September 19, 2014, 06:09:57 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - ecka

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 43
226
DOF is subjective?  Hmm.  If my DOF is 8 feet in a photo, that is, 8 real-life feet out in the field, how in the world does that ever change after I take the photo??  8 feet is 8 feet isn't it? 

Actually, I wouldn't even need to take the photo.  The DOF is still 8 feet.  :)

Are you suggesting that by being subjective, it could be 8 feet, or 6 feet, or 10 feet, or 7.23838383 feet?  How silly.

It seems you think that based on your equipment, there's a 'slice' of the photo that's in perfect focus, say 3.8 feet in front of where you focused, and 4.2 feet behind it, then WHAM like magic at 4.3 feet behind the focal plane, everything gets blurry.  That's not how it works.

Light from the plane of focus (which is best approximated by a plane in the geometric sense - 2D and infinitely thin) is focused on the image sensor (we're ignoring field curvature, of course).  Everything outside that plane, even a few millimeters, is blurry...and the further from the focal plane, the blurrier it gets. That's optical physics.  Whether it looks blurry to you depends on viewing size and distance and your visual acuity.

Tell me - how do you know your hypothetical shot has that 'real' 8 foot DoF?  Did you use a DoF calculator?  That calculator determines the 8 foot DoF based on an assumed specific print size and viewing distance (commonly 8x10" viewed at 1 foot).  Change those assumptions, you change the calculated DoF.

So here we go. Once that optical physics hits the sensor it's no longer optical, it's information. The sensor cannot capture the infinitely thin plane of focus made of sharp points. Instead, it captures everything between the two distances where "a circle" has the size of a pixel or smaller, so everything in that range is same sharp, because there can't be anything sharper than a pixel. At that level, enlarging the image isn't going to decrease the DoF, only soften it, because there is no hidden information.
How do we call THAT THING? The sharpest area between the two distances where "a circle" meets the pixel?

227
... I thought that DoF is the thickness of the sharp focus plane your camera can capture (how is it called then?)...
... the thickness in reality, not in the picture.

...There is no such thing as an 'objective' DoF...

Do we need a new definition here? Because I'm pretty sure that OP was asking about THAT THING, not the CoC.

The plane of focus has no depth. Imagine it as a sheet of the thinnest paper, only much thinner. Everything in front of, and behind, that sheet of paper is less sharp than whatever is on the sheet of paper. Because of limitations to our eyesight something very close to the paper might look in focus, but it isn't, at some point as you move towards the paper things become more obviously out of focus, you have now surpassed your DoF/CoC criteria, but, step back and you again can't see the differences because your eyesight can't resolve it.

I agree that the focus plane of an optical image projection is thinner than it looks like. That's what the CoC thing is all about. However, the sensor resolution is limited and it has it's smallest possible dot size which is a pixel and which is a constant for a given camera.

Maintain a reproduction size and viewing distance ratio such that the CoC (point at which you can't see the difference between a point and a circle) and you can go as big, or as small, as you'd like.

No, you cannot do that. It could only apply to a camera with an infinite number of pixels. If a pixel is too big, then it becomes a square. If it's too small, then it disappears.
In all my statements I assumed that both FF and APSC sensors had the same pixel pitch. Otherwise, even the same format cameras (same sensor size) with different megapixel numbers (like 12 vs 36) should have different DoF/CoC characteristics.

228
... I thought that DoF is the thickness of the sharp focus plane your camera can capture (how is it called then?)...
... the thickness in reality, not in the picture.

...There is no such thing as an 'objective' DoF...

Do we need a new definition here? Because I'm pretty sure that OP was asking about THAT THING, not the CoC.

229
Also here, http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/ for a very detailed insight into sensor sizes and their interaction with focal length, dof, aperture and iso. Yes, even iso has a crop factor!
Privatebydesign, thanks for the great link. Lots of fun explanations in there. However, I'm still not sure how print size and viewing distance affect DOF. Is there another explanation somewhere, or maybe some examples?

Btw, I've tried just resizing some of my photos on my monitor and seeing if they seem to have more/less DOF and can't really tell a difference...maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Here is an example. I took this image for an artists show, it was printed to 46"x31". As a 700px web image most would agree the zip picture left, by her right cheek, is within acceptable focus, at f7.1 with a 100mm lens it is well within a dof calculators range. The second image is what that zip looks like when I printed it at 46" and viewed from the same distance. Clearly it is not now in acceptable focus. The only thing that has changed is the subject magnification. We have increased the CoC to such an extent that it no longer holds true, we can clearly differentiate between a point and a circle. To bring it back into acceptable focus we all we need to do is increase our viewing distance, step back from your monitor, across a room, and the zip will become sharp again.

Cool isn't it?  :)

This is only an illusion of sharpness. The truth is what really matters (the information). Looking at the print from far away only proves that human vision is very limited. At close-up you can see all the information captured by your camera, both sharp and blurry parts. So, sharpness = information. Then from the distance you see much much less information despite that it looks sharper. This kind of sharpness ≠ information. This trick is about the CoC of your eyes, DoF has nothing to do with it.

230
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 01:14:05 PM »
Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.

He used the same lens for both cameras.  I sort of think he would have mentioned putting on a cheap UV filter for the 6D shots and taking it off for the EOS M shots, don't you?  ;)

Yes, I thought the same thing. However, nobody here did mention this possibility, so I did :).

231
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 12:55:15 PM »
Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?

That's a good thought - maybe something dried and left a film (sorry) over the sensor?

That, or even damaging it.
Another possible reason - cheap UV filters.

232
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: EOS-M sharper than 6D?
« on: July 18, 2013, 12:40:56 PM »
Did you use something weird to clean your 6D sensor?

233
Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you.

If I may, can I suggest that this one sentence sums up some of the disagreement in this thread.   DoF is, in fact, a concept that is rooted in human visual perception.  DoF is defined as the distance in front of and behind the plane of focus that appears in focus to a human being.  The calculation requires assumptions regarding human visual acuity, print size, and viewing distance.

I believe, others can correct me if I'm wrong, it is also implicitly assumed that the print size and resolution is such that the individual pixels in the print are too small for the viewer to see them at the assumed print size and viewing distance.  If the pixels are visible then the entire image would not appear sharp.  That is why sensor resolution does not appear in the calculation.

So yes,  print size matters and yes, if you print small enough the entire image would "magically" appear sharp.  "Appear" is the operative word in that statement but it is relevant because "appears sharp" is fundamental to the concept of DoF.  If you also shrunk yourself down, your visual acuity would likely also change so in fact DoF would be the same.

And it is a concept.  It is a defined value based on some reasonable assumptions.  DoF is not something that exists independent of human vision and is not a strictly defined measurement like mass, distance, size, etc.

If you're looking for a physically defined parameter, it exists.  That is focus distance.  The distance from the image plane that is precisely in focus (in practical terms it would be maximally in focus because there is no perfect focus).  And there is only one distance that is maximally in focus... every plane in front of and behind the focus plane is less focused.  If human visual acuity was infinite and the resolution of a print was infinite you would be able to see the tiniest difference in sharpness.  But that's not the case, more than just the exact plane of focus appears sharp and we can define the depth in the image that appears sharp... i.e. Depth of Field.

I don't know. I disagree, that when I photograph a ruler which clearly shows that the DoF is, let's say, ~15mm, I must let the shrink size decide that the DoF is actually half a meter or that I was shooting at hyperfocal and I'm crazy :).
I thought that DoF is the thickness of the sharp focus plane your camera can capture (how is it called then?). Turns out I was wrong, it is what anyone wants it to be and if it can't be, then just get a better printer :D.
I say, if you have to shrink your images to make everything look sharp, then you are using the wrong camera format.
DoF area is sharp, but sharpness ≠ DoF

234
No. In reality there is nothing that is a 0. Zero is not a thing, zero is just a tool in mathematics.

You are wrong about DOF but I will let others argue about it. But as a mathematician, I strongly object the statement that zero is not a thing, and that there is noting at zero. How many 200-400 lenses do you own?

Quote
Every point has dimensions and it can be represented as an image of at least 1 pixel,

What if you are shooting film?

I don't use superteles.
Film has it's minimum dot size that can be captured.

235
I'm glad that you are enjoying the discussion. It wasn't my intent to offend anyone.
I didn't confirm the nonsense. Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you. If you can't see a bacteria, it doesn't mean that there are none. In case with a magic shrinking machine, the details are made smaller so you can still see them by shrinking yourself or maybe using a microscope. However, when you shrink the image on your screen or print a thumbnail, you are just losing the information. Just like for a half-blind person all your images can look same "sharp" or same "blurry". In fact, for him, sharp and blur looks the same. CoC is about perception. DoF is not, it is about information, same as photography. Once the light of an optical image hits the sensor, it is gone, all that's left is the information gathered by the electronics. If you shoot a picture that has nothing in focus, it doesn't matter to what resolution you downsize it, no new information will occur (except the false one). You can manipulate the image in any way you want, but in relativity to reality DoF won't change a bit. If photography is just a form of art for you and perception is the only thing that matters, then perhaps you are not even trying to understand what I'm talking about.

Well by your standard, in reality there is nothing really 'in focus'. The focus 'plane' is a hypothetical thing that has zero thickness. Also on the 'true' focus plane every light point has diameter of 0. Anything in front, or behind this zero thickness hypothetical plane is deemed out of focus because they have a CoC > absolute 0.

The sensor sees something in focus not because they are in focus, but simply because the CoC is smaller than sensor's pixel could distinguish. So what you say? That the image the sensor captures is the real world? It is not.

If above assumption is correct, then take an example, if I shoot a photo with a 320x240 pixel FF sensor, what is my DoF? Even my lens gives a blurry mess I would still get a 320x240 photo that is sharp at pixel level. Does this represent the 'reality'?

The thing is, reality is far weirder than you can ever imaging. We are in a photographic forum, so yes, photography is just a form of art for me and perception is the only thing that matters. I learn from my output photos and prints so I can control my equipment to get the result I want.

Then we leave the underlying physical, electricial or philosophical discussions for some one else or somewhere else.


No. In reality there is nothing that is a 0. Zero is not a thing, zero is just a tool in mathematics. Every point has dimensions and it can be represented as an image of at least 1 pixel. When you are viewing ~18mp image on a ~2mp screen, then 1 dot (color) on the screen represents a group of 9 pixels of the image. Sensor does not capture the real world. The projection of an optical image on the sensor is limited by all kinds of information manipulation by the lens (diffraction, aberrations, vignetting, coma, color tint, distortion, flares and CoC). If the 9 combined pixels carry enough information to represent 1 real world dot, then it will be sharp. If not, then it will be blur (or noise). At 1:1 (100%) it is similar, but with much more false color and noise. If you shrank the blur into oblivion and got some kind of real world information, then it only means that you've destroyed all the rest and the whole blurriness carried only this little.

The sensor and electronics "sees" nothing in focus, just color and contrast of the neighboring pixels.320x240 pixel FF sensor cannot mimic human vision. There are artificial eye implants that allow blind people to see the world in just a few hundred pixels and trust me, it's nothing like the real thing. It's a blurry mess and they can only see a letter or a digit in close-up.

236
Prepared to shrink yourself 100 times and tell me that I am mad, LOL! I'm laughing and crying at the same time! ;D :'( ;D :'(

Even you have confirm that shrinking picture increase DoF do have a real world implication, BUT

Shrink a picture 100 times? Yes! Shrink a human 100 times? OMGWTFBBQChickenWings!

In the end, isn't photography all about perception?  ::)

I'm glad that you are enjoying the discussion. It wasn't my intent to offend anyone.
I didn't confirm the nonsense. Shrinking the picture simply makes it's details imperceptible to you. If you can't see a bacteria, it doesn't mean that there are none. In case with a magic shrinking machine, the details are made smaller so you can still see them by shrinking yourself or maybe using a microscope. However, when you shrink the image on your screen or print a thumbnail, you are just losing the information. Just like for a half-blind person all your images can look same "sharp" or same "blurry". In fact, for him, sharp and blur looks the same. CoC is about perception. DoF is not, it is about information, same as photography. Once the light of an optical image hits the sensor, it is gone, all that's left is the information gathered by the electronics. If you shoot a picture that has nothing in focus, it doesn't matter to what resolution you downsize it, no new information will occur (except the false one). You can manipulate the image in any way you want, but in relativity to reality DoF won't change a bit. If photography is just a form of art for you and perception is the only thing that matters, then perhaps you are not even trying to understand what I'm talking about.

237
DoF does not rely solely on optics, so badgerpiper's  statement is false. DoF relies on apparent aperture (optics) and subject magnification (optics, reproduction size and viewing distance).

If you look at same sized prints, as common sense dictates you must, the crop camera capture is enlarged more, so the CoC is smaller, so the DoF is less.

Why doesn't everybody who is inclined to post read the links I have provided? It is all in there. Depending on how you make your comparison, and you have to clearly state the way you want to compare the captures, a smaller sensor can be shown to have more DoF than a ff camera, the same DoF, or as in this instance, less DoF than that ff camera.

You cannot separate DoF from subject magnification and viewing distance at the output size.

Finally, someone who knows what I was talking about! I am not crazy,hahaha!

When you enlarge a picture, CoC gets bigger, DoF gets shallower. Don't believe me? Take a mild shallow DoF photo and down scale it to thumbnail image, see, suddenly everything is in focus! Magical isn't it?  :P


Note when you crop a photo, you essentially zooming in and stopping down. On the other post we had a very detailed discussion about what this does to the background blur, in short, when you zoom in and stop down, close background blurs less, distant background blurs more, and life is complicated!

http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=15904.0

That's completely insane :D.
Imagine that you have a magical shrinking machine. You print the photo say 30x20, you shrink it 100 times and it looks super sharp to you. Now you shrink yourself 100 times too and see that the picture didn't change. The problem is that your printer and monitor do not have an infinite number of pixels to show you that, and even if they did, then your eyes wouldn't see it, because they would be too small. Different print sizes that include the destructive reduction of resolution dots isn't doing any magic, you are shrinking the image, but the dots stay the same size. CoC is about the perception, not about magical information transformation. There's no such thing as magic. I say - you're both mad.

238
Wow...this became a way bigger discussion than i intented it to be. :o

So if i got everything right it is like that:

Same focal length + same aperture + same distance to subject on different formats =  different FoV but with same same DoF. And that makes total sense to me because the lens projects the same image as before but on a smaller area to capture it.

And same focal length + same aperture + same object framing (which means bigger distance to subject on smaller formats) = bigger DoF on small formats because the focal distance is further away and smaller DoF on bigger formats because the focal distance is closer to MFD.

I hope my english is good enouh so everybody undertood what i meant...  :-[

Greetings from Germany,
Knut Skywalker

Yes, you've got it right.

No, that is not correct.

"Same focal length + same aperture + same distance to subject on different formats =  different FoV but with same same DoF."

That scenario, assuming you are comparing same sized reproductions (print or screen), results in less DoF from the crop camera because it is has a smaller CoC. Think of it like this, you have to enlarge the crop cameras image 2.5 times more (by area) than the ff one, bigger reproduction ratio = less dof. Don't forget any detail of the crop camera image is reproduced bigger than the same detail from the ff image on a same sized print (or screen).

IF, using your above scenario, you compared two prints from the different sensors where the details of the subject were the same size, so the crop camera print would be 40% the size of the ff print, then the dof would be identical.

You cannot remove reproduction size from the DoF calculation, DoF calculators assume a base standard, often an 8"x10" print viewed at 12", if you compare two same sized prints from different sized sensors then the smaller sensor has been enlarged more.

This is all covered and explained in my first reply, the second post, on page one. "If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same f-number, same focal length, and the final images are the same size, the smaller format has less DOF."

Quite correct. Canon itself uses a COC 0.035mm in DOF calculations for FF. On APS-C the image must be enlarged more to produce a 7x5 inch print, which means a smaller COC is needed and hence for APS-C, Canon uses a COC of 0.019mm in its calculations.

So, in your reality, if you print the same picture in two different sizes, the bigger one will have less DoF? :D
Good lord... I'm wasting my time here  ???
Same logic - there is a magical print size which makes your P&S images look like they were shot using a FF camera? :D

Yes that is the reality I live in, unbeknown to you it is also the reality you live in, ignorance is bliss, you are wasting everybody's time here.....

Reproduction size and viewing distances are fundamental to DoF calculations, you cannot work out DoF figures without knowing how big your print will be and the viewing distance, as I keep saying, DoF calculators often work to the standard of an 8"x10" print viewed at 12".

Read about CoC, you know that "technical mumbo-jumbo" "you can ignore", well it turns out you can't ignore it if you want to understand the answer to the OP's question.

The CoC is not about DoF. When there are 3 parts in the image - sharp (DoF), blur (OOF) and "not sure", the CoC is about the "not sure" part.

Don't try to bend the spoon, that's impossible, because there is no spoon.

239
Wow...this became a way bigger discussion than i intented it to be. :o

So if i got everything right it is like that:

Same focal length + same aperture + same distance to subject on different formats =  different FoV but with same same DoF. And that makes total sense to me because the lens projects the same image as before but on a smaller area to capture it.

And same focal length + same aperture + same object framing (which means bigger distance to subject on smaller formats) = bigger DoF on small formats because the focal distance is further away and smaller DoF on bigger formats because the focal distance is closer to MFD.

I hope my english is good enouh so everybody undertood what i meant...  :-[

Greetings from Germany,
Knut Skywalker

Yes, you've got it right.

No, that is not correct.

"Same focal length + same aperture + same distance to subject on different formats =  different FoV but with same same DoF."

That scenario, assuming you are comparing same sized reproductions (print or screen), results in less DoF from the crop camera because it is has a smaller CoC. Think of it like this, you have to enlarge the crop cameras image 2.5 times more (by area) than the ff one, bigger reproduction ratio = less dof. Don't forget any detail of the crop camera image is reproduced bigger than the same detail from the ff image on a same sized print (or screen).

IF, using your above scenario, you compared two prints from the different sensors where the details of the subject were the same size, so the crop camera print would be 40% the size of the ff print, then the dof would be identical.

You cannot remove reproduction size from the DoF calculation, DoF calculators assume a base standard, often an 8"x10" print viewed at 12", if you compare two same sized prints from different sized sensors then the smaller sensor has been enlarged more.

This is all covered and explained in my first reply, the second post, on page one. "If pictures are taken from the same distance using the same f-number, same focal length, and the final images are the same size, the smaller format has less DOF."

Quite correct. Canon itself uses a COC 0.035mm in DOF calculations for FF. On APS-C the image must be enlarged more to produce a 7x5 inch print, which means a smaller COC is needed and hence for APS-C, Canon uses a COC of 0.019mm in its calculations.

So, in your reality, if you print the same picture in two different sizes, the bigger one will have less DoF? :D
Good lord... I'm wasting my time here  ???
Same logic - there is a magical print size which makes your P&S images look like they were shot using a FF camera? :D ... and the next one is even better?

240
Wow...this became a way bigger discussion than i intented it to be. :o

So if i got everything right it is like that:

Same focal length + same aperture + same distance to subject on different formats =  different FoV but with same same DoF. And that makes total sense to me because the lens projects the same image as before but on a smaller area to capture it.

And same focal length + same aperture + same object framing (which means bigger distance to subject on smaller formats) = bigger DoF on small formats because the focal distance is further away and smaller DoF on bigger formats because the focal distance is closer to MFD.

I hope my english is good enouh so everybody undertood what i meant...  :-[

Greetings from Germany,
Knut Skywalker

Yes, you've got it right.

Pages: 1 ... 14 15 [16] 17 18 ... 43