The Riddle of Intermediate ISO

http://youtu.be/YkaTzq​3ZVz0

Nice explanation from the Raw Digger folks.

kirk

kirkt wrote in post #16624480
http://youtu.be/YkaTzq​3ZVz0

Nice explanation from the Raw Digger folks.

kirk

And pretty much confirms the generally held beliefs on intermediate ISO's, on Canon cameras at least.

Alan

Thanks,

The technical details are a bit beyond my understanding, but I appreciate the conclusion based on a numerical analysis.

I've only used Rawdigger a few times, and then just to see if a raw file was truly clipped or not. Have not tried the new commercial version, but I wonder if it can analyze non-raw files that have had noise reduction applied and give us a numerical analysis of the quality of the noise reduction?

That would be beyond my skill and ambition, but I'd like to put it out there to challenge the high end gurus. All evaluations of noise reduction software I've seen depend on visual on-screen analysis and are largely based on personal taste. I'd be very interested in seeing a technical/numerical comparison of the leading software.

Very interesting and confirms my setting of the camera for whole stop ISO values.

I've told my seconds for years to use native ISO values because of this. I never shoot pseudo-ISO. lol They don't listen. This will now be required viewing. lol

Well, this has been going around since Canon introduced the mid-ISOs.

In fact they can be useful for jpeg shooters, and for Raw shooters who want a "quick" processing for Noise Reduction for using with an app such as DPP, but for Raw shooters using an app and who want control in the "digital darkroom", well, there really is no advantage since with a "native" ISO shot at a proper "level" you can learn to "tweak" things.

I've heard this before from various internet sources, I won't pretend to understand his analysis of the figures in the spreadsheet but in summary:

Use native ISOs 100, 200, 400, 800 etc for shooting Raw but when shooting video or jpeg you are better off going with 160, 320, 640, 1250 etc.

Have I got this right?

I thought this video on vimeo was pretty informative.It demonstrates the actual visual results rather than the numbers. Not sure it's quite as scientific as the video in this thread though.
https://vimeo.com/1613​5815

StayFrosty wrote in post #16626078
I've heard this before from various internet sources, I won't pretend to understand his analysis of the figures in the spreadsheet but in summary:

Use native ISOs 100, 200, 400, 800 etc for shooting Raw but when shooting video or jpeg you are better off going with 160, 320, 640, 1250 etc.

Have I got this right?

I thought this video on vimeo was pretty informative.It demonstrates the actual visual results rather than the numbers. Not sure it's quite as scientific as the video in this thread though.
https://vimeo.com/1613​5815

I would say that's a pretty fair "take", as long as you understand the underlying "realities" of how to approach the Raw shooting...

First and foremost, much applause needs to be given to the producer(s) of the video. A lot of work and time went into producing this.

My question is very simple: what does Canon say? Has Canon ever answered the question about exposure, in-camera processing, and what is happening on stuff like ISO 160 vs. 200? If there is a link out there on anything Canon says about all this, it would be much appreciated.