Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: Iso 1,000,000?

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    A Pacific Island
    Posts
    924
    Real Name
    Andrew

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden (and sometimes Santiago de Cuba)
    Posts
    1,089
    Real Name
    Urban Domeij

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    If five times current sensitivity is correct, it won't get close to a million. The best cmos sensors of today can reach an ISO sensitivity of approximately 10000, and five times would be about a twentieth of the million ISO. Not bad, if it can be reached, but there's a long way before we see sensors with this new technique.

  3. #3
    inkista's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    San Diego, California
    Posts
    1,398
    Real Name
    Kathy Li

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Yeah, but they say graphene could be 1,000x more sensitive. That'd get us there.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sitivity-1000x

    The paper: http://cdpt.ntu.edu.sg/Documents/ncomms%204%201811.pdf
    Last edited by inkista; 17th June 2013 at 09:37 PM.

  4. #4
    tomdinning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Darwin Australia
    Posts
    188
    Real Name
    tom dinning

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Don't get you hopes up guys. This is all photo hype. The science facts don't match it. There is no indication that this phenomenon can be extrapolated. Sensor spin off is unlikely, if at all.

  5. #5
    Moderator Dave Humphries's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Windsor, Berks, UK
    Posts
    16,059
    Real Name
    Dave Humphries :)

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkanyezi View Post
    If five times current sensitivity is correct, it won't get close to a million. The best cmos sensors of today can reach an ISO sensitivity of approximately 10000, and five times would be about a twentieth of the million ISO. Not bad, if it can be reached, but there's a long way before we see sensors with this new technique.
    The Nikon D4 goes to 204,800 iso "with boost", so 5 x that, would make a million, but I suspect you are, quite rightly, only counting 'real' iso, which stops at 12,800, making your figure nearer the reality. but why let that get in the way of an attention grabbing headline

    If I read the original article correctly, it was a "one pixel" 'sensor' - I'd call that a photo-transistor, hardly an imaging sensor

    Cheers,

  6. #6
    Moderator GrumpyDiver's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    12,356
    Real Name
    Manfred Mueller

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    I wonder how they perform in normal lighting conditions, or are we going to have to shoot with 100-stop ND filters to get reasonably shallow DoF?

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Leiden, Netherlands
    Posts
    185
    Real Name
    Hero

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Sensitivity is only one half of the story, and a nice development for a new hubble or cave-dwellers and the like. But to be able to take pictures in daylight you will probably need shutterspeeds in the nano-seconds or indeed a weldingglass grade ND-filter.

  8. #8
    Sponge's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Madrid
    Posts
    155
    Real Name
    Patrick

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Quote Originally Posted by inkista View Post
    Yeah, but they say graphene could be 1,000x more sensitive. That'd get us there.

    http://www.imaging-resource.com/news...sitivity-1000x

    The paper: http://cdpt.ntu.edu.sg/Documents/ncomms%204%201811.pdf
    When I read an article about this recently it sounded a lot more promising than the imaging resource article. Either way I'm not going to hold my breath.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Stockholm, Sweden (and sometimes Santiago de Cuba)
    Posts
    1,089
    Real Name
    Urban Domeij

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Quote Originally Posted by Dave Humphries View Post
    The Nikon D4 goes to 204,800 iso "with boost", so 5 x that, would make a million, but I suspect you are, quite rightly, only counting 'real' iso, which stops at 12,800, making your figure nearer the reality. but why let that get in the way of an attention grabbing headline
    Yes, like so much bling on our new cameras, also the "ISO" setting is not ISO. In photography, most of us want a bit of dynamic range, which determines the sensitivity of the system. For my purposes, I would mostly accept eight full steps of dynamic range, and I think that it is a disservice to camera users to claim that the ISO setting alters the sensitivity of the chip, when all it does is screwing up the output. (I wonder if that intended pun works in English?)

  10. #10
    MrB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hertfordshire, England
    Posts
    1,042
    Real Name
    Philip

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Might there be a confusion here between factors of 5 times and 5 stops? From a typical current camera the former would take the ISO up to about 100,000 but using the latter it would approach 1,000,000.

    Philip
    Last edited by MrB; 19th June 2013 at 08:54 AM.

  11. #11

    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Norfolk, UK
    Posts
    396
    Real Name
    Yes

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    At ISO 100 some each pixel may record about 100,000 photons.
    The higher the ISO the fewer photons there are to record, and more amplification of the charge on each pixel. This is why noise is so high at high ISO, simply there is a randomness in photon distribution which results inherent noise. When judging the exposure to be 5 to 6 photons recorded it is not going to be that discriminating.

  12. #12
    tomdinning's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Darwin Australia
    Posts
    188
    Real Name
    tom dinning

    Re: Iso 1,000,000?

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkanyezi View Post
    Yes, like so much bling on our new cameras, also the "ISO" setting is not ISO. In photography, most of us want a bit of dynamic range, which determines the sensitivity of the system. For my purposes, I would mostly accept eight full steps of dynamic range, and I think that it is a disservice to camera users to claim that the ISO setting alters the sensitivity of the chip, when all it does is screwing up the output. (I wonder if that intended pun works in English?)
    I'm with you Urban although the joke lost something in the translation. As they say, it went over like a pork chop at a Jewish BBQ.
    Which is the reason why I tell the students to stay at the low end of ISO and don't be too impressed by big numbers unless your a night stalking pervert.
    Mind you, shooting at the big numbers has its value. Give me time. I'll think of something.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •