Зачем Никону высокие ISO?

Цитата:

от: Александръ
покажите луче... 8)

стимула нет..
Цитата:

от: Александръ

зы.притом шо тема называеца

При том, шо, тема про НИЗКИЕ ИСО, дятлы! [/img]

никан ваще не нуженъ...

Цитата:

от: Александръ
покажите луче... 8)

Пингвин ваще чето очкует в последнее время, как фуфырь купил.
Все больше языком молотит.

Цитата:

от: Александръ
никан ваще не нуженъ...

как и кенанЪ...
Даешь шыдевров с сони!

Цитата:

от:MekloN
Стало интересно, но я не силен в английском (а интернет-переводчики не люблю), не могли бы вы пересказать, что там по поводу "нечестных ИСО"? Или привести кусок оригинального текста, где про это идет речь и дать адекватный перевод.
Спасибо!

Подробнее

As we saw in an earlier blog post, the ISO definition used when you take photographs is based on the brightness of the resulting JPEGs, not on any inherent property of the sensor. Which is something to remember whenever you see anyone talking about manufacturers ‘cheating’ on their ISO figures.

Современные стандарты ISO основаны на яркости в итоговом изображении в формате JPEG, а не на присущих матрице способностях по приему света.

In our review of the Olympus E-620, we noticed that the dynamic range was much lower at ISO 100 than at 200 and above. What was interesting about this was that the dynamic range graphs (that essentially plot the camera’s tone curve), followed the same pattern as those of the Nikon D5000.
В обзоре ДД Олика E-620 был ниже на ISO 100, чем на ISO 200 и выше. Интересно то, что график ДД (тональная кривая) очень похожа на ту, что от Nikon D5000.

Which prompted us to look into what the camera was doing. We did this by shooting our standard dynamic range test at ISO 100, ISO 200 and ISO 100 underexposed by 1EV. Of course the JPEGs of these files showed one of them to be significantly underexposed but we decided to look at the RAW values of the files, to see what was going on. This required the use of a rather esoteric RAW analysis tool (one that makes no attempt to do anything so prosaic as produce pictures) and found that, as we expected, the underexposed ISO 100 file was identical to the correctly exposed ISO 200 file (metadata aside).
Which presents an interesting conundrum: is the Olympus underexposing ISO 100 to produce its ISO 200 or is it overexposing ISO 200 to give its ISO 100 (Which is what Nikon implies about the D5000)? The answer is, of course, that there is absolutely no difference between the two statements. Or, to be absolutely precise, neither statement is correct because nothing is being overexposed or underexposed. Simply put, the sensor is being used the same way at both ISO settings. The exposures differ by 1 EV and so utilise different parts of the sensor’s response, different tone curves are then used so that you get the ‘correct’ brightness, either way.

Короче, Олик не использует разность света матрицы, а просто применяет к файлам разные кривые, по сути данные в ISO 100 и ISO 200 идентичные.

This technique may be different from the conventional method, which amplified the sensor’s output by different amounts at each ISO setting, with this amplification compensating for the lower exposure such that each ISO used the same region of sensor response. However, there’s nothing in the ISO definitions used by camera makers that dictates how the sensor must be used. Indeed, this technique of using a lower region of the sensor’s response isn’t at all uncommon – we could just as easily have looked at a Canon using Highlight Tone Priority or a Pentax in its DRange modes, they’re doing much the same thing (The ISO 100 disappearing as an option is the biggest giveaway).

Стандарты ISO не определяют, как именно должны добиваться эти данные: за счет усилителя сигнала с матрицы, использования математических способов (enhanced ISO range), либо за счет кривых, использования нижних пределов (темных) данных матрицы или верхних (светлых).