Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 75,695   Posts: 1,669,598   Online: 1132
      
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32
  1. #21

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Kuiper Belt
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    291
    Manufacturers make the depth of field scale based on the size of the circle of confusion. If I recall correctly, Leica uses 0.003". The D.O.F. scale is a only guide, not a true indication for all possible uses of the camera and film.

    If you consider the blur caused by the shallow D.O.F. to be a flaw, of course it will be magnified as you enlarge the negative to a bigger print size. Someone else may consider that same effect a bonus [search for "bokeh"].

    There's an article on depth of field on Wikipedia.

    If you find, by experience, that the depth of field guide gives negatives [and therefore prints at the end-size] with too shallow D.O.F., take appropriate measures to remedy that [stop down]. If setting the focus by hyperfocal technique, use one stop smaller to increase depth of field to your liking. Suppose exposing at f/5.6. Use the near/far marks for f/8 instead. Or even f/11.

    Again, the D.O.F. scale is only a convenient guide that will satisfy most [not all] users. It is not a universal cure-all.
    Last edited by Larry.Manuel; 07-09-2009 at 09:04 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: correct punctuation.

  2. #22

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by alanrockwood View Post
    ... (I'm overlooking some subtleties here, such as telephoto or retro-focus designs, in which the physical lens diameter does not equal the effective optical diameter.)
    Correction: I'm not sure the statement is correct about the physical lens diameter not equaling the effective diameter for certain types of lenses. This will take a bit more thought.

    Regardless, it is a fine point that doesn't significantly affect the rest of what I said.

  3. #23

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    697
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    "Lots of choices. Pick one." "Define" (in the "pick one" sense). "[...] perceptible by a person"
    And still "an objective scale"?

    Doesn't work.

    The second approach, based on arbitrarily chosen ("let us say") dimensions, does no better.

    As you say: "The criteria may be arbitrary"
    And there the whole things come falling down. DOF is not an objective thing.


    A statement like "The second method is independent of factors such as magnification, viewing distance, photo size, etc." even cannot be a thing related in any way to DOF.
    DOF, in essence, is dependent on factors such as magnification, [etc.]
    I think you are, perhaps, confusing the concept of "objectivity" with the concept of arbitrariness.

    In most cases a standard is arbitrary, even though it may be objective. For example, a licensing body may decide that a passing grade on a professional certification exam is 70%. That is an arbitrary choice. (Why not 72%?) However, it is an objective criteria. In other words, once the standard is determined one does not have to subjectively discuss whether a score of, say 69% is a passing score.

    Choices for standards are almost always arbitrary. For example, a definition of optical resolution based on the Rayleigh criterion is arbitrary. However, it is objective because two different people can perform the measurement and come up with the same result without having to apply subjective judgment.

    Similarly, choices in definitions of depth of field that I discussed above may be arbitrary, such as the choice of a standard viewing distance. However, they are objective in the sense that they can be unambiguously measured.

  4. #24

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    No, no.
    I do know what 'objective' and 'objectivity' are supposed to mean.
    So that's not it.

    Just take one of your arbitrary choices: "perceptible by a person".
    Who would that be?

    The DOF criteria were set using large panels of people, with the criterion they ended up 'defining' being some sort of statistical mean.
    No other way. No 'objective', or even common, thingy in sight.

    "The most important thing about DOF, by far, is that it is a perceptual thing. Not an 'autonomous' entity with an absolute dimension. (Despite all the formulae and calculators people like to let loose on it)."

    A viewing distance may be measured 'objectively'.
    But so that 'arbitrary choice' may be 'objective' (we can set up a thread about whether 'objective' is a meaningful concept at all. But another time perhaps ).
    But we're not concerned about viewing distances, but with how an image looks (!) from that viewing distance.
    Totally and utterly not objective.

  5. #25
    keithwms's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Charlottesville, Virginia
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    6,075
    Blog Entries
    20
    Images
    129
    The definitions of DOF and CoC are well known, and anybody can look them up. Simple simple.
    "Only dead fish follow the stream"

    [APUG Portfolio] [APUG Blog] [Website]

  6. #26

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    148
    For DoF scales DoF gets smaller as the format gets smaller.

    In this case you're assuming constant distances while varying FoV/enlargement. So a smaller format has LESS DoF due to what you're keeping constant. Put another way, you're projecting exactly the same image, but cropping it and enlarging it more. So your CoC has to go down, and so does your DoF. For "equivalent image" comparisons the change in distance more than counteracts this, but that's not the comparison you want for DoF scales.

    And the dpreview guy's crack about the scales being useless for APS because they're calculated for FF is especially idiotic. Just shoot a stop or so down from the line you're reading on the lens. Duh.

    Getting back to the more useful "equivalent image" case, it may just be f-stop and magnification, but for different fields of view you can only match the magnification at a single plane. So with, say, a 15 vs. a 500 (assuming same format), if you keep the subject plane magnification the same (by changing distance), the magnifications some distance ahead of or behind it will be different. For short DoF this is trivial, but stop down enough at non-macro distances and there will be a large difference in DoF.

    And I really don't see the point in arguing over the standard DoF definition. Yeah, yeah, it's right about as often as a stopped watch. But they needed some sort of standard, this is at least a marked-on-the-lens starting point to correct from to get to appropriate numbers for your 16 x 20 enlargements or 4x5 contacts or whatever else it is you're doing that isn't a mediocre 8x10.
    Last edited by Roger Krueger; 07-21-2009 at 10:41 AM. Click to view previous post history. Reason: added last paragraph

  7. #27

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Krueger View Post
    Getting back to the more useful "equivalent image" case, it may just be f-stop and magnification, but for different fields of view you can only match the magnification at a single plane. So with, say, a 15 vs. a 500 (assuming same format), if you keep the subject plane magnification the same (by changing distance), the magnifications some distance ahead of or behind it will be different. For short DoF this is trivial, but stop down enough at non-macro distances and there will be a large difference in DoF.
    Field of view is a function of focal length, frame size and distance.
    If we assume we are dealing with one frame size only, frame size drops out of the equation as a constant, and field of view is a function of focal length and distance only.
    Focal length and distance combined are magnification.

    Now it is not true that DOF on film changes with field of view. When magnification and f-stop are constant, DOF will be too, no matter how large or small the frame.
    Frame size enters the equation when you want to compare different frame sizes.

    Let's keep the distance constant (for simplicity's sake). Then you need a shorter lens to fill a smaller frame the same way you fill a larger frame with a longer lens. That means magnification is smaller, DOF larger on the smaller format film.

    When you want to compare same size images, from the same viewing distance (or smaller images from a shorter viewing distance, such that the apparent size is the same), magnification will be the same again, and so will DOF (there are a few side effects that will change the apparent DOF, but i'll ignore those for now).

    Or (in short): the field of view is unimportant. Any difference you see when changing frame size is that in frame size.

    There will not (!) be a large difference in DOF at all.


    The thing that is correct is that unsharpness, the fore- and background blur, increases more rapidly when longer lenses are used. So there is a visible effect of focal length.
    But that is outside the DOF. DOF itself is still the same, as long as magnification and f-stop are the same.

  8. #28

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Krueger View Post
    And I really don't see the point in arguing over the standard DoF definition.
    Very true.
    The problem with the 'standard' definition we so often encounter in discussions of DOF however is that it is not that of DOF, but of hyperfocal distance.

  9. #29

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Shooter
    Med. Format RF
    Posts
    148
    Quote Originally Posted by Q.G. View Post
    Now it is not true that DOF on film changes with field of view. When magnification and f-stop are constant, DOF will be too, no matter how large or small the frame.
    Sorry, that's clearly incorrect for circumstances where the wider lens is even slightly near (or beyond) hyperfocal. Try it on dofmaster...at f22, 30mm @ 4ft. gives you 36.7 ft. of DoF vs. 300mm @ 40 ft. gives you 7.23 ft. of DoF. But at f2.8 it's only .91 ft. vs .89 ft.

    Again, it is just f-stop and magnification, but it's magnification at the point whose focus is being considered, NOT magnification at the plane of best focus. Since you can't keep all of the magnifications the same for different FsoV you get different DoF results.

  10. #30

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,682
    Quote Originally Posted by Roger Krueger View Post
    Again, it is just f-stop and magnification, but it's magnification at the point whose focus is being considered, NOT magnification at the plane of best focus. Since you can't keep all of the magnifications the same for different FsoV you get different DoF results.
    You really don't.

    But i'm so tired of DOF, that i can no longer find the will to explain for at least 6 months.
    My fault, i know. I shouldn't have let it tempt me today.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



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