What is the future of digital ISO?

[imahawki]

I can envision a day where sensors are improved to the degree that a 3200 or 6400 ISO equivalent will be as noise free as what 200 ISO is today and the top end could be 12,000 ISO or 24,000 ISO. There really isn't any technological ceiling is there?

[ZSutton]

In theory, I suppose not. Although the technology isnt advancing as fast as other things are, so its likely we wont see a completely noise free 6400 for a good number of years

[Familiaphoto]

Progress over the past few years has demonstrated that quality at high ISOs will continue to increase. Seems logical as that is the path technology generally follows. Breaking through the ceiling to the next level.

[RandyMN]

For any one to predict a ceiling in technology would be similar to my first computer programming course back in the early eighties where they taught that magnetic core technolgy had hit it's maximum potential for computer memory.

One technology may be hitting it's ceiling while a replacement is just waiting for new technology to be discovered and made cheap enough to mass market.

[twiggles]

Heck, there may not even be the need for an "ISO" setting in the future...

[Mark_Cohran]

I wouldn't say there isn't a technological ceiling. There is always some noise inherent when processing electronic signals. It's a matter of how well you can amplity the real information about the noice (S/N). Ulimiately there would be some point where the signal would be so low initially that it couldn't be distinquished from the noise and therefore couldn't be discriminated for amplification.

[twiggles]

For any one to predict a ceiling in technology would be similar to my first computer programming course back in the early eighties where they taught that magnetic core technolgy had hit it's maximum potential for computer memory.

One technology may be hitting it's ceiling while a replacement is just waiting for new technology to be discovered and made cheap enough to mass market.

right on

[Photon Phil]

I'm excited that it will keep getting better.

But we all can be sure of this...that the 5D MkV will make some people laugh at what the MkII did and thus, buy a new MkV. An amazingly addictive this technology is.

[Perry Ge]

Sure it'll probably increase, but what's the point? I can't think of more than 5 situations where I wished I had more than ISO3200 or 6400. What are we gonna see an increase in photography in complete darkness? Super clean ISO6400 would be awesome, but above that is getting into 'pointless' territory for me. Kinda like making LCD screens any bigger or giving us higher FPS shooting.

A lot of these 'technological advancements' in digital imaging are just fuelling a culture of rampant pixel peeping. Fewer and fewer people are making prints or displaying at anything larger than web size, yet more and more are obsessing over resolution, sharpness, and low noise. What's the point? ???

Heck, there may not even be the need for an "ISO" setting in the future...

That doesn't make any sense at all.

[RandyMN]

Sure it'll probably increase, but what's the point? I can't think of more than 5 situations where I wished I had more than ISO3200 or 6400. What are we gonna see an increase in photography in complete darkness?

If this wasn't something people would have a purpose for then Infra Red goggles and night scope technology would not exist.

As soon as they make it then people will find a purpose to use it.

[Perry Ge]

If this wasn't something people would have a purpose for then Infra Red goggles and night scope technology would not exist.

As soon as they make it then people will find a purpose to use it.

That's a very specific use, I doubt 99% of people would shoot that kinda stuff.

Screw high ISO, give me more dynamic range. We know it's possible - look at the Fuji S5 Pro!

[twiggles]

Sure it'll probably increase, but what's the point? I can't think of more than 5 situations where I wished I had more than ISO3200 or 6400. What are we gonna see an increase in photography in complete darkness? Super clean ISO6400 would be awesome, but above that is getting into 'pointless' territory for me. Kinda like making LCD screens any bigger or giving us higher FPS shooting.

A lot of these 'technological advancements' in digital imaging are just fuelling a culture of rampant pixel peeping. Fewer and fewer people are making prints or displaying at anything larger than web size, yet more and more are obsessing over resolution, sharpness, and low noise. What's the point? ???



That doesn't make any sense at all.

If theoretically ISO6400 looked like ISO100, you wouldnt need to select. One would simply select their shutter speed and aperture and the camera would use what ever sensitivity also read ISO to make the shot work. I guess you could say it would be like auto ISO but with no trade-offs in IQ

[Perry Ge]

If theoretically ISO6400 looked like ISO100, you wouldnt need to select. One would simply select their shutter speed and aperture and the camera would use what ever sensitivity also read ISO to make the shot work. I guess you could say it would be like auto ISO but with no trade-offs in IQ

Ew. That requires the camera's meter deciding the exposure. No thanks. Shoot M. What makes you think the camera knows what exposure is needed to 'make the shot work'? And you can't shoot anything other than M when you're in studio anyway.

So no, it still makes absolutely no sense at all.

[twiggles]

Ew. That requires the camera's meter deciding the exposure. No thanks. Shoot M. What makes you think the camera knows what exposure is needed to 'make the shot work'? And you can't shoot anything other than M when you're in studio anyway.

So no, it still makes absolutely no sense at all.

So auto ISO makes no sense at all?!?!? Glad Canon agrees with you on that one...;)

News flash, not EVERY dslr user shoots in Manual mode ALL THE TIME. An intelligent auto ISO feature is VERY useful and MAKES PERFECT sense for many DSLR users...

Saying "shoot M" is a very shortsighted argument because as of today, yes, M gives the best results and versatility, but who knows what the future holds. This is very similar to someone saying in the 1970s that they would NEVER drive a car without a traditional manual transmission...Fast forward 40 years, and the worlds PREMIER cars have ditched the completely manual transmission in favor of a quicker, more accurate, better tiptronic style transmission. This same theory could be applied to camera design in the future...

[Perry Ge]

So auto ISO makes no sense at all?!?!? Glad Canon agrees with you on that one...;)

News flash, not EVERY dslr user shoots in Manual mode ALL THE TIME. An intelligent auto ISO feature is VERY useful and MAKES PERFECT sense for many DSLR users...

Saying "shoot M" is a very shortsighted argument because as of today, yes, M gives the best results and versatility, but who knows what the future holds. This is very similar to someone saying in the 1970s that they would NEVER drive a car without a traditional manual transmission...Fast forward 40 years, and the worlds PREMIER cars have ditched the completely manual transmission in favor of a quicker, more accurate, better tiptronic style transmission. This same theory could be applied to camera design in the future...

Auto ISO is very different from this:

Heck, there may not even be the need for an "ISO" setting in the future...

And no, the car analogy is wrong because:
a) Many people will still argue that stickshift is better, but that's besides the point.
b) You can optimize a car to accelerate as quickly as possible, the camera has NO IDEA what you are shooting.

So no, you are still wrong.

[twiggles]

Auto ISO is very different from this:



And no, the car analogy is wrong because:
a) Many people will still argue that stickshift is better, but that's besides the point.
b) You can optimize a car to accelerate as quickly as possible, the camera has NO IDEA what you are shooting.

So no, you are still wrong.

So theres a couple of options here

A. Im not articulating myself well enough
B. Im wrong
C. You're wrong
D. We're both wrong

Either way, lets agree to disagree and not hijack a thread debating who has better analogies or who is better at predicting the future. I for one have better things to do besides arguing via the internet with someone halfway across the world...lets go shoot some ducks!

[Perry Ge]

So theres a couple of options here

A. Im not articulating myself well enough
B. Im wrong
C. You're wrong
D. We're both wrong

Either way, lets agree to disagree and not hijack a thread debating who has better analogies or who is better at predicting the future. I for one have better things to do besides arguing via the internet with someone halfway across the world...lets go shoot some ducks!

I'm in Toronto, that's not halfway around the world, you're wrong AGAIN! :lol: I kid, sorry if I came off as terse.

My point was: until they build a little midget into the camera who I can bark orders to, they better not take away any of the manual control over the 3 elements of exposure: ISO, aperture, shutter speed.

"Hey, camera midget, expose for that white bird while I track it! That's right, don't jack the ISO unless he flies into the shadows...goood...gooood."

[pieq314]

There really isn't any technological ceiling is there?

There is probably no theoretical technological ceiling, but THERE IS a physics ceiling. Even if the engineers can build a noiseless sensor circuit, the photons that land on the sensor sites will be random. If you have N photons landing on a sites, the noise on that site is sqrt(N), that the signal/noise ratio is sqrt(N) - which is the minimum (that is the ceiling - or should I say the floor) noise you can possibly have.

[strmrdr]

The technology limit is cmos noise right now.

It wont be lifted much until another technology comes along or another substrate is found.

auto iso mode would be nice as long as the noise is under control set the shutter speed and aperture you need and click.
It would be much more useful than AV/TV to me if properly implemented.

[viperan]

I would be piss, if the camera doesn't let me manually choose the iso.
Imagine this:
I photograph with a specular highlight object of F4.5 @iso 100. to kill the ambient light, I choose a shutter speed of 1/250 second
if the ISO is automatically set by the camera.
1. I would see the damn ambient light cause the camera think I under expose the frame
2. my beautifully composed lighting with a nice specular highlight would be similar to the surface of the sun, it would be way overexposed.

daniel-

[Porari]

Sony videocameras has the 'nightshot' option, maybe we'll get that into cameras one day... Choose nightshot-setting from the dial and the sensor switches to IR or something...

[strmrdr]

I would be piss, if the camera doesn't let me manually choose the iso.
Imagine this:
I photograph with a specular highlight object of F4.5 @iso 100. to kill the ambient light, I choose a shutter speed of 1/250 second
if the ISO is automatically set by the camera.
1. I would see the damn ambient light cause the camera think I under expose the frame
2. my beautifully composed lighting with a nice specular highlight would be similar to the surface of the sun, it would be way overexposed.

daniel-

sure that would be bad,,,
But lets say you are shooting horses and want f/4 for dof, 1/250 to stop motion.. set it and the ISO adjusts as needed to get the shot.
Call it IV mode lol

[AdamJL]

My thoughts: per-pixel ISO.
Meaning once ISO 100 looks like ISO 1200, each pixel will have it's own ISO value, meaning more dynamic range.

[cvt01]

The technology limit is cmos noise right now.

It wont be lifted much until another technology comes along or another substrate is found.
...

http://gizmodo.com/5062412/black-silicon-discovery-could-change-digital-photography-night-vision-forever

[ZSutton]

http://gizmodo.com/5062412/black-silicon-discovery-could-change-digital-photography-night-vision-forever

Damn, that article made black silicon sound so intense

[sandpiper]

Heck, there may not even be the need for an "ISO" setting in the future...

So auto ISO makes no sense at all?!?!? Glad Canon agrees with you on that one...;)

News flash, not EVERY dslr user shoots in Manual mode ALL THE TIME. An intelligent auto ISO feature is VERY useful and MAKES PERFECT sense for many DSLR users...

Saying "shoot M" is a very shortsighted argument because as of today, yes, M gives the best results and versatility, but who knows what the future holds. This is very similar to someone saying in the 1970s that they would NEVER drive a car without a traditional manual transmission...Fast forward 40 years, and the worlds PREMIER cars have ditched the completely manual transmission in favor of a quicker, more accurate, better tiptronic style transmission. This same theory could be applied to camera design in the future...

I think where you went wrong was with the first quote, and that is what Perry had a problem with. This is because you NEED to be able to set a specific ISO value in order to use manual.

Your second quote goes on to claim that the 'auto ISO' feature would be very useful to many users. This is true, as is the fact that not everybody uses manual all the time. I have no problem with this being a feature of future cameras, I suspect Perry wouldn't have a problem with it either, as an OPTION, even though I doubt he would ever use it.

However, your original quote wasn't about an auto ISO setting, it was for having no ISO settings AT ALL, with only the camera capable of altering sensitivity by itself.

This is where Perry, myself and many, many others have an issue. In order to be able to use manual mode it is necessary to lock off all three variables and, with no ISO settings, that would become impossible. This would mean that future DSLRs would have to come with NO manual mode, which isn't a practical option.

No matter how much technology advances, no camera will ever be able to decipher a scene and come up with the same artistic decisions as the photographer would. There are simply so many ways of shooting a subject. When shooting a subject against a skyline you may want to show the subject correctly lit, or as a silhouette, these require two very different exposure settings but how could any camera know which result you want from the scene, and so expose accordingly.

The issue isn't with giving a camera the ability to ISO shift as a semi-auto option, it is with your first statement of not having ISO settings. You will always need to have variable sensitivity, to allow you to use suitable aperture / shutter speed combinations. It doesn't make any sense to take away the ability to fix this at a setting chosen by the photographer. There will always be a desire (by some people, some of the time) to use manual control, at times it is the only way to get the desired result.

[grego]

Sure it'll probably increase, but what's the point? I can't think of more than 5 situations where I wished I had more than ISO3200 or 6400. What are we gonna see an increase in photography in complete darkness? Super clean ISO6400 would be awesome, but above that is getting into 'pointless' territory for me. Kinda like making LCD screens any bigger or giving us higher FPS shooting.


There'll always be photographers who consistently need to use high ISO like wedding (horrid churches), event, and photojournalists who need to be ready for any situation. For you there might not be many situations, but for others much might depend on better ISO in low light.