PDA

View Full Version : What is ISO on a digital camera?



Roger Clark
07-10-2012, 06:41 PM
This post is derived from my web article: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/iso

What is ISO on a digital camera?

Reading manufacturer literature, review sites, and online discussions, one is led to believe that ISO changes sensitivity, and changes exposure. These ideas are both incorrect.

Myth #1: ISO changes sensitivity. False! Digital cameras have only one sensitivity, given by the quantum efficiency of the sensor, and the transmission of the optics and filters over the sensor. ISO is simply a post-sensor gain applied to the signal from the sensor.

Myth #2: ISO changes exposure. False! When you change ISO on a digital camera, two things are changed if the camera is in one of several auto modes. ISO changes only one thing in manual mode. In an auto mode, either exposure time, or f/ratio, or both are changed. F/ratio changes the diameter of the iris diaphragm which controls how much light gets through the lens. Exposure time limits the time light is collected by the sensor. It is the lens aperture and exposure time that determines exposure, not ISO. The second thing that changes with ISO, whether in manual mode or an auto mode is the range of light that is digitized.

A Savings Account Analogy

Say we have a bank savings account and we want to know how much money is in the account. Say one can count only 100 units. If I choose dollars, I can count from 1 to 100. If I use 10 dollar bills, I can count by tens from 10 to 1000. I can count in pennies, but then my range is only $0.01 to $1. Which level one chooses to count will be dictated by the amount of money in the bank account if one wants to know the full amount of money in the account. If we have $623.47 in the account, we must count by tens, and we would determine we have $620 in the account. We could count by twenties, and still find we have $620. If we count by fifties, we would find $600. We can never get a precise amount in the account, but we can get a close approximation.

Digital Cameras

So too with digitizing light recorded by a digital camera: ISO chooses a range to digitize. A given lens delivers so much light per second to a pixel in a given scene, and the exposure time sets the total amount of light that could be recorded. We choose the ISO as a signal range in which to digitize the light the sensor captured. Low ISO is like choosing counting by tens with the bank account. High ISO is like counting by pennies in the bank account. Changing ISO is only changing the way we count, not how much light the sensor actually captured. If we choose too low of an ISO, we can't count high signals and we say the image is saturated.
So why not set the ISO low to capture the full signal range? Electronics in current cameras, especially DSLRs which have sensors that can capture light over a very large range, are not capable of digitizing the full range of signals. Further, some camera electronics add fixed pattern noise into the image and the human eye-brain finds such noise more objectionable than random noise.

But you may say when I change ISO in my camera, I record different amounts of light (in an auto mode). Let's say you are working in aperture priority mode where you choose the aperture and the camera meters the scene and choose the exposure. Let's say you are at f/5.6 and 1/500 second at ISO 100. You change ISO to 200 and the camera changes the shutter speed to 1/1000 second. Thus, the sensor now records half the light. So the ISO change instructed the camera to shorten the exposure time, thus recording less light, and then instructed the camera electronics to amplify the signal from the sensor and digitize a smaller range. This process means that any noise will be amplified too, and that is why we see more noise at higher ISOs. So the bottom line is the higher ISO decreases true exposure, recording less light, and amplified the smaller signal to compensate.

The top digital cameras have an incredible range of light that can be recorded. For example, the Canon 1D Mark IV can digitize up to about 55,000 photons at ISO 100, but the sensor read noise is only 1.7 electrons, making a dynamic range of 55000/1.7, or over 32,000 (15 photographic stops). A 14-bit analog-to-digital converter (A/D) can only digitize a range up to 16384 (14 stops) but the noise in the A/D and other electronics in many DSLRs limits the effective range to less than 4096 or less than 12 stops. This means we must choose ISO to digitize the range of light we want to record. To digitize a lot of light we use low ISO (low gain), and use longer exposure times or larger apertures to gather more light, but we lose the fine intensity (tonality) details, similar to not being able to count pennies in our bank account analogy when we had a lot of money to count.

To add further complications, camera manufacturers define ISO differently for each camera. It is a relative level of light compared to the maximum signal a pixel is capable of recording. Smaller pixels generally have lower holding capacities, and it goes roughly by the area of the pixel. So a pixel with half the area, will generally have a maximum holding level half that of the larger pixel. An analogy is two buckets of different sizes: the larger bucket can hold more water. But the larger bucket only holds the water poured into it. With cameras, the lens is "pouring" the light onto the sensor. The lens and exposure time determines true exposure, not the size of a pixel nor ISO.
Let's examine some real capacities. The data are from my digital sensor performance web pages at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/index.html#part_4 (http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/index.html#part_4)


See the full Table 1 at: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/iso/

(I couldn't get it to format correctly here on BPN.)
The bottom line for the discussion about Table 1 here is that the maximum signals for the 7D, 1DIV and 5DII are:

__________ 7D ____1DIV___5DII

ISO 100: 24800 _ 55600 _ 59400 (electrons)

ISO 200: 16300 _ 27800 _ 29700 (electrons)

ISO 400: _8150 _ 13900 _ 14800 (electrons)

So let's say you have lenses that on each of the above 3 cameras that deliver the same photons per second to a pixel. Then if we set the exposure time the same on all three, each camera gets the same true exposure. Let's say that the lenses and exposure time deliver 30,000 photons to the sensor and each sensor captures 40% of the light, so gets 12000 photons in each pixel. The ISO needed to record that range (0 to 12,000 photons) is:

7D: ISO 200, 1DIV: ISO 400, and 5DII: ISO 400.

Note that even though the ISO is set differently on the 7D, it is still digitizing very close to the same signal range of light, and regardless of the ISO setting, the true exposure is the same.

In Table 1, Canon could have set the gains in the electronics such that all 3 cameras recorded the same signal range at the same ISO. That would mean, however, that the 7D would not have an ISO 100, because the pixels are not large enough to hold more than about 25,000 electrons. It would mean, however, that when people compared results from the cameras, and used the same ISO, they would be comparing the same true exposure. However, since the gains are not equal, most comparisons one sees on the internet use the same ISO, which biases against the 7D as it gets less true exposure and comes out noisy, but such conclusions are in error and a result of unequal exposure.

Conclusions

ISO is a relative gain, varying by camera and has nothing to do with sensitivity or true exposure. ISO is simply a post sensor gain and digitization range.

Future Prediction

Future cameras will have 16-bit A/D converters thus reducing the need for ISO gain. Actually 18-bit A/D converters are needed for the top cameras, but we are not likely to see that anytime soon. With 16-bit A/Ds, we'll only need broad categories of ISO, like low, medium and high, and choose precise gain (ISO) with raw conversion.

Roger

P-A. Fortin
07-10-2012, 08:01 PM
Very interesting reading.

2 questions:

- Where do you get the data about the maximum signal for each camera? Is it provided by Canon somewhere (where?) or it this the result of some measurement on your side?
- If I get this right (and I would not put any money on it), you are saying that comparisons between the 7D and the 1DIV should be performed with the 7D about 2/3 ISO stop lower than the 1DIV, with the same aperture and exposure time? (assuming no saturation in both cases)

Roger Clark
07-10-2012, 09:37 PM
Very interesting reading.

2 questions:

- Where do you get the data about the maximum signal for each camera? Is it provided by Canon somewhere (where?) or it this the result of some measurement on your side?

Hi P-A,
Yes, it is a standard but tedious procedure to derive the electron levels. See: http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluation-1d2/
I wrote custom software to do my analysis.



- If I get this right (and I would not put any money on it), you are saying that comparisons between the 7D and the 1DIV should be performed with the 7D about 2/3 ISO stop lower than the 1DIV, with the same aperture and exposure time? (assuming no saturation in both cases)

Yes, that is basically correct. However, some Canon cameras only have actual gain every factor of 2, so it is best to use the standard factor of two ISOs, like 100, 200, 400...
The ISOs in between are then mathematically computed. Apparently, Nikons don't have that issue, and perhaps newer Canons (I would love to test some).

Roger

Doug Brown
07-10-2012, 10:56 PM
My understanding of ISO is that it preserves exposure when you want more DOF or a faster shutter speed at a fixed exposure. Is there anything wrong with that statement?

Roger Clark
07-11-2012, 08:59 AM
My understanding of ISO is that it preserves exposure when you want more DOF or a faster shutter speed at a fixed exposure. Is there anything wrong with that statement?

Hi Doug,
If I understand your question correctly. when you want more depth of field, you close the aperture and raise the ISO to maintain your shutter speed. In that case you get less true exposure. The computer in the digital camera boosts the signal to compensate (to fake it). Here is an analogy: a bucket of water with a digital readout of the amount of water in the bucket. The bucket can be truly full at "ISO 100". At "ISO 200" the bucket is only half full, but the readout says it is full. At "ISO 400" the bucket is only 1/4 full, but the readout says it is full. At "ISO 800" the bucket is only 1/8 full, but the readout says it is full. And so on. So "ISO" in our digital bucket is faking how full the bucket really is. Similarly, ISO in a digital camera is faking the exposure. In the case of closing the aperture to get more depth of field, and keeping the same shutter speed, the fact that you closed the aperture means less light. The only solution to keep the same true exposure in this case is a longer shutter speed.

Roger

Joel Eade
07-11-2012, 05:31 PM
So then would you say that "true exposure" is a combination of aperture, shutter speed and quantum efficiency of the sensor?

Then the ISO setting is an electronic amplification of the "true exposure" that we can use to help us attain the aperture and shutter speed we desire for a given image?

At what ISO setting are we at baseline or not amplifying the "true exposure" at all?

P-A. Fortin
07-11-2012, 08:34 PM
Not that I want to answer instead of Roger, but my understanding is that "true exposure" is independent from the sensor. It depends on the amount of light, and the time of exposure.

Technically, your baseline would be at the lowest ISO. However I think that even at that point, there is some kind of amplification of the signal generated by the sensor.

Roger Clark
07-12-2012, 12:15 AM
So then would you say that "true exposure" is a combination of aperture, shutter speed and quantum efficiency of the sensor?

Hi Joel,
Yes, that is correct. But we should also include the capacity of the pixel. True exposure is the fraction of the pixel filled with photoelectrons. The capacity depends on a number of factors (Arash can probably give us all the details).



Then the ISO setting is an electronic amplification of the "true exposure" that we can use to help us attain the aperture and shutter speed we desire for a given image?

Correct.



At what ISO setting are we at baseline or not amplifying the "true exposure" at all?

Even a the lowest ISO there is still amplification, as P-A states, because the signals are very small. We could say base ISO, with ISO expansion turned on is the closest. The ISOs below 100 on the Canon DSLRs saturate before one would project based on the ISO 100 levels. For example, the 1DIV would digitize the full range of a full pixel if the ISO were about 80, so ISO saturates the top fraction of a stop. In practice, ISO 100 for most cameras.

But while it is nice to have all that light, sometimes we just need faster shutter speeds and the results are still beautiful. So while it is good to use the lowest ISO to get the most light, I always consider higher ISOs and compromise with less light when I need more depth of field and/or short exposure time. Just realize, it is not a sensitivity increase, but a lowering of true exposure and amplification of the smaller signal and its noise.

Roger

Roger

Sachin Saraf
07-12-2012, 08:21 AM
Hi Roger, I was curios to know if there is a specific pattern to the noise that is caused in files due to amplification of signal at higher ISOs?

Joćo Morgado
07-12-2012, 09:36 AM
Hi everyone!

Roger I read your article, loved it, and I have a question…

Imagine that I’m photographing perched bird with a Canon 40D and a 400mm 5.6 lens and I’m handholding the system… I know by experience that the minimum shutter speed I need to get a sharp picture is 1/1250, and I choose an aperture of 5.6 to maximize the amount of light that reaches the sensor. According to your explanation this will be my true exposure!

But imagine that my camera says that for this particular scenario the correct exposure is 1/1250; f/5.6; ISO 400, but I read some time ago that to maximize the output results of a sensor, it is best to expose to the right, in this case the only solution to expose to the right was increasing the ISO to 800…, Changing the ISO value won’t change the number of photons that are received by the sensor so from what I read in your article I understand that the image quality would be the same because the true exposure is the same… In this case scenario would increasing the ISO to 800 benefit the image quality?

In other words, in this case if I take three photos, one at ISO 100 (sub exposed according to the camera) one at ISO 400 (correct exposure according to the camera) and one at ISO 800 (Exposed to the right), and then normalize them in Camera Raw software by moving the exposure slide, I should get the same results because they all have the same true exposure with the same number of photons… Is this right?

So for my understanding, exposing to the right is only advantageous if you change shutter speed or aperture, never ISO…

Thank you very much for your time.

Best Regards,
Joćo Morgado

Roger Clark
07-12-2012, 10:35 AM
Hi Roger, I was curios to know if there is a specific pattern to the noise that is caused in files due to amplification of signal at higher ISOs?

Hello Sachin,
Most of the noise we see in our digital images is noise from photons (Poisson counting statistics from counting photons). That noise is completely random. The electronics adds some noise too, and mainly contributes to the lowest signals (e.g. the shadows, or the sky in night sky photography). But some cameras also add fixed pattern noise, or banding due to the electronics. You see this problem when one tries to lift the shadows on some images.

Roger

Michael Gerald-Yamasaki
07-12-2012, 10:59 AM
Joćo,

Greetings. Great question. A similar question might be what is the relative quality of increasing gain via the iso setting and "increasing gain" via raw conversion or post-processing. In your scenario let's call the ISO 100 case expose to the left (ettl), base ISO unless subject is deep into the lower quadrant of the histogram.

So, the question might be is it better to ettl to assure that there is no highlight clipping (and use conversion curves or pp to "increase gain") or ettr to maximize gain in camera (short of clipping).

As the ability of sensors to capture information in lower light (qe?) increases, it seems to me that ettl become a more viable option for choosing exposure.

Cheers,

-Michael-

Roger Clark
07-12-2012, 11:04 AM
Hi everyone!

Roger I read your article, loved it, and I have a question…

Imagine that I’m photographing perched bird with a Canon 40D and a 400mm 5.6 lens and I’m handholding the system… I know by experience that the minimum shutter speed I need to get a sharp picture is 1/1250, and I choose an aperture of 5.6 to maximize the amount of light that reaches the sensor. According to your explanation this will be my true exposure!

But imagine that my camera says that for this particular scenario the correct exposure is 1/1250; f/5.6; ISO 400, but I read some time ago that to maximize the output results of a sensor, it is best to expose to the right, in this case the only solution to expose to the right was increasing the ISO to 800…, Changing the ISO value won’t change the number of photons that are received by the sensor so from what I read in your article I understand that the image quality would be the same because the true exposure is the same… In this case scenario would increasing the ISO to 800 benefit the image quality?

Hello Joćo,

You are correct, that changing from ISO 400 to 800 while keeping aperture and exposure time the same will not change the amount of light received. On good cameras, one would be hard pressed to see a difference in images taken at the two ISOs. If the camera suffers from fixed pattern noise in the shadows, then moving to ISO 800 would reduce that (on all cameras I have seen and tested). So expose to the right has nothing to do with collecting more light in this case, but optimizing the limited electronics to digitize the signal with the least artifacts.



In other words, in this case if I take three photos, one at ISO 100 (sub exposed according to the camera) one at ISO 400 (correct exposure according to the camera) and one at ISO 800 (Exposed to the right), and then normalize them in Camera Raw software by moving the exposure slide, I should get the same results because they all have the same true exposure with the same number of photons… Is this right?

Correct, the amount of light collected will be the same. But, the ISO 100 image will show more artifacts from the electronics, and will have less tonality because the steps between the integer numbers will be less. Go back to the bank account example. If you want fine detail on a small amount in the account (faint light in a camera), don't count by $10. ISO 100 on a 5D Mark II, for example, digitizes about 4.1 electrons per 14-bit level, while at ISO 400 it is about 1 electron per level. That is like counting by fours versus by ones. To extend further, you will see less difference between ISO 400 and 1600 because the digitization is fine enough to digitize the signal adequately at both those ISOs (assuming no saturation).



So for my understanding, exposing to the right is only advantageous if you change shutter speed or aperture, never ISO…


Expose to the right is also an advantage to minimize the impact of limited electronics, especially 14-bit A/D converters, and minimizing fixed pattern noise.

In future cameras, expose to the right should become less relevant. At high ISOs, typically 800 and above, it is already less relevant. On my 5D Mark II, fixed pattern noise is apparent in night sky images up to ISO 1600. Above that ISO is irrelevant, so I never go above ISO 3200.

For your 40D, you can see the digitization level versus ISO in Table 3b at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/digital.sensor.performance.summary/
The noise floor (apparent read noise) is given in Table 4a. Note the noise floor is higher at ISO 100 on most cameras due to the electronics limitations.

Roger

Roger Clark
07-13-2012, 08:01 AM
Joćo,

Greetings. Great question. A similar question might be what is the relative quality of increasing gain via the iso setting and "increasing gain" via raw conversion or post-processing. In your scenario let's call the ISO 100 case expose to the left (ettl), base ISO unless subject is deep into the lower quadrant of the histogram.

So, the question might be is it better to ettl to assure that there is no highlight clipping (and use conversion curves or pp to "increase gain") or ettr to maximize gain in camera (short of clipping).

As the ability of sensors to capture information in lower light (qe?) increases, it seems to me that ettl become a more viable option for choosing exposure.

Cheers,

-Michael-

Hi Micheal,
Due to the current limitations in electronics, it is always better to "expose to the right" (e.g. increase ISO when aperture and shutter speed are fixed) than to do it in raw conversion. The sensors are capable of delivering the data, but the current electronics, especially the 14-bit A/D converters are not. So expose to the right is mainly to minimize the impact of poor electronics. When we get good 16-bit A/Ds in cameras, then ETTR in raw conversion is more viable.

Sensors over the decade have actually changed very little in their quantum efficiency, as it is mature technology. There have been improvements in the efficiency of the microlenses and filters on the sensor, and that has improved system throughput a little over a factor of two in the last decade.

Roger

Bill Jobes
07-13-2012, 09:24 AM
Growing up with film, ASA was the thing.

Roger, your excellent article pulverized my personal myth that equated ISO with ASA as a gauge of exposure sensitivity.

So what is the relationship, if any, between ISO and ASA ?

Even though ISO doesn't affect sensitivity, despite the marketing implications, doesn't the fact that ISO changes deliver a relative facsimile of a sensitivity adjustment amount to the same final result ?

DickLudwig
07-13-2012, 01:50 PM
Roger I always find your posts informative. However at times I must admit when your explanations get into the deep science areas I sometimes get lost. Perhaps this is due to the fact that my last physics class was in high school more than 55 years ago. I'd like to see if the way that I explain increasing the ISO on a camera will pass your scientific scrutiny.

I like to use the analogy of increasing the ISO of the sensor to that of increasing the volume on an analog radio. When you tune in to a radio station that is weak you will turn the volume up in hopes of being able to hear the station better. However a weak radio signal has a lot of static mixed in. So as you turn up the volume (amplify the signal) you also amplify the static. Many times when you do this the static becomes the dominant part of the signal that you hear and as a result the static overwhelms the signal you are trying to listen to.

Now back to the camera. When you increase the ISO you amplify the signal the camera has received. You can't do anything to increase the amount of light that reaches the sensor so what you end up doing is amplifying the "weak signal" which in turn also amplifies any inherent deficiencies/static in the sensor which usually ends up being seen as noise and or banding in the displayed image. The more you increase the ISO the more you increase these deficiencies along with the image that you have captured.

There are a couple of things that are frequently overlooked beyond the impact of noise as you increase the ISO. These are the loss of dynamic range and the loss of contrast as the ISO increases. As I understand it, for each full stop increase in ISO you lose a full stop of dynamic range. Roger from a scientific perspective do you agree with this assessment?

Sachin Saraf
07-13-2012, 03:22 PM
Hello Sachin,
Most of the noise we see in our digital images is noise from photons (Poisson counting statistics from counting photons). That noise is completely random. The electronics adds some noise too, and mainly contributes to the lowest signals (e.g. the shadows, or the sky in night sky photography). But some cameras also add fixed pattern noise, or banding due to the electronics. You see this problem when one tries to lift the shadows on some images.

Roger

How do we know if it is high frequency or low frequency noise?

Michael Yessik
07-16-2012, 04:24 PM
Roger:

Since increasing the ISO is essentially increasing the sensor gain, how is this different from increasing the exposure slider in ACR? I apologize if you have already answered this in the above threads, but I didn't see it.

Michael Yessik

Ed Cordes
07-24-2012, 07:53 PM
Roger:

Since increasing the ISO is essentially increasing the sensor gain, how is this different from increasing the exposure slider in ACR? I apologize if you have already answered this in the above threads, but I didn't see it.

Michael Yessik

I am no expert, but I'll take a guess. Increasing ISO amplifies the output of the sensor providing your processing software with image data that is well exposed across the entire range of tones in the scene (hopefully) that includes as much data as possible from the sensor. Increasing the exposure slider takes the native info from the camera and moves the tonal point to the right using data that is deficient in information about the scene captured. Therefore the image is less than optimal if too much compensation is done in post processing.

Now remember I am not the expert but just giving my first take on trying to answer this question.

Mike Milicia
07-25-2012, 12:15 PM
Roger:

Since increasing the ISO is essentially increasing the sensor gain, how is this different from increasing the exposure slider in ACR? I apologize if you have already answered this in the above threads, but I didn't see it.


One difference is that the gain due to the ISO setting is achieved by amplifying the analog voltage levels that have accumulated at each photosite while the Exposure slider is operating on the digitized data in the RAW file.

I would think you would lose some accuracy when operating on the digitized data vs. the original analog values but I will leave it to the more expert among us to comment on the degree to which this really affects the resulting image quality and also whether there are other more significant differences.

Roger Clark
07-25-2012, 01:44 PM
Roger:

Since increasing the ISO is essentially increasing the sensor gain, how is this different from increasing the exposure slider in ACR? I apologize if you have already answered this in the above threads, but I didn't see it.

Michael Yessik

Sorry I messed this one. As Ed and Mike have stated regarding post processing, one is working on the already digitized signal. Going back to the bank account analogy, say you exposed at low ISO, so are counting by tens. In raw conversion you increase exposure, but you are still counting by tens, just multiplied the values so they are larger, and reduced the range over which one counts. If one boosted ISO in the camera, we are digitizing a smaller range but counting smaller (e.g. by ones). At the high end, it doesn't matter, but at the low end, counting by ones versus tens makes a big difference in tonality. So in practice, one can push a stop or two in post, but more and more the low end starts to look ratty.

Again, I look forward to quality 16-bit converters were we can count smaller intervals (better tonality) over the full range of the sensor and have much more leeway on "apparent exposure" in post processing.

Roger