Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: DOF arguments, philosophy, and food fights  (Read 2668 times)
Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« on: March 10, 2005, 12:40:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Some extensive discussions of this can be found in these threads:
Thread 1
Thread 2

As a practical demonstration of the practical validity of my DOF Calculator Spreadsheet, (which is based on the idea of using the sensor pixel pitch as the CoC value) I invite the skeptics (especially Howard Smith) to try this test:

Download and print this 6MB Horse Portrait JPEG in a variety of sizes, like from 4x6 up to 24x36 inches. Compare the prints to this 800 pixel web JPEG:



Compare various areas of the print to see which are more sharply focused, like the hair between the eye and mouth vs the mane or the neck hair. How wide (near to far) would you say the most sharply-focused area is in each print size? How much does this differ from print to print? How does the web JPEG compare to the prints?
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #1 on: March 10, 2005, 01:24:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Quote
I get my thread hijacked with technological arguments
Heh, heh, count your blessings. Some of the hijackings related to DOF result in far worse than mere technological arguments and you may learn that some folks would take offense at the notion of "YOUR thread". Any thread is fair game to dump any kind of sh*t into that happens to be on somebody's mind, whether it's relevant, interesting, useful, welcome, tactful, or intellegent or not. Fortunately, many threads are nevertheless very productive here. 'Nuff said.
You'll find examples of all of that in thread #1 posted above, if you have the patience to read all 19 pages of it...

And thanks for the vote of confidence, Didger.
Logged

DiaAzul
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 777



WWW
« Reply #2 on: March 10, 2005, 06:59:06 PM »
ReplyReply

In fact the first post in response to the original question in the first thread on this subject gave a perfectly acceptable and reasonable answer, which was accepted by the original poster as answering the question.

With all the best will in the world the Sony F828 is not going to give the same control over depth of field as can be obtained with a FF SLR with a large apeture lense (or even a large format camera with large apeture lense to be even more extreme). The only way to get the effect is to either buy a new camera, or fudge the results in photoshop.
Logged

David Plummer    http://photo.tanzo.org/
didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #3 on: March 10, 2005, 08:47:18 PM »
ReplyReply

Might be a good idea for Michael to glean the actually rational and relevant portions (20%?) of that monster thread and turn it into a comprehensive DOF article. Then any future inquiries could just be directed to the article.

In any case, even if more DOF wars break out, I'll get off the tracks and make way for others to participate in the "fun". Jonathan seems to have a much better asbestos suit than I do and he's also a bit more patient with the intellectually challenged, so he can have my share of the fun, unless it actually turns into a food fight; that really does sound like fun.
Logged
dwdallam
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2044



WWW
« Reply #4 on: March 09, 2005, 10:50:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Seems like each time I post some simple question regarding DOF, I get my thread hijacked with technological arguments. Thus, here is a forums where DOF can be parsed into infinity. Get out your slide rules and Cray modeling computers, and have at it!
Logged

didger
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2030



« Reply #5 on: March 10, 2005, 01:12:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I get my thread hijacked with technological arguments
Heh, heh, count your blessings.  Some of the hijackings related to DOF result in far worse than mere technological arguments and you may learn that some folks would take offense at the notion of "YOUR thread".  Any thread is fair game to dump any kind of sh*t into that happens to be on somebody's mind, whether it's relevant, interesting, useful, welcome, tactful, or intellegent or not.  Fortunately, many threads are nevertheless very productive here.  'Nuff said.

Well, almost 'nuff.  The one bit of advice I dare offer in spite of my burn scars is that you can pretty safely heed anything that Jonathan tells you.  He actually takes pictures that he actually lets us see and he actually makes his living with photography and he actually knows what he's talking about and his advice will actually have some practical relevance.  Honest.  I even suspect that Jonathan has a 3 digit IQ.  Now really 'nuff said.   Cheesy
Logged
Jack Flesher
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2595



WWW
« Reply #6 on: March 10, 2005, 06:18:34 PM »
ReplyReply

OMG... Not again... Makes one wonder if this is a "troll" post to generate more heated arguments Huh

Fortunately (UNfortunately?) the first link Jonathan gave -- the CoC thread from He!! -- does pretty much cover all bases on this subject...
Logged

Jonathan Wienke
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5759



WWW
« Reply #7 on: March 10, 2005, 08:34:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Fortunately (UNfortunately?) the first link Jonathan gave -- the CoC thread from He!! -- does pretty much cover all bases on this subject...
That's why I posted the link--because it does cover everything you could ever want to know about DOF/CoC and probably a lot you don't. But it beats reinventing the wheel.
Logged

Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad