What does "ISO" stand for? Nothing!

[David Sutton]

 In the case of a sensor, I assume they use the ISO spec to determine base sensitivity, and design and program the gain controls of the camera for the sensor so that the ISO settings on the camera match the ISO specification.

I’ve always felt digital camera design were saddled to an archaic reference system as it seems when creating the digital ISO standard, they did so in the context of current film standards.   I guess at the time the two had to coexist so it made sense. wouldn’t it be easier just having a base ISO standard of 1, equivalent to ISO 100, and everything is just a multiple of that.  So if I set my camera sensitivity at +2, I’v adjusted it two stops.  Maybe a bad idea ... don’t know and certainly too late now.

Yes, the idea was that light meters and exposure techniques (like the sunny f/16 rule) that worked with film would still be useful for digital. I recall it was some years before I really got my head around the concept of a histogram.
The base (or native) ISO is just the point that gives the lowest noise and largest dynamic range. AFAIK, neither Canon nor Nikon publish this, so if it is around 200 then their ISO 100 setting is achieved by under-exposing and so some dynamic range will be lost. I'm speculating, but I suspect this is not uncommon in with Canon.

[Wayne Fox]

Perhaps DxOmark would indicate the "base" ISO by finding the point of the greatest dynamic range and/or best signal to noise ratio (which logically would be the same)?

[Tim Lookingbill]

OK, now I got what this thread was about. Thanks for the clarification from David and Wayne.

It's about whether ISO is an acronym or a word derived from the Greek word "isos".

I already knew about the ISO standards as it applies to industry including photography and digital imaging. It's just from the wording of the thread title and questions about what new was to be learned from this discussion gave me the idea that there was some other ISO or that there wasn't a clear understanding of the standards organization purpose or meaning. But then I also started thinking it was just a simple question over what I-S-O meant or whether it was an acronym for something.

ISO does stand for something. Or it means something.

Well, got that sorted out... and now onto figuring out what the letters E-B-O-L-A standards for.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

They actually do.

Best regards
Erik

Perhaps DxOmark would indicate the "base" ISO by finding the point of the greatest dynamic range and/or best signal to noise ratio (which logically would be the same)?

[mahleu]

Well, got that sorted out... and now onto figuring out what the letters E-B-O-L-A standards for.

Ebola was named after a river.

[David Sutton]

Hi,

They actually do.

Best regards
Erik

Hello Erik. Alas, I've switched to Fuji and I hear DxO would rather profile a dead fish than look at the X Trans sensor. Thanks for the screen shot though.

[Wayne Fox]

It's just from the wording of the thread title and questions about what new was to be learned from this discussion gave me the idea that there was some other ISO or that there wasn't a clear understanding of the standards organization purpose or meaning.

The thread title can certainly be interpreted two completely different ways, and certainly interpreting it as the organization of ISO stands for nothing (so a pretty derogatory comment) could easily be one way to read it.

I was pretty sure that was the reason for your first comment, just a misinterpretation of the intent of the thread title.

[David Sutton]

The thread title can certainly be interpreted two completely different ways, and certainly interpreting it as the organization of ISO stands for nothing (so a pretty derogatory comment) could easily be one way to read it.

I was pretty sure that was the reason for your first comment, just a misinterpretation of the intent of the thread title.

Heavens, I never thought of that other interpretation Wayne. I've altered the thread title and put ISO in inverted commas.

[Tim Lookingbill]

Heavens, I never thought of that other interpretation Wayne. I've altered the thread title and put ISO in inverted commas.

The thread title remains the same in my Firefox browser, David. Maybe I have to log in and log out, but it's not something I'm motivated enough to do.

[Wayne Fox]

The thread title remains the same in my Firefox browser, David. Maybe I have to log in and log out, but it's not something I'm motivated enough to do.

In my browser (safari/mac), the thread title only shows the change in the forum list view, but not in the individual messages in the thread itself.

And unrelated (and unimportant) wondering if this means we’ve been pronouncing this wrong all these years.  If indeed ISO is a “name” and not an acronym, seems instead of saying “I S O” 100, spelling it out, maybe we should say “I-so” 100 ... as a word?

Nah, too late now.   

[PhotoEcosse]

In my browser (safari/mac), the thread title only shows the change in the forum list view, but not in the individual messages in the thread itself.

And unrelated (and unimportant) wondering if this means we’ve been pronouncing this wrong all these years.  If indeed ISO is a “name” and not an acronym, seems instead of saying “I S O” 100, spelling it out, maybe we should say “I-so” 100 ... as a word?

Nah, too late now.   

Oddly (perhaps), I have never heard anyone spelling it out as I-S-O. Rather, it is always a word pronounced, roughly, as "I-so".

Maybe that is a difference between America and the rest of the English-speaking world. (A bit like the American "Nye-con" rather than the more usual "Nick-on".)

[Steve House]

Maybe there should be an ISO Standard for thread titles?

[Tim Lookingbill]

In my browser (safari/mac), the thread title only shows the change in the forum list view, but not in the individual messages in the thread itself.

Screengrab of my list view in "Digital Image Processing" forum...

[EricV]

Perhaps DxOmark would indicate the "base" ISO by finding the point of the greatest dynamic range and/or best signal to noise ratio (which logically would be the same)?

Also logically the same as the point at which exposure just fills the sensor pixels.  I think this is the simplest and most common definition.

[Wayne Fox]

Oddly (perhaps), I have never heard anyone spelling it out as I-S-O. Rather, it is always a word pronounced, roughly, as "I-so".

Maybe that is a difference between America and the rest of the English-speaking world. (A bit like the American "Nye-con" rather than the more usual "Nick-on".)

i’m not sure sure i’ve ever heard it pronounced as a word.

It could easily be a holdover of pre ISO days, as then we had ASA which was an acronym for American Standards Association and was always spelled out.  So when everything moved from ASA to use just ISO, we just switched the letters, (and assumed it was an acronym for International Standards Organization).  Those too young to know about ASA still learned from those of us who referred to it by spelling it.

And I had no clue others pronounced it Nick-on.  I’ve never heard anyone pronounce it that way.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

i’m not sure sure i’ve ever heard it pronounced as a word.

It could easily be a holdover of pre ISO days, as then we had ASA which was an acronym for American Standards Association and was always spelled out.  So when everything moved from ASA to use just ISO, we just switched the letters, (and assumed it was an acronym for International Standards Organization).  Those too young to know about ASA still learned from those of us who referred to it by spelling it.

That's interesting Wayne, because I've never spelled DIN, nor ASA, nor ISO. I thought the main point of most acronyms (or capitalized words for that matter) to make it easy to pronounce as a single word, but according to the Wikipedia reference that apparently is not the case, and there are cultural differences as well. WYSIWYG comes to mind, but also NATO and UNESCO, but there are also examples that are spelled out rather than spoken as a single word, such as USA or UK.

BTW (! ), DARPA seems to be a prolific creator of so-called 'contrived acronyms' to name projects.

And I had no clue others pronounced it Nick-on.  I’ve never heard anyone pronounce it that way.

Same thing here, never pronounced it different than something between 'Nick-on' and 'Nee-kon'.

Funny thing, language is.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

Same thing here, never pronounced it different than something between 'Nick-on' and 'Nee-kon'.
Funny thing, language is.

Bart,

This has already been touched on in another thread, and 'Ray' (God-bless-his-sweet-little-socks) has expressed his shock horror at the declining standards of this once-serious forum.

So from now on - no levity, no smileys and no nuance of language, please !
M

[/sense-of-levity required even if Ray doesn't approve]

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

So from now on - no levity, no smileys and no nuance of language, please !

Hi M,

I'd say LOL, if that linguistic escapade were not frowned upon ...

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. I'd agree that this entire thread is more appropriate for the Coffee Corner forum...