well there you go finally the truth is told.

plot the "stair" in the images and post the graph from several cameras of any era. ive measured some of the patches via Ps eye dropper tool and some go the wrong way 🤔 just post your conclusions via images im sick of armchair mathematicians, they are about as acurate as meteorologist 😁

Joe's uncle was eaten by cannibals.

How the ++++ did you know that?! 😁😂😆

What are you plotting? Raw values? sRGB values? Of pixels? Of averages for entire patches?

The average or mean values in the raw data will separate the patches quite well, even under extreme under-exposure, unless the read noise starts falling below about 0.8DN, at which point the dither of noise will fail to prevent mean shifts in levels as over-quantization shows its artifacts. There are actually very few cameras that do that; it is most common among the last few models that used Sony Exmor 12-bit sensors a decade or more ago, and only at base ISO, as 2x base usually brings those read noise DNs into the safe zone. Some had black frame noise in the 0.4DN to 0.6DN range at base and they can not record even mean patch values accurately. At 2x base, this might be 0.7 to 1.1, which, while not perfect, is much less problematic than base ISO.

With the presentation you gave, and the levels of exposure of even the darkest patches, nothing but conversion style and/or levels editing is going to showing any loss of definition between the first and second darkest patches, or the first and second brightest. They're way out of the range where the sensor and pixels can conflate neighbor patches.

Let me show you how well small pixels can distinguish extremely low-exposure mean patch levels, if the read noise is above 1.3DN. This is the entire frame of a 12-bit, 1.86 micron compact camera, the Canon G9 at ISO 80, under-exposed by about 12+ stops (pushed to about ISO 300,000) , where the brightest, clipped part of the image near the top, above the transparency, is one ADU above the black level, as I clipped away almost 4000 levels. Obviously, there is a lot of image-level noise here, but even the two darkest darkest slices in the transparency are almost distinguishable, and any of the brighter slices, all of which are recorded STOPS BELOW the bottom of the DR:

So, why would there be confusion of levels with much larger pixels, and much more exposure?

big mistake picking the canon G9 as ive owned the camera 😂 went straight to my files and pushed the shadows 😁
glad your not a science teacher, my daughter was teaching a class 2 years ago as a first year uni student and told the head of science he made a big mistake in one of his classes, he went home that night to look up the subject and he was wrong , told my daughter he had been teaching the same subject content for 20 years 🤔🤨

and you got a like for your post 🫣i pushed the same d30 files of similar subject with "NO" noise loss of colours and detail.

Simple question
How did you push the shadows to the extent that John has?

dont need to, look at the clipped blacks in the images i posted. Kind of now makes me think that no modern camera can actually come close to utilizing even 8 bits using jpegs, looking at the gray scale on most cameras theres lucky to be 4 bits of seperation.

even colour picking the g9 full res sample scale the last 4 blacks are basically the same

This is a stunning result from the D30 as i said i want one, just for a play.

I don't think math, physics, and the statements by scientists make much of an impact, anymore, aside from being starting points for disagreements by those who have "done their own research". 😉

here in australia we are constantly told (brainwashed) that diesel 4wd utes and trucks are the gold standard and petrol 4wd are a joke and not good. so a bunch of top 4wders took there deisels to america to shoot a utube show and got laughed at and told that no one and i mean no serious 4wder uses a diesel engine in america 🤔😁

i will give you a good example of current so called scientists and field experts. i live in an area where we have our own septic systems that are supose to be installed by a professional and systems that have been biological tested for the best reasults in bio degrading the matter. well in the last 15 years i have seen at least 10 systems fail and even my nextdoor neibour installed a $25,000 system, i knew right from the start it wasnt going to work due to the design and the type of soil and topping for the epvaporative system used, i told him he will have to spread his grey water on his yard because his latest desing system is not going to work. well 1 year later and his shit is now seeping into my yard 😒., im so pissed im going to build a wall that directs the run off back onto his property 😁 i have built a $200 system for my own property knowing that the non-comonsense approch that scientists dont seem to be gifted with at birth, 🫣🤪 my system is biolgically perfect with basicall NO solids left after my yearly tank evacuation and testing . my suface area for my evaperation system is 1/10 of the supposed required area . commonsense is not so common these days im afraid, but money driven businesses are.

Sometimes, when you see that science has been hijacked by industry and globalist billionaire "philanthropists", doing your own research may be the wisest thing to do.

I don't disagree (obviously). In fact, one of my favorite YouTube personalities put out a scathing indictment of modern academia:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKiBlGDfRU8

And, indeed, Richard Feynman's commencement address, Cargo Cult Science:

calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm

lives close to my heart. But for too many, "do your own research" means "confirmation bias extravaganza", or, worse, listening to "experts" like this:

www.reddit.com/r/JoeRogan/comments/1c8nyiz/everyone_is_now_dumber_for_having_listened_to_that/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

On the other hand, if I used essential oils and drank "hydrogen infused water", perhaps I'd see that math and science are just that much BS, after all. 😂

the vid was fun, but then i watched one of her vids on climate change and super cold water and clouds, she didnt even mention the fundamentals and what super cold water actually is 🤔ive studied met so i know exactly what it is and why it remains super cold and doesnt change state 😊
after a good laugh better get back to playing my new guitar 😎

Which one? I've watched a couple of her climate change videos (and even saw a really good rebuttal to one of them), but didn't see that one. Mainly I just like the physics stuff.

turned it off within the first 30 secs , he said the vid was hypothetical. and he had green fingernails 🤨 the one he was actually talking about.

???

I know I'm not speaking for the majority (unfortunately) when I say this, but I'm of the opinion that what a climate scientist with a Ph.D from Oxford says carries more weight than the color of their fingernails.

???

Anyway, the video is a really good example of the scientific method, where you can't (well, shouldn't -- plenty of people do) just cite a single study that corroborates a personal belief and ignore all the studies that don't.