XPan and depth of field
A lens of a given focal length will provide more depth of field at a given aperture when used for a larger format of film than it will for a smaller one. I.e., a 45mm lens at f11 can display more depth of field on a 6x7 camera than it will on a 35mm camera, if properly focused.
My question is how this could be applied to the use of an XPan. The depth of field scale on the 45mm lens for this camera seems appropriate for the 35mm format. But when using the camera in the panoramic format, won't there be more apparent depth of field? Say I focus at the hyperfocal distance and take a picture with the camera set for the 35mm, then switch to panoramic and take the same picture. Won't the nearest point of the depth of field move closer to the camera? Can this be accounted for in any way in real use of the camera?
Or am I entirely missing something here?
Depth of field for a given focal length doesn't change with film format. It may be less apparent in a larger negative, but the circle of confusion is the same.
I would consider it equal or very similar to a format which shares the dimension of the longest side.
e.g. a 6x6 or 6x7 format will be similar to the 24 x 65 format.
The depth of field with the Xpan will be the same When exposing a 24 x 36 frame or the 24 x 65 frame. It will only change if you enlarge the 35mm frame more than the wide frame.
Depth of field does not change with post-exposure enlargement.
Depth of field as a calculated value most certainly does depend on the film format and is not unrelated to enlargement factor. The size of the actual circle of confusion may be the same on film, the the size of the acceptable circle of confusion, which is necessary to stipulate for the purpose of calculating a DOF table or scale, is usually given relative to format (making certain assumptions about the resolving power of the human eye, normal print sizes and viewing distances), though for any given purpose requiring greater or less enlargement, one might decide to use a larger or smaller value for acceptable CoC, or without going to the trouble of calculating it, you might decide to look at the DOF scale and stop down one or two stops from the recommended f:stop, if you think the recommendation doesn't give you a sharp enough image for your taste or your planned print size.
Interesting, since you can switch mid-roll from 24x36 to 24x65...the depth of field can't change from shot-to-shot.
"Depth of field [...] not unrelated to enlargement factor."
So unless 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.
The DOF can certainly change from shot to shot if the format changes. I can change format easily on a large format camera while keeping everything else the same, and the DOF changes by definition when the format changes, because DOF is defined in relation to the print (making certain assumptions about typical print sizes, etc., as described above), not the image on film. If the format is larger, then the acceptable circle of confusion--the diameter of a blur circle that can be resolved as a sharp point on a typical print at a typical viewing distance by a typical human eye--is larger, and DOF values cannot be calculated without plugging in a value for acceptable circle of confusion.
David is right, my wording is wrong.
Originally Posted by Steve Smith
Depth of field is defined by acceptable sharpness and by circle of confusion.
Enlarging a frame of 24x65 to a width of 12" may look accepatable. If you then enlarge a frame of 24x36 to a width of 12", which is almost twice as much enlargement, the sharpness may no longer be acceptable.