Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 70,909   Posts: 1,556,179   Online: 1021
      
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Shooter
    Pinhole
    Posts
    1
    My non-mathematical understanding is that 'optimum' is that, because, if the hole is larger, then excess unfocused or incoherent light rays are allowed and begin to blur the image; and if the hole is smaller, diffraction begins to blur the image.

    So the optimum hole size is the least blurry point between those 2 causes of blurriness.

    Does that sound accurate to others?

  2. #12

    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    5,686
    It does.

  3. #13
    aaronmichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by glogan View Post
    My non-mathematical understanding is that 'optimum' is that, because, if the hole is larger, then excess unfocused or incoherent light rays are allowed and begin to blur the image; and if the hole is smaller, diffraction begins to blur the image.

    So the optimum hole size is the least blurry point between those 2 causes of blurriness.

    Does that sound accurate to others?
    I understand that there's a median point in between those two to get a good result. My question still stands and to why it has to change for different focal lengths. I have a pinhole that works wonderful on a home made pinhole camera that takes a 4x5 negative. Why couldn't I transfer this pinhole to another camera with a longer focal length. Sorry if someone already answered this in their response. Maybe it's just all going over my head and I should let it be what it is. There's a reason I'm an art major - hahah.

  4. #14
    Nick Kanellos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    21
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by aaronmichael View Post
    I have a pinhole that works wonderful on a home made pinhole camera that takes a 4x5 negative. Why couldn't I transfer this pinhole to another camera with a longer focal length.
    You can. So long as you don't mind slight increase in image fuzziness and a significant increase in exposure times.

    Two things make the image on a pinhole camera fuzzy: the size of the pinhole, and the effects of diffraction, the bending of light around an edge. But only the light that 'touches' the circumference of the pinhole will be diffracted. In both cases (i.e. short camera, long camera), the same amount of light is being diffracted (i.e. bent slightly outward radially). That bent light will spread out as it heads toward the film, increasing the overall fuzziness of the image. On a longer camera, it has a longer path in which it can spread out before it hits the film. So you may find that your images will be less sharp on the longer focal length camera, even with the same pinhole. And, you'll still have to pay the price of longer exposure times.

    So, you could make yourself a bigger pinhole and shorten your exposure times. True, you'll increase the fuzziness due to the size of the pinhole. But you'll decrease the fuzziness due to diffraction. However the net fuzziness will probably be higher.

    And if you really want to get technical, even in the bigger pinhole, the total amount of light being diffracted (i.e. bent or scattered) will increase, but the proportion will be less. And so it's relative contribution to image fuzziness will be less.

    Easy, eh?

  5. #15
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Ok, so a hole with radius R has diffraction along circumference 2(pi)R and aperture (pi)R^2.

    So doubling the radius doubles the circumference but has a two stop speed increase.

    What function describes the image's circle of confusion from the diffraction and the CoC from just the hole?

    This probably won't fit in a post, so references are good.

    MB
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  6. #16
    Nick Kanellos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    21
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post

    What function describes the image's circle of confusion from the diffraction and the CoC from just the hole?


    MB
    d=1.56√λf

    where
    d = the pinhole diameter
    λ = the wave length (about 0.000555mm)
    f = the focal length

    Taken from "Way Beyond Monochrome. 2nd ed." p. 155

  7. #17
    michaelbsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    South Carolina
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    2,106
    Images
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Kanellos
    Quote Originally Posted by michaelbsc View Post

    What function describes the image's circle of confusion from the diffraction and the CoC from just the hole?


    MB
    d=1.56√λf

    where
    d = the pinhole diameter
    λ = the wave length (about 0.000555mm)
    f = the focal length

    Taken from "Way Beyond Monochrome. 2nd ed." p. 155
    Is this the Formula for an optimum size?
    Michael Batchelor
    Industrial Informatics, Inc.
    www.industrialinformatics.com

    The camera catches light. The photographer catches life.

  8. #18
    aaronmichael's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Long Beach, CA
    Shooter
    Large Format
    Posts
    242
    Quote Originally Posted by Nick Kanellos View Post
    You can. So long as you don't mind slight increase in image fuzziness and a significant increase in exposure times.

    Two things make the image on a pinhole camera fuzzy: the size of the pinhole, and the effects of diffraction, the bending of light around an edge. But only the light that 'touches' the circumference of the pinhole will be diffracted. In both cases (i.e. short camera, long camera), the same amount of light is being diffracted (i.e. bent slightly outward radially). That bent light will spread out as it heads toward the film, increasing the overall fuzziness of the image. On a longer camera, it has a longer path in which it can spread out before it hits the film. So you may find that your images will be less sharp on the longer focal length camera, even with the same pinhole. And, you'll still have to pay the price of longer exposure times.

    So, you could make yourself a bigger pinhole and shorten your exposure times. True, you'll increase the fuzziness due to the size of the pinhole. But you'll decrease the fuzziness due to diffraction. However the net fuzziness will probably be higher.

    And if you really want to get technical, even in the bigger pinhole, the total amount of light being diffracted (i.e. bent or scattered) will increase, but the proportion will be less. And so it's relative contribution to image fuzziness will be less.

    Easy, eh?
    Thank you so much for the reply. I think that's the first reply I've gotten that has directly answered my question and explained it clearly - no offense to the other users, maybe I just wasn't clear enough in my original post.

  9. #19

    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Central OK
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    208
    Beyond focal length and the physical size of the pinhole, I can think of several more aspects that when considered in the pinhole's design will most likely increase the sharpness (reduce defraction) in the projected image.

    1. The shape of the pinhole.
    2. The thickness of the pinhole plate material (at the pinhole)
    3. The color of the pinhole plate material (at the pinhole)

    Would someone care to elaborate further?

  10. #20
    Nick Kanellos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    21
    Images
    18
    Quote Originally Posted by Cesaraugusta View Post
    Beyond focal length and the physical size of the pinhole, I can think of several more aspects that when considered in the pinhole's design will most likely increase the sharpness (reduce defraction) in the projected image.

    1. The shape of the pinhole.
    2. The thickness of the pinhole plate material (at the pinhole)
    3. The color of the pinhole plate material (at the pinhole)

    Would someone care to elaborate further?
    Let me take a stab:

    1) The shape of the pinhole. I suppose you could say that the amount of light diffracted is proportional to the perimeter of the pinhole. The smallest perimeter for any given area (e.g. the area of the pinhole itself) is a perfect circle. Anything else adds more 'edge' around which more light can be diffracted. Which results in reducing sharpness. How'd I do?

    2) Thickness of the plate material. Let's see. Hmmm.... Imagine light coming into the pinhole at any angle from the axis. Some of that light will "touch" the front edge of the pinhole. Resulting in some diffraction. Some of the light will then "touch" the rear edge of the pinhole. More diffraction. Any thickness greater than zero effectively results in "two" pinholes: one at the front surface of the plate and one at the rear surface. Effectively doubling the diffraction causing edge. Also a thicker plate effectively reduces the pinhole aperture for any light not coming straight from the front.

    To remedy this, once you've drilled your pinhole, take a counter sinking drill bit and create a conical shaped hole over your pinhole. If you get it just right, it will result in a near knife edge perimeter for your pinhole. It might make it a bit delicate but no more so than a glass lens.

    3) Colour. Not a clue.

Page 2 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