume the lighting hasn't changed at all and I collected the same number of photons.
> ...



Filluppa....I'll ask again. 

Why does my 1dx have a "High ISO Noise REDUCTION" setting? Key words...HIGH ISO, NOISE, and especially - REDUCTION.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 23, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> And let's assume the lighting hasn't changed at all and I collected the same number of photons.



Equivalent exposures. Which is noisier? Forgive the sloppy focus in that second shot.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 24, 2015)

filluppa said:


> scyrene said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Neuro can be rude to people, but you've been fixating on him this whole thread - he tends to spread out his responses 

You're still claiming higher ISO images have less noise?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 24, 2015)

Thank you all. I think that wraps up this discussion.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 24, 2015)

Some relevant reading...for all who are literate:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm

Some reading not relevant to the content of the thread, but perhaps of interest nonetheless:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890425558


----------



## Northstar (Oct 24, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Some relevant reading...for all who are literate:
> 
> http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-noise.htm
> 
> ...



lol...seriously, you should be a comedy writer.


----------



## mkabi (Oct 25, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light. (less lights means more amplification of the given signal) also called ISO amplification
> 
> The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher. but the noise specific has not increased.



Hey buddy, I think you're the one that's confused with the noise to signal ratio.
Forget the wording, forget the physics behind it, forget the charts and the stats...
Watch the following video: https://vimeo.com/10473734

After watching that video, you should agree that in that video -> light is not changing and the image is not changing, the only thing that is changing is ISO... with escalating ISO values -> noises is added to the image.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 25, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light. (less lights means more amplification of the given signal) also called ISO amplification
> 
> The noise is lower with less light, but the noise-to-signal ratio gets higher. but the noise specific has not increased.



READ noise is lower because less is being read. Who cares? That's trivial. 

What is impactful is that noise is a more significant component in high ISO photography than low ISO. Whether you want to call it noisier (like a normal person) or "less signally" isn't particularly important.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2015)

Northstar said:


> lol...seriously, you should be a comedy writer.



Thanks - I do my humble best. Having such a dedicated stooge helps, certainly. However, I think I'll keep my day job!


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 25, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> filluppa said:
> 
> 
> > Just don't fall into the trap of saying the noise increases with less light. (less lights means more amplification of the given signal) also called ISO amplification
> ...



Just for reference, the actual read noise generated by the electronics does not change with ISO; what's listed in that table is called the input referred noise which basically tells you how many photons/electrons the read noise is equivalent to at the current gain setting. Filluppa doesn't understand the difference between input and output referred noise though so he keeps posting that like it proves his point.


----------



## midluk (Oct 25, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Just for reference, the actual read noise generated by the electronics does not change with ISO


Are you sure? The component coming from the ADC itself does not change, but the amplification adds some more noise and I would also count that as read noise. It's no great contribution at low ISO values but becomes more important at higher ISO values. Also in the table which filluppa has now posted about twenty times the input referred noise does not decrease inversely proportional with ISO (it's almost constant at high ISO), so the output referred noise increases (although slower than proportional to ISO).


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 25, 2015)

midluk said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Just for reference, the actual read noise generated by the electronics does not change with ISO
> ...



Yeah I'm sure, what's happening is that you can break the read noise down into two components: upstream of the amplifier and downstream of the amplifier (it should also be noted that some cameras use 2-stage amplifiers but the same approach is easily extensible to those as well). The resulting output referred noise becomes something like 

No^2 = C*(N_us)^2 + (N_ds)^2

Where No is the output referred noise, N_us is the actual read noise of the upstream components, N_ds is the contribution of the downstream components, and C is the gain. To get the input referred noise we simply use the relationship* 

Ni = (1/C)*No

where Ni is the input referred noise, which gives us

Ni^2 = (N_us)^2 + (1/C)*(N_ds)^2

Looking at both of these forms, you can see that as the gain becomes large, the relative contribution of the downstream noise becomes small; however, looking at the input referred noise should make it clear why you get an essentially constant read noise at high ISO in that table. The noise coming from the electronics doesn't change at all with ISO, but both their relative and absolute contributions to the final image absolutely changes.

*There's a little bit more to it than this but I honestly don't remember all the details; the scaling holds up though.


----------



## midluk (Oct 25, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > raptor3x said:
> ...



The C in equations 1 and 3 has to be squared. But then it is pretty much what I said, when we identify my "noise coming from the ADC itself" with N_ds and " the amplification adds some more noise" with C*N_us. And because this amplification is done by electronics, I would definitely see C*N_us as increasing "read noise generated by the electronics", but that is mainly a question of definition.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 25, 2015)

Let me explain. No, there is too much. Let me sum up. 



neuroanatomist said:


> Higher ISO means more noise





raptor3x said:


> Filluppa doesn't understand


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 26, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Because of the discussion that has arisen here, see my answer 50, I asked Prof. Eric Fossum The Inventor of the active CMOS
> if noise increases with higher iso as Neuro states in this thread and I got this answer.
> 
> Hello Eric
> ...



Ask him if output-referred noise in ADU increases with higher gain settings.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 26, 2015)

Because of the discussion that has arisen here, see my answer 25.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 26, 2015)

midluk said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > midluk said:
> ...



You're absolutely correct about that it should be C^2, sloppy typing on my part. My point was more just that the N_us and N_ds terms are constant and the apparent change in read noise is coming as a direct consequence of the signal amplification.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 26, 2015)

Asking a person much smarter than oneself an inappropriately worded question out of context to the relevant discussion, and getting exactly the answer for which one thinks one is looking...and then misinterpreting the answer to support one's point even though it does not... I think that's about the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous! 

I think everyone since long before answer #84 and _with a little knowledge of Mikael understands_:



neuroanatomist said:


> ...he still believes he is correct, and will persist in doing so regardless of *all evidence* to the contrary.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 26, 2015)

In one of Eric Fossum's videos on his website one of the topics is Societal issues that have come out of sensor and digital technology.The loss of privacy, the dangers of criminal activity and more. 

He didn't mention the rise of the sensor internet troll, of which he may have been a victim.

He does discuss Noise at about mark 22. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JkBh71zZKrM


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a person much smarter than oneself an inappropriately worded question out of context to the relevant discussion, and getting exactly the answer for which one thinks one is looking...and then misinterpreting the answer to support one's point even though it does not... I think that's about the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous!
> ...



All else being equal (i.e. same exposure time and aperture), yes. Right?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



This isn't that difficult of a thing to grasp. Set your camera to 1/125s, f/4, ISO 100. Don't move, don't do anything except flip your ISO dial to 200. Which photo has more noise? There is a noise difference between the two and the ONLY thing done was raise ISO. For some reason you can't or won't understand that, and nobody can figure out why.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



No, I'm ISOlating (badum ch) the variable. Not the same exposure. Same exposure time and aperture diameter; different ISO. How does noise vary? More, less, or equal?

Alternately stated, keep the input signal the same, but double ISO. Did you increase, decrease, or maintain your SNR?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > In one of Eric Fossum's videos on his website one of the topics is Societal issues that have come out of sensor and digital technology.The loss of privacy, the dangers of criminal activity and more.
> ...



What I am saying is your trolling not to prove any point about noise and ISO, you are simply trolling to attack one particular person, which is Neuro. You think if someone agrees with you then it proves Neuro wrong, which will be an incorrect assumption.

To the point of what I think, I believe what Eric Fossum says. I also believe Neuro is referring to a different point in the process stream and his assessment is correct in the context of what he was saying. If you read Neuro's posts he carefully answered any of your questions in the context of the original discussion where you challenged what he was saying.

To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.



Speaking of assumptions, here is one, and it goes to my question above.

I assume that most people who deliberately set exposure on a camera typically choose exposure time and aperture based on the subject and their creative intent, and set sensitivity according to the availability of light and their desired brightness. That may be a poor assumption, but I'm self-centered and that's how I shoot.

So say I'm shooting a hummingbird in flight and want to stop motion. I want 1/4000 or faster exposure time. Say I'm using a lens combination which allows me f/5.6 aperture at the maximum, but I want f/8 for a little wider DOF given my distance to subject and a desire to have the entire bird in focus. That right there is the subject/creative intent side of the equation. Next comes light. I can't change or augment ambient - it is what it is. I'm at ISO1000, but a "chimped" glance at the histogram shows that I'm about 2 stops under where I want it to be in the first shot. Accordingly, I change to ISO4000 and shoot again. Can I expect more noise, less noise, or the same noise in the second shot?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.
> ...



We'll, I'm doubt you needed to go in such detail for the question. 
But from your question you say "shot" so we would be doing a visual comparison of the finished product.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> We'll, I'm doubt you needed to go in such detail for the question.



Ordinarily I'd agree, but then came this thread. Without exhaustive detail, I could expect a screenshot of http://www.sensorgen.info/CanonEOS-1DX.html in reply. 

Go ahead and address both capture (i.e. sensor level) and final product (i.e. raw file).


----------



## tpatana (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Asking a person much smarter than oneself an inappropriately worded question out of context to the relevant discussion, and getting exactly the answer for which one thinks one is looking...and then misinterpreting the answer to support one's point even though it does not... I think that's about the worst thing I've ever heard. How marvelous!
> ...



Are you sure you want to do this?

Yes or no.

Aces.


----------



## No Mayo (Oct 27, 2015)

A tribute, an oversimplification, an observation, and an apology

My grandfather owned and operated a small bakery for several decades. He worked 12 hour days, six days a week until he finally retired. As a kid, I worked with him on many Saturdays and for one Summer. He taught me card games and he was a great living example of how to get along with every kind of person. He was our Poppa and we all loved him dearly. He was a people person and he valued each and every person and what they had to say. He was tough (a professional boxer in his 20s) and he was fair and kind. He was not an educated man, but he was a wise man. I believe he might say... "Filluppa... if we change light to muffins... you are saying that the small muffin has less salt, but tastes saltier because of the salt to batter ratio? I agree with you. And Neuro... you are saying that the small muffins are saltier because they taste saltier? I agree with you. Now let's play cards..."

Neuro, I personally value your contribution to this forum much more than you may realize. I have learned much from you and have never thanked you for sharing your knowledge and insight... Thank you.

Filluppa, Some might say that it is just tech semantics that noise is not greater in high ISO, but due to it's increased signal to noise ratio it appears greater, but I did not know this and I found it interesting. I value your knowledge and hope that you will continue to share it on this forum. I also offer this from my heart... please do not take personal offense from differing opinions. We are all human and we may not always receive each others viewpoints on things as well as you might hope. Do not measure your value based on a person's ability to appreciate it.

My apologies if this is offensive to anyone and/or if you feel that my thoughts should have been kept to myself.


----------



## midluk (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.
> ...



You forgot to specify one detail: Do you lift the exposure of the first shot in post in the raw converter or do you use the shots directly as coming from the camera?
If you don't lift the exposure you will have more noise (in ADU) in the final image with higher ISO. But the noise will increase by a factor of less than four (how much less depends on the contribution of downstream read noise compared to upstream read noise and Poisson noise), while you signal (also in ADU) raises by a factor of 4, so your signal to noise ratio will be better.
If you lift the exposure in post, this will increase the signal and the noise by the same factor four, so the final (lifted) image originally recorded with ISO1000 will have more noise compared to the image that was shot with ISO4000 in the first place.
Take home message: Do not deliberately under expose to avoid the noisy high ISO settings, lifting the exposure in post will give you even more noise.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> To sum up what I think of the conversation in regard to this subject. Eric Fossum is correct, Neuro is correct and your inability to look beyond a single point has left you with an incorrect assumption.



That pretty much sums it up. We all know the outcome (and in many cases, the root cause) of an incorrect *ASS*umption. 

It's worth noting that repeating that incorrect assumption over and over and putting it in bold-face type does not make it correct, or even less wrong. The only thing that increases with that useless repetition is exemplified by the first three letters of the word 'assumption'.


----------



## rs (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> midluk said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Mikael - please stick to the topic of 1Dx mk II resolution estimate, as stated in reply 36 section 3 part 2.


----------



## mb66energy (Oct 27, 2015)

Inspired by this thread and doing some photography while making a break:


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > We'll, I'm doubt you needed to go in such detail for the question.
> ...



The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it. This would be a comparison on recovering an underexposed shot.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 27, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> This isn't that difficult of a thing to grasp. Set your camera to 1/125s, f/4, ISO 100. Don't move, don't do anything except flip your ISO dial to 200. Which photo has more noise? There is a noise difference between the two and the ONLY thing done was raise ISO. For some reason you can't or won't understand that, and nobody can figure out why.



Oh I have a good idea why. He wants to get one over on Neuro, of whom he seems to have a particular dislike.

A lot of people seem to have trouble admitting they're wrong, they think it's a sign of weakness or something.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.



Interesting. I have lots of 'keepers' shot at well above ISO 1000. When I used a 7D, I tried to avoid going above ISO 800, although I would go up to ISO 3200 if needed (usually to get a shutter speed fast enough for birds), and live with the increased noise at those higher ISO settings.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > The finished product if it were in my workflow the ISO 1000 shot would have 0 noise and 0 data as it would have been deleted when I chimped it.
> ...



Yes, however in his long winded premise the ISO 1000 shot was 2 stops underexposed vs a ISO 4000 shot properly exposed.
The underexposed shot gets deleted.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

midluk said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I didn't forget to specify . The reason I hypothetically increased ISO was to get it right in camera. No lifting in post necessary.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> The underexposed shot gets deleted.



But before it gets deleted, does it have more noise, less noise, or noise equivalent to the ISO4000 shot?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



Ahhh, of course. I would also have deleted that shot in the defined scenario (although during triage after transferring to my Mac, as I generally don't delete files on my camera), keeping the higher ISO 'desired' exposure image with comparatively more noise (and at ISO 4000, it would get DxO Prime NR processing).


----------



## zim (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > The underexposed shot gets deleted.
> ...



It didn't have *ANY* he has a *SONY*


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > The underexposed shot gets deleted.
> ...



When I saw that the LCD is near black I just deleted it, I wouldn't have done an analysis.

If we are talking a processed finished image drawing the comparison of two pictures properly exposed would be a fair comparison. Your comparison is a "what if" comparison. 

These type of comparisons usually used as troll bait. If that is the case then I am pretty sure there is no answer that you would accept as the "right" answer.

So how about this, make the point you want to make then it can be discussed.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

zim said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



no no no... because the proper exposure would have been 4 stops under exposed. It is obvious the ISO 1000 would have been 6 stops under exposed. It would be almost be unusable.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> no no no... because the proper exposure would have been 4 stops under exposed. It is obvious the ISO 1000 would have been 6 stops under exposed. It would be almost be unusable.



Unusable for Canon. As we all know, a 6-stop push is no problem for Exmor. Even a 10-stop push works with Exmor, as you can see from those appreciating the quality artwork in the National Gallery...

Original (under)exposure:






10-stop push of the ISO 100 Canon shot:





10-stop push of the ISO 100 Exmor shot:





;D


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



So let's do it the right way. Let's take the shot "properly exposed" at ISO 1000 and then keep that same exposure and dial in ISO 2500. Which one has more noise? Let's keep everything the exact same except ISO.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > takesome1 said:
> ...



I was not making a point, I was asking a question. Specifically, does noise vary (and if so: how) with ISO for a given fixed input? 

The reason for the long wind was to avoid the "lower SNR because you lowered the input signal at the same time as increasing ISO" assumption baked into much of the discussion.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 27, 2015)

Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



EXACTLY. You cannot lower input signal AND increase ISO and determine whether increasing ISO increases noise, or not. You must keep input signal the same, vary ISO, and measure noise. And this has been done thousands of times.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> I was not making a point,



Yes I agree.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > I was not making a point,
> ...



Since you're so dismissive, shall I assume that only statements are allowed, not questions?

I will readily admit: I don't know the answer. I suspect that the answer is: noise varies directly with sensitivity, but I don't know it. Hence: asking.


----------



## zim (Oct 27, 2015)

tpatana said:


> Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.



hehehe but the canon looks sharper  ;D


----------



## rs (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> My name is Filluppa



Hello Mikael


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

zim said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > Banding looks quite bad on the Canon.
> ...



Yeah, but only with Exmor can you truly appreciate the artwork. ;D

*yes or no Mikael*


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> As I understand , we will not have an answer from you Neuro in terms of noise to signal ratio and your claim about more noise in higher iso.
> so I ask you again, does noise increase with higher iso
> yes or no
> it should be easy for you to answer this simple question



Before you can ask that question, you really need to define what you mean by noise. Based on all your previous posts it seems you don't have a clear understanding of what noise means.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 27, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> ...shall I assume that only statements are allowed, not questions?
> 
> I will readily admit: I don't know the answer. I suspect that the answer is: noise varies directly with sensitivity, but I don't know it. Hence: asking.



You can always ask questions! Unlike some, you don't incessantly repeat the same question, which has already been clearly answered. 

As for your statement question thing that you're sort of not quite asking  , your suspicion is eminently correct in the context of your earlier scenario.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> As for your statement question thing that you're sort of not quite asking



Haha. Guilty.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> *to end this endless feedback, Neuro, does noise increases with higher ISO? YES OR NO*



Question answered via my phrasing directly above. If you isolate the variable, noise varies with sensitivity. Note that by limiting the scope to ISO, the table from sensorgen doesn't apply, as it is based on pixel saturation, not equal input.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 27, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



clearly. Do you?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Dude, I exhaustively defined it. 

But sure:

For a given input level (not "I went from iso100 to iso200 and in turn went from 1/100 to 1/200," rather, "I went from ISO100 to ISO200 and changed nothing else"), does noise vary with sensitivity?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Not a question about signal/noise , noise/signal ratio
> "dude"



Yes it is. Signal is constant in the scenario, so it is sufficient to draw a SNR conclusion from noise alone.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> Not a question about signal/noise , noise/signal ratio, which has with Neuro reply to do earlier, se answer 50 and Neuros answer before, higher iso means more noise, NO it doesn't
> *"dude"*




Signal1 / Noise1
vs
Signal1 / Noise2


there are three possibilities. Noise1>Noise2, Noise1<Noise2, and Noise1=Noise2.

So, now that it is phrased explicitly about SNR where S is held constant and ISO varies, does SNR vary with ISO?


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Obviously. But that specifically doesn't apply to the scenario in which only ISO is varied (such as increasing sensitivity to result in a brighter image).

Change one variable at a time.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> So you can never claim as Neuro that the noise increase with higher iso, simple as that



If increasing ISO with all else being equal results in a higher noise level, you can absolutely make the claim.

Your line of reasoning is similar to: I can halve my exposure time when I go from f/4 to f/2.8, so you can never claim that halving exposure time reduces light.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 28, 2015)

You couldn't be this stupid. Leave everything alone. Go from ISO 100 to ISO 200. Same amount of signal. The ISO 200 photo is noisier. The signal isn't weaker, it's the same. Raising ISO doesn't weaken signal. Raising ISO in this case, introduces more noise. Understand?

Probably not.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



I went to a Ted Nugent concert when I was a teen. 
I remember the local news doing reports on concerts back then, 100 dB or more. Home owner were complaining miles away about rattling windows. Ted Nugent was one of the worse offenders.

Showing my age here, but Nugent debuted his song Free For All at the concert.

So wouldn't this be a comparison.
Ted Nugent playing Free For All in his living room with his band
VS 
Ted Nugent playing Free For All amplified at the fair grounds. 
Which would have more noise? 
Of course the song has no more words or notes in the song.

But filluppa,

Explain this to us.
What happens to the noise and data when the signal is amplified by raising the ISO?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> What happens to the noise and data when the signal is amplified by raising the ISO?



That's a good question. Let's look at what some individuals – three noteworthy and one banal – have said on that topic...

"_The amplification process also means that any noise will be amplified too, and that is why we see more noise at higher ISOs._" (Roger N. Clark)

"_Increasing the Exposure Index...increases noise, degrading overall image quality._" (Norman Koren, in the Imatest Documentation)

"_Read noise increases with ISO, because any noise added from the sensor readout before ISO amplification is then amplified by the ISO gain amplifier._" (Emil Martinec)

"_At 400iso same exposure, ie the selected time, aperture, and ISO pictures are virtually identical. At about 800iso enters the noise of the Nikon images, this noise will affect the images adversely by the reproduction of detail suffers._" (Mikael Risedal)


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > Before you can ask that question, you really need to define what you mean by noise. Based on all your previous posts it seems you don't have a clear understanding of what noise means.
> ...



First, Eric Fossum's answer was in regard to the relationship between light levels and shot noise; not ISO setting and overall noise. Second, at no point in this thread have you made any consistent definition of noise. If you're so sure of yourself why don't you give us a clear definition of what you mean by noise. Third, in the table you keep posting, why do you think the read noise is decreasing? Do you think the electronics are generating less noise at lower light levels? Finally, does output referred noise, not noise-to-signal ratio but noise, increase with higher iso/gain settings?


----------



## geekpower (Oct 28, 2015)

i can't believe this thread is still going (but nah, yes i can), but since it is i might as well throw in my 2 cents for internet fame...

since we are talking about an analog gain amplifier, not only does it amplify any noise present in the original signal, it also adds it's own thermal noise, crosstalk from other components, and distortion in the form of an imperfect response curve. an amplifier that did none of those things would be, like the perpetual motion machine, in defiance of the laws of physics.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> please tell me , how can a given signal in e , and noise in a given numbers of e, have more noise with increasing iso



You question is nonsensical, but I'll chalk that up to a language barrier.

Here you go: Based on your understanding and that table you seem so fond of, which of these files would you expect to have more noise? Or do you expect they contain the same amount?


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



You're referring to input referred noise, you clearly have zero understanding of what this means.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> You couldn't be this stupid.



Though it's charitable of you to suggest that, sadly it appears you're wrong about him.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> tell me please



From an earlier post:

What's happening is that you can break the read noise down into two components: upstream of the amplifier and downstream of the amplifier (it should also be noted that some cameras use 2-stage amplifiers but the same approach is easily extensible to those as well). The resulting output referred noise becomes something like 

No^2 = C^2*(N_us)^2 + (N_ds)^2

Where No is the output referred noise, N_us is the actual read noise of the upstream components, N_ds is the contribution of the downstream components, and C is the gain. To get the input referred noise, or how many electrons the read noise is equivalent to at the current gain setting, we simply use the relationship 

Ni = (1/C)*No

where Ni is the input referred noise, which gives us

Ni^2 = (N_us)^2 + (1/C)^2*(N_ds)^2

Looking at both of these forms, you can see that as the gain becomes large, the relative contribution of the downstream noise becomes small; however, looking at the input referred noise should make it clear why you get an essentially constant read noise at high ISO in that table. The noise coming from the electronics doesn't change at all with ISO, but both their relative and absolute contributions to the final image absolutely changes.


----------



## zim (Oct 28, 2015)

Can't take it anymore, sold my DSLR and got myself 100m of FP4, gone to photograph squirrels.........


----------



## tpatana (Oct 28, 2015)

zim said:


> Can't take it anymore, sold my DSLR and got myself 100m of FP4, gone to photograph squirrels.........



Can't take this anymore, sold my DSLR and got myself Halo 5, gone to shoot aliens.......


----------



## tpatana (Oct 28, 2015)

I'm getting neuro-tic.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> raptor3x said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Noise absolutely does increase with higher ISO, not just noise-to-signal ratio. Do you think signal increases with higher ISO?


----------



## rs (Oct 28, 2015)

I know one factor which definitely increases noise - posts my Mikael.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

raptor3x said:


> Noise absolutely does increase with higher ISO...



Quick approximation of the tally. I stated that higher ISO means more noise. You and at least five others in this thread have stated the same. There have been no less than three separate paired image examples demonstrating more noise at higher ISO. Emil Martinec, Roger Clark, and Norman Koren – notable experts in the field – all state that noise increases with ISO. Eric Fossum – another expert in the field – first had his statement plagiarized but altered to be incorrect by 'filluppa', then answered only one part of a poorly-phrased bipartite question, and 'filluppa' misinterpreted his answer...importantly, Fossum did not disagree with the premise that noise increases with ISO/gain (and no doubt if asked that question directly, he'd agree). Even Mikael Residal stated that noise is higher at ISO 800 than at ISO 400 ('filluppa', if you're wondering who this unimportant Mikael dude is, find yourself a mirror). 

Apparently lots of people, from CR forum members to digital signal experts to a dude named Mikael, all state that noise increases with ISO. But 'filluppa' says it doesn't. But then, I addressed that way back in post #84. 



neuroanatomist said:


> ...he still believes he is correct, and will persist in doing so regardless of *all evidence* to the contrary.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> *this is so interesting, I can not get a sensible answer from Neuro but a number of other people respond in his place, and none is about noise to signal ratio and Neuros claims that noise increase with higher iso*
> ps I know these people you are referring to
> some are good friends since 2001
> so Neuro if we take Canon as one example, where does the noise starts accelerating regarding noise



Now filluppa

In Neuro's last response he answered you. He Stated "_* I stated that higher ISO means more noise."*_ 

Where do we go from here?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Explain this to me.
What happens to the noise, data and signal when it is amplified by increasing ISO?
What does this amplification do?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 28, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> Understand?
> ProbablyDefinitely not.



There, fixed that for you. 




takesome1 said:


> In Neuro's last response he answered you. He Stated "_* I stated that higher ISO means more noise."*_
> Where do we go from here?



Oh that's quite obvious, in fact 'filluppa' preemptively addressed it. He doesn't like the truth – a truth also stated by several of his good friends since 2001 (and some goofball named Mikael) – so it's not a _sensible_ answer. 

Quite pathetic, but completely unsurprising. :


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> the question was if noise increase with higher iso as Neuro claim
> you have great difficulty keeping track of what's being discussed



Not all, were talking about higher ISO's.
So when I am adjusting the ISO how does that affect the signal, what happens to the noise and data.

Or explain why this doesn't apply.

_*Explain this to me.
What happens to the noise, data and signal when it is amplified by increasing ISO?
What does this amplification do?*_


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 28, 2015)

filluppa said:


> you are again name dropping, and it
> doesn't make your answer more credible
> so I ask you ones more, are noise increasing with higher iso?



Neuro said it did in post 241, go back and read it. Neuro wrote _*"I stated that higher ISO means more noise."*_


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 29, 2015)

filluppa said:


> *, and none is about noise to signal ratio and Neuros claims that noise increase with higher iso*



I think I've figured it out: you're only reading your own posts. There is no other explanation for the above notion that the question hasn't been answered.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

3kramd5 said:


> filluppa said:
> 
> 
> > *, and none is about noise to signal ratio and Neuros claims that noise increase with higher iso*
> ...



I disagree...there are many other possible explanations, among which you're is likely the most flattering.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

filluppa said:


> *who is stated what*
> *neuro is not answering as usual
> where are you Neuro who stated that that noise increased with higher iso*
> 
> ...



Who stated what; Neuro did. He answered your question. Probably not directly to you but he stated his belief. Go back and read it.

Now, back to the amplified signal.
Why is it amplified?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

filluppa said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > 3kramd5 said:
> ...



Now, back to the amplified signal.
Why is it amplified?


----------



## privatebydesign (Oct 29, 2015)

filluppa said:


> *who is stated what*, As I can see Neuro is hiding behind a lot of Neuro fans,
> *neuro is not answering as usual
> where are you Neuro who stated that that noise increased with higher iso*
> 
> ...



You obviously haven't actually done that, because it is not true.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 29, 2015)

filluppa said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > filluppa said:
> ...



Quick question: were it true, why did dpreview recently feel the need to introduce a metric which attempts to quantify how well pushing in post replicates amplification in camera, and why don't all cameras perform equally at said metric?

As you increase sensitivity you are indeed largely shot noise limited, so the higher you go, the more correct the statement. 800 isn't necesarily high enough.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 29, 2015)

Has he been deleted?


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

scyrene said:


> Has he been deleted?



Not only him but apparently all his posts


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Forsberg said:


> its sad, because he had a point with noise and signal ratio and that noise doesent increase with higher iso



Gosh, why couldn't you have made your account just a few days earlier so you could have helped him with his point.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 29, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> Forsberg said:
> 
> 
> > its sad, because he had a point with noise and signal ratio and that noise doesent increase with higher iso
> ...



He has been booted from CR twice in one day. First as filluppa, then as Forsberg.


----------



## rs (Oct 29, 2015)

Northstar said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Forsberg said:
> ...



He'll be back 

He might lie low for a bit, but Neuro will say something that makes complete sense which irks Mikael into appearing as another one of his many charecters. 

In the meantime, we should all have enough time to stock up on popcorn.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

Northstar said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Forsberg said:
> ...



He was back with at least a third name and was booted almost instantly.
Who knows, he is persistent. He could have been booted a dozen times and we just don't know.


----------



## 3kramd5 (Oct 29, 2015)

Northstar said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > Forsberg said:
> ...



It's too bad, really. Having someone on who evidently can't grasp the concept of a ratio was... entertaining.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 29, 2015)

Please correct me if I'm wrong:
ISO amplifies signal, shot noise, pixel-response-non-uniformity-noise, thermal noise, but not the read noise. If you bump exposure up in post-processing then you amplify the signal as well as *all sources of noise*. If you choose a higher ISO you avoid having to amplifying read noise in post-.

I shot these two pictures at [1/250s, f/2] with only the ISO being different; ISO-3200 in picture A vs ISO-100 in picture B.

For real world usage the ISO-3200 properly exposed displays less noise than the ISO-100 underexposed-and-corrected.

The RAW files are available here for anyone who cares:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/toq89y3rqgioal6/AAA-QtE7fBrxwYLzZnR1Elkna?dl=0


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Oct 29, 2015)

I'm just checking to see how a discussion of Resolution can go on for 9 pages. I'm glad I missed the previous 8.

I did not even see anyone discuss the definition of resolution. That's a never ending topic itself, because some people believe that a 50mp camera has 50mp of resolution. I'm not going to get into that ball of worms, readers can look up resolution and the many ways people refer to it.


----------



## tpatana (Oct 29, 2015)

SoL, yes that's what happen when you push 5 stops in post.

I only know from other electronics, so not sure if it maps 100% on cameras, but most signals can be less-noisy, the earlier you amplify it. So in your case, you amplify early (ISO3200) is better than in post.

Good example is the satellite dishes. The LNB has amp so that they can amplify everything already there. Then when there's attenuation on the cables, the noise gets reduced same amount and snr stays the same. But if you don't amplify at the LNB, then the snr will decrease when you amplify later. Same applies to all signals. The first stage is always to most important. If you google cascaded noise figure calculation formulas, you can easily see that most noise is crated at the first amp, and _assuming_ the first amp power level is adequate, then the later items don't count almost nothing. If the first amp is not enough, then all the filters and cables add plenty of noise.

So if that same applies to cameras, then the earlier you amplify, the better it will be for the end result.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 29, 2015)

Your cat seems rather upset that you underexposed the second portrait so severely that you needed a 5-stop push.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.

Not necessarily a 5 stop PO cat push.

But say 1 or 2 stops.

Thoughts anyone?


----------



## rs (Oct 29, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.
> 
> Not necessarily a 5 stop PO cat push.
> 
> ...



If your camera has the ISO range to cope with it, why would you purposefully use two stops lower ISO to underexpose by two stops? The shutter speed would be identical in either scenario. You're just creating more work for yourself in post, and lack the ability to see anything useful on the camera screen.


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 29, 2015)

rs said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.
> ...



Shutter speed for one, if there is any advantage.
Another would be DR, sometimes underexposing to get the sky correct and lifting the shadows for your subject. That kind of thing.


----------



## raptor3x (Oct 29, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong:
> ISO amplifies signal, shot noise, pixel-response-non-uniformity-noise, thermal noise, but not the read noise. If you bump exposure up in post-processing then you amplify the signal as well as *all sources of noise*. If you choose a higher ISO you avoid having to amplifying read noise in post-.



That depends on what you're calling the read noise. What we generally call read noise is really several different sources all lumped into one term. The short answer though is that anything upstream of the amplifier will be amplified by changing ISO which in turn causes any downstream noise sources to have less of an impact; when we boost in post, however, those downstream sources have much more of an impact.


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 29, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.
> 
> Not necessarily a 5 stop PO cat push.
> 
> ...



Well, there's more to it than what I'm going to say, but pushing in post will roughly increase noise linearly with signal while boosting with an analog ISO will increase as SQRT (slower). Digitally pushing signal in post (that's really all you're doing) is worse than analog amplification in-camera. But there are other things to balance in the real-life shot where you might shoot some parts of your scene underexposed.


----------



## StudentOfLight (Oct 29, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Your cat seems rather upset that you underexposed the second portrait so severely that you needed a 5-stop push.


LOL, no it's cos I told him I'm taking him to a coal mine and doing a 6-Stop push.


----------



## scyrene (Oct 30, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.
> 
> Not necessarily a 5 stop PO cat push.
> 
> ...



If you were right at the top end, and still underexposing, then it's unavoidable I suppose (the hedgehog shots I mentioned in another thread are an example). Otherwise I think it's usually best to up the ISO, ETTR and then reduce the brightness afterwards.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 30, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> takesome1 said:
> 
> 
> > So would there ever be any advantage to underexposing, for instance to get more shutter speed. After all if its dark you need as much shutter speed as you can get for camera shake. Or should you always go with the right ISO.
> ...



So if I'm shooting sports at 12800, with my 70-200 at 2.8, and 1/500( the slowest I'll shoot for sports) and I need to get another full stop of light in my shot, and my only option is to either increase ISO to 25600, or push it a full stop in post, you're saying it would be better to increase the ISO to 25600?

In other words, if IQ is the priority, and we're discussing a very low light /very high ISO situation, is it always better to shoot at the necessary high ISO to properly expose the shot even if that may lead to crazy high ISO's of 25600 or 51200..etc. Or at those very high ISO levels is pushing it in post a better way to go? OR, some combination of the two? 

Thanks
North


----------



## neuroanatomist (Oct 30, 2015)

Northstar said:


> In other words, if IQ is the priority, and we're discussing a very low light /very high ISO situation, is it always better to shoot at the necessary high ISO to properly expose the shot even if that may lead to crazy high ISO's of 25600 or 51200..etc. Or at those very high ISO levels is pushing it in post a better way to go? OR, some combination of the two?



Once you get above the native ISO settings (H1, H2, etc.), the camera is no longer amplifying the analog signal, rather it's digitally pushing the file so there's no advantage (underexposing and pushing in post is equivalent).


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 30, 2015)

neuroanatomist said:


> Northstar said:
> 
> 
> > In other words, if IQ is the priority, and we're discussing a very low light /very high ISO situation, is it always better to shoot at the necessary high ISO to properly expose the shot even if that may lead to crazy high ISO's of 25600 or 51200..etc. Or at those very high ISO levels is pushing it in post a better way to go? OR, some combination of the two?
> ...



Yes, great point. North I know you shoot with the 1Dx, so the last analog ISO on the 1Dx is 6400. So above that it wouldn't matter. But let's say something like shoot at ISO 1600 + 1 push in post is worse than ISO 3200 in camera, from a noise perspective. And in the 1Dx there are no tweener ISO's. So 4000 and 5000 are analog too.


----------



## Northstar (Oct 30, 2015)

bdunbar79 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Northstar said:
> ...



Good info guys, thx.
So all 1/3 stop increments are analog gain from base all the way up to 6400, but after 6400, the gain is a digital push like I can do in Lightroom? 
Also, Neuro wrote that the analog amplification ceased once you get above native ISO, doesnt the native ISO go up to 51200, not 6400.... What am I missing?


----------



## bdunbar79 (Oct 30, 2015)

StudentOfLight said:


> Please correct me if I'm wrong:
> ISO amplifies signal, shot noise, pixel-response-non-uniformity-noise, thermal noise, but not the read noise. If you bump exposure up in post-processing then you amplify the signal as well as *all sources of noise*. If you choose a higher ISO you avoid having to amplifying read noise in post-.
> 
> I shot these two pictures at [1/250s, f/2] with only the ISO being different; ISO-3200 in picture A vs ISO-100 in picture B.
> ...



Your experiment is fundamentally flawed. You corrected the 100 shot by pushing, and that introduces noise. Pushing sort of speaking "changes" the ISO just like shooting at ISO 12,800 does vs. ISO 6400, in camera. Shooting at "ISO 100 and then pushing", is NOT the same as "shooting at ISO 100." Pushing digitally increases noise at a faster rate than analog amplification. So your ISO 3200 shot SHOULD have less noise.

The real experiment is to shoot one shot at ISO 800 and then a 2nd shot at ISO 1600 and measure noise in each shot, as an example. Once you push or pull in post you've sort of changed the ISO digitally.


----------



## geekpower (Oct 30, 2015)

ok this is actually not that hard

sensor -> amplifier -> adc

each of those components introduces its own noise

raising the iso is turning up the amplifier, and amplifies the noise from the sensor

pushing in post amplifies the noise from all 3 stages

so yes, generally speaking, you get the best signal to noise ratio if your input signal is as hot as possible without clipping, and that means it's better to raise the analog iso in camera than push it in post


----------



## tpatana (Oct 30, 2015)

geekpower said:


> ok this is actually not that hard



Yea, only takes like 15 pages to explain ;D


----------



## takesome1 (Oct 30, 2015)

tpatana said:


> geekpower said:
> 
> 
> > ok this is actually not that hard
> ...



Yes, but 11 pages were about noise not increasing at all at higher ISO's.

This thread was derailed on page 3. Were at the part where the authorities come out and try and figure what went wrong and clean up the wreck.


----------



## rs (Oct 30, 2015)

takesome1 said:


> tpatana said:
> 
> 
> > geekpower said:
> ...



The wreck has already been cleaned away, but there's still a lot of rubbernecking going on


----------

