Depth of Field (Bokeh) lesson

[greybeard]

And the mass of the ass is relative to angle of the dangle assuming the heat of the meat remains constant. In other words, explain this in words the common man can understand.

 

[Braineack]

Weird...intuitively it should not change.
Just imagine a lens and the image.
Only thing that changes is the sensor size...why should the DOF change?

because the f/5.6 aperture is much smaller physically on the micro sensor.

 

[chuasam]

Weird...intuitively it should not change.
Just imagine a lens and the image.
Only thing that changes is the sensor size...why should the DOF change?

because the f/5.6 aperture is much smaller physically on the micro sensor.

No, the f/5.6 refers to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture

 

[Braineack]

No, the f/5.6 refers to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture

whoops, this is what happens when i post before coffee.

This is a weird scenario because the images resulting would be very different from each other. But the difference in DOF has everything to do with the smaller sensor (COC) size.

 

[pixmedic]

No, the f/5.6 refers to the ratio of the focal length to the diameter of the aperture

whoops, this is what happens when i post before coffee.

This is a weird scenario because the images resulting would be very different from each other. But the difference in DOF has everything to do with the smaller sensor (COC) size.

oh lord...
here we go, talking about COC size again...

 

[Braineack]

well, it's true.

if you have a small, blurred circle of light on a smaller sensor, it gets magnified greater when viewed in comparison to the same circle of light on a larger sensor.

Think about it the same way longer lenses blur the background more, because you're magnifying the OOF areas into mushy poo.


I think this video does the best job I've ever seen of explaining the "all-things-being-equal" dof question:



start watching at 6:00.

 

[astroNikon]

because you're magnifying the OOF areas into mushy poo.

I couldn't find the term "mushy poo" in any of my Hedgecoe books.

 

[Braineack]

clearly it's on page 290:

 

[Ysarex]

well, it's true.

if you have a small, blurred circle of light on a smaller sensor, it gets magnified greater when viewed in comparison to the same circle of light on a larger sensor.

Think about it the same way longer lenses blur the background more, because you're magnifying the OOF areas into mushy poo.


I think this video does the best job I've ever seen of explaining the "all-things-being-equal" dof question:



start watching at 6:00.

Oh Noooooooooooo!!! He got the DOF part right but he misused the term Bokeh! Quick!! Someone get robbins!!

Joe

 

[robbins.photo]

well, it's true.

if you have a small, blurred circle of light on a smaller sensor, it gets magnified greater when viewed in comparison to the same circle of light on a larger sensor.

Think about it the same way longer lenses blur the background more, because you're magnifying the OOF areas into mushy poo.


I think this video does the best job I've ever seen of explaining the "all-things-being-equal" dof question:



start watching at 6:00.

Oh Noooooooooooo!!! He got the DOF part right but he misused the term Bokeh! Quick!! Someone get robbins!!

Joe

Sorry professor, you folks can continue to one up each other without my help. Please, continue to beat this incredibly dead horse for another 13 pages with your minute corrections.

If I feel the need, and trust me I won't, I can always refer back to any of the multiple threads in which you folks have had pretty much this exact same conversation dozens of times before. Nobody learned anything then, and nobody is learning anything now.

So please, by all means, continue to stroke your own egos. Me, I'm actually just going to go out and shoot some pictures.

 

[Ysarex]

If I feel the need, and trust me I won't, I can always refer back to any of the multiple threads in which you folks have had pretty much this exact same conversation dozens of times before.

It does come up from time to time. Photography is overrun with amateurs passing around bad info.

Nobody learned anything then, and nobody is learning anything now.

Now there you're wrong:

And I'm happy if just one person learned something in spite of your efforts to derail that.

Joe

 

[robbins.photo]

And I'm happy if just one person learned something in spite of your efforts to derail that.

Joe

Oh yes professor, it's my mission in life to prevent the new photographer from learning anything at all. That's why I regularly post.. well, stuff that actually helps as opposed to long winded, esoteric discussions of theory with no practical use.

Hey, my bad. But then again I stepped away from all this - your the one trying so desperately to draw me back in.

Sorry, not interested. Please feel free to continue your worthless ego stroking nonsense without me.

 

[pixmedic]

Did someone mention COC and stroking?

I'm going back to auto mode.

 

[astroNikon]

Did someone mention COC and stroking?

I'm going back to auto mode.

That's the only way to get the Picture right, first time. AUTO mode in all situations.

 

[fmw]

Looks like circle of confusion to me.