When did 800 ISO become popular?

[Marcus Friedlander]

Hello everyone,


The title above is a question that popped into my head tonight as I was driving back from a shoot. If the most popular modern day film stocks are 250 or 500, why did digital cameras kind of plateau at 800? (I may be wrong about this, but it seems like that's the native ISO of most cameras on the market today.) Wouldn't 1000 ISO make more sense? (At least this way it would be a clean halving of the light needed, instead of 2/3rds.)


I'm curious if anyone can provide some insights, or even better, a little bit of a history lesson on when and why 800 became so popular!


Thanks!

 

[Joachim Hoge]

I thought it had something to do with the sensor technology. It seems harder to get a lower ISO than higher, that's why you hardly see 50 ISO on digital cameras. Someone more knowledgeable will probably chime in with more details

 

[Peter Moretti]

I believe it has to do with a tradeoff (inverse relationship) between ISO and dynamic range.

Panasonic seems to have found a way around this with their Varicam 35, which boast a switchable ISO to a native 5,000 ISO.

"Dual Native ISO

The VariCam has two native ISO settings: 800 and 5000. This means VariCam achieves dynamic range at 5000 nearly identical to that at 800. Two dedicated analog circuits are implemented to VariCam for each native ISO before its gain process and it achieves much higher sensitivity without increasing noise while normally noise is introduced in the gain process of rating ISO in digital cameras. This functionality will be useful for low light scene shooting."

 

[David Battistella]

Red One M was rated at 320-500 ISO

alexa came on the scene and was rated at 800 ISO

RED One MX in the original M body was rated at 800 ISO but I always rated it at raw view 320 and maybe 500 outdoors.
EPIC MX was 800 as well but many stuck to the 320-500 model
dragon color science moved RAW view of 800

ive rated the dragon with STH between 250-1280 and 800 with that OLPF seems to be the real nice spot for where middle grey falls in many differ the scenarios. I still like to leave my base settings at 500 ISO where it protects highlights but let's me keep low light stuff a bit cleaner.

I think the Alexa sorta set the ISO 800 base sensitivity standard though, which makes sense because they could sell it to productions with 2/3 stop sensitivity advantage over film with a similar look to popular film stocks.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think there is an 800 ISO "standard" -- the Sony cameras aren't rated at 800 ISO for example. And most of these cameras aren't actually 800 ISO in sensitivity, they are usually lower if anything, but 800 or whatever is the number the manufacturer wants you to use for log recording to get the amount of overexposure information they feel is important.

For example, on a DSLR often the best dynamic range comes when shooting at the lower ISO settings.

Anyway, I'm not sure there is a specific ISO number targeted at the start of designing a sensor. You pick the size of the photosites based on the size of the overall sensor and the number of pixels you want in that area, you reduce the system noise as best as you can, you introduce noise reduction somewhere in the process, etc. and after all of that, you start to measure what sensitivity you ended up with and what the optimal ISO setting is for log recording.

 

[Phil Holland]

If you want to go down a long, twisted journey of information check out ISO 12232:2006 and the 5 different methods if defining EI. Sensor technology, sensor noise, sensitivity, and the resulting quality if the image reflects some of this.

My personal opinion regarding why ISO 800 is the "base ISO" is with Dragon sensor technology is that it's the rating that when properly exposed for 18% gray where you have approximately equal tonal values in 1 stop increments above and below middle gray and also resulting in a relatively clean image. On Dragon in Epic, Scarlet, and more so with these newer DSMC[SUP]2[/SUP] style cameras such as Weapon the reality is anywhere between ISO 800-1280 is in that realm.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

I don't think the engineers start out aiming for 800 ISO versus 1000 ISO, after all, that's only a 1/3-stop difference.

 

[David Battistella]

800 iso the "factory default" on the Alexa and the Dragon.

I wouldn't say its the "new standard" but maybe a popular choice. Of course, as Phils tests show the rating you choose can affect everything from dr to noise profiles. That iso rating choice can be scene specific and wide ranging.

Maybe more people are going with manufacturer reccomendations and want that extra 2/3 stop.

 

[Marcus Friedlander]

Thanks for all the responses everyone. Lots of information to dive into!

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

800 is just a number

800 is just a number

IMO, technical ISO measurements and real world "working ISO" are different animals. When I test digital sensors, I am much more focused on signal to noise ratios (S/N) than nominal ISO for middle grey or having an equal distribution of stops above and below middle grey.

All camera systems I know of do some noise reduction in the early stages of DSP (digital signal processing). Some do far more than others. Canon, arguably, does the most aggressive noise reduction and offers pretty clean blacks even when underexposed - it also kills more of the shadow detail in the process. No free lunch.

RED, arguably, does the least (or none at all) noise reduction and shows the most texture when underexposed. The philosophy is to give you as much as possible of what the sensor saw, then let the image author decide how to bias the final result - stay grittier/go cleaner/walk the line/etc.

What might be popular is a smart noise reduction routine in RCX-Pro and the SDK that offers a sophisticated algorithm designed to best leverage the characteristics of the R3D file vs a generic noise reducer. It would essentially be the off board equivalent of the on camera DSP processing typically done on other systems. The advantage, is that turning that "noise reduction" knob would be an interactive process, presumably done while viewing a decent monitor in proper viewing conditions - rather than a blunt force detail killer you can't defeat.

Cheers - #19