>>3851955>iso literally means internation stanard organisationTechnically, International Organization for Standardization or Organisation internationale de Normalisation or... The equivalent in Russian.
They deliberately made it so "ISO doesn't actually match the English acronym since it's intended to be international and they didn't want to seem like they were favoring anglophone nations. Of course, everyone assumes it stands for "International Standards Organization" so the goal didn't really work, but if we're being pedantic, that's the full pedantic reality of it.
> most cameras are just iso100 or 200 sensors that then boost using the computer on board but who gives a fuck ?Yep. And more than that:
Film--especially black and white film--can have vastly different light exposure characteristics depending on how it's processed. Similarly, when printed/scanned, you have another step where you can adjust the brightness, to the point that there are a lot of films that have enough dynamic range that they basically say "Yeah, ISO 100 to 400, whatever feels right to you" (off the top of my head Lomochrome Purple and Metropolis are like this, and T-Max lists identical dev times for if you're developing it at ISO 400 box speed or ISO 800 push processing. A lot of people prefer Fuji Pro 400H as an ISO 200 film and shoot it that way. Etc). Oh, and the grains also might respond differently depending on what wavelengths of light they're getting (e.g., Ilford Ortho+).
Digital is exactly analogous (so to speak) to that, especially with most modern Sony sensors. They're ISO invariant, so "ISO 200" is just ISO 100 plus math. Even with non-ISO-invariant sensors, there's nothing intrinsically about the string of binary digits returned by a photosite that says it's a given light value when massaged into the JPEG color space.
So it's not that Fuji "cheats" on ISO, it's just that they bias their output a little darker than others.
