# extended ISO, "H", 3200?



## RyanLilly (May 21, 2008)

Can anyone explain what exactly canons extended ISO is, or how it is accomplished. My assumption would be that it is probably an increase in sensor sensitivity coupled with some sort of processing, witch is why is is designated as "H" rather than a true 3200(although exif data reads 3200).
Basically, If I need to use "H", is there actually an increase in sensetivity, or is it more or less just software, and if so should I just shoot at 1600, and pull it up a stop in post?

Thanks, 
Ryan


----------



## Alfred D. (May 22, 2008)

I would test drive both M.O.s, and put the results up side-by-side on the screen  or even print them  to _see_ if there's a difference, and if so, what! In _my_ real life situation, with _my_ gear.
Then I would know.
You should try it.


----------



## Rhubarb (May 22, 2008)

This is how it is for Nikon's and I am going to guess that Canon is the same/similar.

The ISO setting on your camera represents the International Standards Organisation's' (ISO) standard for light sensitivity.

So for example ISO 800 should have the same sensitivity to light regardless of the type of digital sensor or type of film. ISO 800 is ISO 800, so to speak.

The reason Nikon (and I assume) Canon use a 'H' or boost setting for very high ISO's is that when used at this setting the light sensitivity isn't of true ISO specification. In other words think of ISO 3200 on your camera as *about* ISO 3200, not precisely ISO 3200.

This can be an important consideration when trying to calculate a correct exposure, and for example you need 1 more stop of light, going from ISO 1600 to H (about ISO 3200) isn't going to equate to exactly one stop; as going from ISO 800 to 1600 would be.

So putting your camera to the ISO 'H' setting does indeed increase the sensitivity of your sensor, however it isn't exactly ISO 3200.

Note: Of course some cameras, such as the Nikon D3, do have a true ISO 3200 setting, I just used these numbers as they apply directly to your situation and camera.


----------



## Seefutlung (May 22, 2008)

I shoot a lot of H/S sports at night.  I have used Canon's ISO 3200/H with both a 20D and a 5D.

Increasing a stop via post processing is the absolutely worst thing you can do IQ wise.  I have found that improper exposure will generate more noise than increasing the ISO.

An underexposed ISO 1600 is much more noisey than a properly exposed ISO 3200.

If you use 3200 ... make sure you has a noise reduction program like Noise Ninja.

Gary


----------



## goodoneian (May 22, 2008)

the "H" stands for high 1, because 3200 is 1 ev above iso 1600. that's my understanding of H's meaning at least


----------



## RyanLilly (May 22, 2008)

OK, cool. I was just worried that it was just a software thing rather than the sensor sensitivity.


----------



## Garbz (May 22, 2008)

As far as I understand it it is. You can only push sensor voltages or ADC sensitivities so far. 

I always believed that H1.0 (ISO3200) is just ISO1600 pushed a stop in software. I can guarantee that it has nothing to do with approximation and from brightness tests it is in fact 1 EV higher than ISO1600, and not some approximation. 

To backup my theory, noise increases in a non-linear fashion when going from ISO100 to ISO1600 as is expected with a system where the physical operating conditions of the sensor is being changed. However there is a MASSIVE jump in noise between ISO1600 and H1.0 which looks equivalent to simply pushing the exposure by 1 stop in software.

My guess is if it were true ISO3200 they'd simply call it that.


----------



## Alfred D. (May 22, 2008)

Garbz said:


> My guess is if it were true ISO3200 they'd simply call it that.



Agreed.
So "H" isn't true ISO 3200.


----------



## Socrates (May 22, 2008)

Garbz said:


> As far as I understand it it is. You can only push sensor voltages or ADC sensitivities so far.
> 
> I always believed that H1.0 (ISO3200) is just ISO1600 pushed a stop in software. I can guarantee that it has nothing to do with approximation and from brightness tests it is in fact 1 EV higher than ISO1600, and not some approximation.
> 
> ...


The "H" stands for High Noise?


----------



## Village Idiot (May 22, 2008)

Garbz said:


> As far as I understand it it is. You can only push sensor voltages or ADC sensitivities so far.
> 
> I always believed that H1.0 (ISO3200) is just ISO1600 pushed a stop in software. I can guarantee that it has nothing to do with approximation and from brightness tests it is in fact 1 EV higher than ISO1600, and not some approximation.
> 
> ...


 
Correct.

That's funny too. There are so many wrong answers before this post.

Even ISO 50 on some cameras is a function of software manipulation and not a true ISO 50.


----------



## Garbz (May 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> The "H" stands for High Noise?



Most definitely!


----------



## goodoneian (May 22, 2008)

so on a d300, iso LOW 1 is not iso 100, but more of a software manipulation?


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

Yes the D300 has a native low ISO resolution of 200. From what I have read ISO100 is achieved not by changing the sensor but by changing the ADC's input sensitivity. The sensor captures the same amount of light in ISO200 as ISO100, and you may find image quality is actually higher in ISO200 with a ND1 filter, than at ISO100.


----------



## Village Idiot (May 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Yes the D300 has a native low ISO resolution of 200. From what I have read ISO100 is achieved not by changing the sensor but by changing the ADC's input sensitivity. The sensor captures the same amount of light in ISO200 as ISO100, and you may find image quality is actually higher in ISO200 with a ND1 filter, than at ISO100.


 
In fact, there was an article I read, with a provided chart, that said higher native ISO's could provide better IQ than lower ones.

This is of course on a camera that can do ISO in 1/3 stops and it's the next highest ISO, not 640 vs. 100. More like 140 (I think this is the next 1/3 of a stop...could be wrong) was better than 100, 260, 200 etc...


----------



## RyanLilly (May 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> As far as I understand it it is. You can only push sensor voltages or ADC sensitivities so far.
> 
> I always believed that H1.0 (ISO3200) is just ISO1600 pushed a stop in software. I can guarantee that it has nothing to do with approximation and from brightness tests it is in fact 1 EV higher than ISO1600, and not some approximation.
> 
> ...



Thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking that it was probably just processed, because the color noise, and brightness/contrast just don't look normal, I took a few shots with it just to see, and I thought "they should call this setting 'camera phone.'
 Now I guess I'll have to figure out if the camera does it better or if I can do it better in photoshop(although I probably wouldn't really want to use either anyway) I'm betting on some photoshop and noise ninja.


----------



## Seefutlung (May 23, 2008)

ISO w/ No Noise Reduction


----------



## RyanLilly (May 23, 2008)

thats clean for 3200,hell, thats just clean in general, I'll do some more looking in to this and testing, thanks for the feedback.
Faster shutter speeds do help a lot with the noise, long shutter speeds that I've been taking recently are not so great with noise in dark areas.


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

No it's not. It just looks clean because you're not counting pixels. That looks like a standard print size to me, and what a lot of people don't realise is that while this picture probably looks like a dogs breakfast when zoomed to 100% if you look at it on the whole (as you should) noise becomes much less of an issue. 

D200 a camera known for it's horrible noise: ISO3200, Noise Ninja with processing set to -5 so not very strong NR at all lit by a single fluro in the room next door:


----------



## RyanLilly (May 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> No it's not. It just looks clean because you're not counting pixels. That looks like a standard print size to me, and what a lot of people don't realise is that while this picture probably looks like a dogs breakfast when zoomed to 100% if you look at it on the whole (as you should) noise becomes much less of an issue.



Right, Final product is all that should be considered. I have no problem shooting high ISO when the final products are small prints, or web use, because even though noise may be quite high compared to ISO 100, its a moot point, good enough, is good enough, and lower noise wont really change much


----------



## keith204 (May 23, 2008)

Bottom line. Do what you need to do. 

I shoot 600-800 pictures per race. 3 races per weekend. That's a lot of post processing time. Customers rarely order anything larger than a 8x10. So, at night I don't hesitate one bit to shoot at 3200. The 8x10 results of a properly exposed 3200 are great for racing photography. (40D here)

I shoot at 3200, and don't PP any of my racing photos.  If I like them, I keep them, if not, I delete.  Just how it's gotta be when taking so many pictures...gotta get it right before it hits the CF card.


----------



## RyanLilly (May 23, 2008)

Hey Keith, If you get a chance, could you post a comparison of a shot from your 40D @ 3200, and one from your 20D @ "H" Just curiosity really. 

The 40D has 6400 as "H" right? I wonder how noise compares between the two "H" settings.


----------



## Seefutlung (May 23, 2008)

Garbz said:


> No it's not. It just looks clean because you're not counting pixels. That looks like a standard print size to me, and what a lot of people don't realise is that while this picture probably looks like a dogs breakfast when zoomed to 100% if you look at it on the whole (as you should) noise becomes much less of an issue.
> 
> D200 a camera known for it's horrible noise: ISO3200, Noise Ninja with processing set to -5 so not very strong NR at all lit by a single fluro in the room next door:


 




Another ISO 3200 with No Noise Reduction Applied

Dude, not to be argumentative, but I don't understand where you are coming from. My 3200 w/out NR looks better than your 3200 w/NR (period). While yes it is very difficult to make accurate comparisons of images on the internet due to different monitors and compressions ... but some basic comparisons are valid ... in this case, my non-NR image taken with a 20D (old technology) looks superior (all things considered) to the D200 image (top) with NR applied.

My image was in direct response to the OP's question of underexposing and pulling the image up a stop in post. My initial reply was that a properly exposed 3200 is better than an under exposed 1600 ... I supplied images to support my statements.

I agree the image looks like hell at 100% crop ... and at a 200% crop it even looks worse ... so what's your point? That this can't be enlarged to a poster sized print or even an 11x14 without losing IQ??? Well duh, of course, this is after all ISO 3200.

My point, as stated previously, was that proper exposure goes a long way to minimize high ISO noise. So, when I go to print ... man, what a nice starting point in which to apply NR ... all due to proper exposure and a CMOS sensor.

Gary

PS- There are many opinions bantered about on the internet, I recommend that you look at the photosites of those offering their opinions as a qualifier for said opinion.
G


----------



## RyanLilly (May 23, 2008)

Seefutlung said:


> ...My image was in direct response to the OP's question of underexposing and pulling the image up a stop in post. My initial reply was that a properly exposed 3200 is better than an under exposed 1600...



Just to clarify, the original question was, Is "H" actually in increase in sensor sensitivity, or is it just 1600 with in camera processing applied, or perhaps a combination of the two? 

I'm sure that there is some processing applied otherwise they would just call it 3200, and if there is an increase in sensitivity, how much? How much of "H" is created with hardware and how much is software? The next question is, If it is just software, Does the camera do the best job reasonably possible, or can better results be obtained through post processing?

Some of these things have been answered, but I think that some testing will probably be required to know for sure.

Thanks.


----------



## manaheim (May 23, 2008)

This is awesome guys... I've been playing with this a lot recently since the D300 handles higher ISO way better than my D100.  (D100 was bad bad bad)

More and more I think that my problems have been how I've exposed,  however.

What I've learned a bit is to overexpose the higher ISO slightly, and that has definitely had a huge impact... but I wonder if there is more?

Any specifics on your process would be really appreciated.

Thanks, guys.  Awesome discussion.


----------



## Garbz (May 23, 2008)

Seefutlung I'm not arguing anything against your point. Your 20D photo looks fantastic. It is widely known that at that time (2 years ago) Canon produced better noise results than Nikon. I was just pointing out the fact that the D70 and D200, some of the cameras considered to have amongst the worst high ISO noise performance of any prosumer DSLR, can still produce 100% usable images. 

Your photos look much cleaner than mine. Mine actively required a tiny tiny bit of NR to clean it up, and looks quite a bit worse, but then I still prefer to have the image with noise, than to simply not have it. And that was my point, really just re-enforcing yours. 

Plus given the crap lighting quality even with a 5D or D300 that picture I posted would look average 

Manaheim. Why over exposure the High ISO when you can just drop the ISO by 1/3rd or 2/3rds of a stop and probably get the same noise result but with less work after?


----------



## Seefutlung (May 23, 2008)

Okay ... sometimes the internet can be a tough place to discuss fine points.


----------



## goodoneian (May 23, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> Hey Keith, If you get a chance, could you post a comparison of a shot from your 40D @ 3200, and one from your 20D @ "H" Just curiosity really.
> 
> The 40D has 6400 as "H" right? I wonder how noise compares between the two "H" settings.



i don't think the 40d has an iso 6400 equivalent, and i think 3200 is the "H" on it


----------



## manaheim (May 25, 2008)

Garbz said:


> Manaheim. Why over exposure the High ISO when you can just drop the ISO by 1/3rd or 2/3rds of a stop and probably get the same noise result but with less work after?


 
Somewhere on this board there was a lengthy thread about it.  It suggested that you are better off slightly over-exposing the subject a bit in a higher ISO... shooting in RAW, of course.  It said that properly exposing the subject would result in noise... overexposing it would still have noise in the shot, but not on the subject.

I tried this at a circus (which is hell to shoot at, so I didn't get it quite perfect), but this one particular shot seemed to be a great example of this actually working...


----------



## passerby (May 25, 2008)

That photo taken the circus what was the ISO used, SS and/or aperture? 

Thanks.


----------



## RyanLilly (May 25, 2008)

goodoneian said:


> i don't think the 40d has an iso 6400 equivalent, and i think 3200 is the "H" on it



Oh, Your right, I guess I'm thinking of another camera, Maybe a Nikon


----------



## manaheim (May 25, 2008)

passerby said:


> That photo taken the circus what was the ISO used, SS and/or aperture?
> 
> Thanks.


 
ISO: 2000
Shutter: 1/80s
Aperture: f4.2


The EXIF program I'm using from my wife's machine reports a 610mm focal length, which I know is wrong since it was a 70-300 lens.  It's old and probably confused, but it was certainly at the outer range of the lens... so probably in the 400ish range (Nikon partial frame camera).

An aggressive shutter time for such a long focal length... but as I said, circuses are a BEAR to shoot.


----------



## JerryPH (May 25, 2008)

Standard Information
Make: NIKON CORPORATION
Model: NIKON D300
Software: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
ImageSize: 540x793
CreateDate: 2008:05:06 01:02:54-04:00
ModifyDate: 2008:05:06 01:02:54-04:00
DateTimeOriginal: 2008:05:04 17:16:50.51-04:00
ExposureTime: 1/80"
Aperture: F6.3
MaxAperture: F4.0
CircleOfConfusion: 0.020 mm
HyperfocalDistance: 71.27 m
MeteringMode: Multi-segment
ISO: 2000
WhiteBalance: Custom
FocalLength: 95.0 mm
FocalLength35efl: 95.0 mm (35 mm equivalent: 142.0 mm)
Contrast: +25
Saturation: 0
Sharpness: 25
ApertureValue: 6.3
Brightness: +50
ColorNoiseReduction: 25
CreatorTool: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Exposure: -0.25
ExposureMode: Manual
FNumber: 6.3
FOV: 14.4 deg
FocalLengthIn35mmFormat: 142
Format: image/jpeg
GainControl: High gain up
LensInfo: 70/1 300/1 4/1 56/10
MaxApertureValue: 4.0
PrimaryPlatform: Microsoft Corporation
ShutterSpeed: 1/80
ShutterSpeedValue: 1/80
Tint: +11
Vibrance: 0


----------



## manaheim (May 25, 2008)

^^ looks like my wife's EXIF info _really_ lied.  Aperature was off, too.  Odd.

Thanks, Jerry.

Anyway, yeah... high ISO, pretty clear.


----------



## passerby (May 26, 2008)

So jerry man how did you find out all that data in such detail?

And for manaheim. My D40 ISO is from 1600 than to H or 3200. How can I access ISO 2000?


----------



## Garbz (May 26, 2008)

Do you have multiple options for H? The D200 for instance has 1600 H0.3 H0.7 and H1.0 each indicating the stop over 1600. 2000 would be H0.3

Also the detail is available if you save the photo right click click properties and then check out the summary tab.

manaheim I understand the principle. It's exactly the opposite of what happens when you brighten an image. The Gaussian distribution of noise is amplified when you increase the brightness, and attenuated when you decrease it. But the question really is, is dropping the brightness in post by 1 stop going to be better or worse than dropping the ISO by 1 stop. The resulting shutter speeds would be the same.

If this thread is still going next week (when i'm less busy) to remind me, I'll try to test this by shooting a grey card and measuring the noise distribution.


----------



## JerryPH (May 26, 2008)

passerby said:


> So jerry man how did you find out all that data in such detail?
> 
> And for manaheim. My D40 ISO is from 1600 than to H or 3200. How can I access ISO 2000?


 
That`s less than 1/2 the info in a pic`s exif.   Do a google for KUSO EXIF viewer.

For ISO 2000 which is kind of an off number, you need to have auto ISO turned on.


----------



## manaheim (May 26, 2008)

JerryPH said:


> That`s less than 1/2 the info in a pic`s exif.  Do a google for KUSO EXIF viewer.
> 
> For ISO 2000 which is kind of an off number, you need to have auto ISO turned on.


 
On the cam?  No, I had it on manual... I've noticed the Nikon D300 has some weird ISO levels... I should look that up to make sure it's correct.  The level above 2000 is 2500... also weird.


----------



## Helen B (May 26, 2008)

ISO 2000 and 2500 are the standard third-stop intervals between 1600 and 3200, just as 200 and 250 are the third-stop intervals between 160 and 320 (although in that case 200 is the one on the standard one-stop set).

Best,
Helen


----------



## keith204 (May 26, 2008)

RyanLilly said:


> Hey Keith, If you get a chance, could you post a comparison of a shot from your 40D @ 3200, and one from your 20D @ "H" Just curiosity really.
> 
> The 40D has 6400 as "H" right? I wonder how noise compares between the two "H" settings.





goodoneian said:


> i don't think the 40d has an iso 6400 equivalent, and i think 3200 is the "H" on it



The 40D's H setting is 3200.  Canon states that the 40D has better technology to maintain the ISO quality of the 20D/30D while having more megapixels.  However, I find that the 40D ISO 1600/3200 exceeds the quality of the 20D's equivalents.  I'll take some pictures sometime and show you some tests.


----------



## Garbz (May 26, 2008)

It should be noted that off number ISO can also be generated on most Nikons but setting the custom menu option from 1/3 stop changes in EV to 1/2 stop. But this is more limiting than it is useful.


----------



## manaheim (May 27, 2008)

Is there any reason to be concerned about these off-number steps, like in the same way I would be concerned about using the non-native ones? I'm assuming not, but figured I should check.  I'm such a noob when it comes to higher ISOs... I've just never used them much.


----------



## Garbz (May 28, 2008)

No the only reason I can figure they exist is for compatibility with some older zoom lenses.
I have for example seen a lens that was 100-200mm f/2-4.3 which can be a problem at the far end if you need a perfectly consistent exposure. But given that the 1/3rd stops would be 1/5th of a stop off this shouldn't concern anyone. Even if you have an off lens like that.


----------



## JustAnEngineer (May 28, 2008)

keith204 said:


> Canon states that the 40D has better technology to maintain the ISO quality of the 20D/30D while having more megapixels.  However, I find that the 40D ISO 1600/3200 exceeds the quality of the 20D's equivalents.


 The 20D isn't included, but take a look at the first comparison shot in this review:
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx


----------



## RyanLilly (May 28, 2008)

JustAnEngineer said:


> The 20D isn't included, but take a look at the first comparison shot in this review:
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-40D-Digital-SLR-Camera-Review.aspx



That cool because the 20D and 30D use the same sensor and processing, I think.


----------

