Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,821   Posts: 1,581,771   Online: 1054
      
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 14 of 14
  1. #11
    tiberiustibz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Tufts University
    Shooter
    35mm
    Posts
    1,750
    Images
    5
    It's all based on enlargement factor. It will appear different based on how much you enlarge the negative. It is different, but enlarging only the center portion of the negative would give the exact same results as 35mm.

  2. #12
    jbbooks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    173
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    "Depth of field [...] not unrelated to enlargement factor."

    So unless(sic) you print both panoramic and normal frames to the same height (i.e. same final magnification), DOF will be the same.
    If you however decide that both size frames are to be printed equally wide (i.e. not the same final magnification), DOF will indeed be different.
    With the XPan, the above would be correct, but I think the word "unless" should be "if".

    The point is, with the XPan, it is implicit that the amount of enlargement is the same with only the aspect ratio changing from one view to the other. We might argue about what Hasselblad determined to be the "acceptable" enlargement of a 35mm film camera image, but whatever was eventually agreed on would not change just because the film gate was wider. Images made on my XPan are no different than those on my Contax as to how much they can be enlarged before I consider than to be unacceptable, never mind which mode was used--so long as they are enlarged the same amount, which is to say, to the same height.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    Quote Originally Posted by jbbooks View Post
    With the XPan, the above would be correct, but I think the word "unless" should be "if".
    Quite right. My mistake.

    The one thing with DOF is - as you do too say - that the final magnification of the image is what counts.
    The other thing is that it depends on what someone thinks to be still acceptable or already unacceptable.
    The third thing that it is a comparative thing too: DOF is much larger in an image in which the 'true' sharpness is nothing to write home about than it is in an image in which the 'true' sharpness is incredibly detailed.

    So the final thing about DOF is that we should not be bothered with the thing beyond a very basic level. (Which is: Put focus where it needs to be, and then use the aperture to control how the other bits look. No use in trying to quantify the thing. No use in format comparisons. All that counts is how your image turns out.)

  4. #14
    dwdmguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Freehold, NJ
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    819
    Super interesting question. Here I am just working with my old xpan, and I get a pretty neat result. Take a look at this picture, not mods', and it looks as if it was shot via a T/S lens....
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Dogpark xpan blu1.jpg  

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin