How do I remove Bokeh???!!

Buckster · Jan 1, 2013

BrianV said:
He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.

Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.

Yeah, don't answer his ACTUAL question, because he didn't word it correctly. Why, the NERVE of that guy, using the term "bokeh" when, per the rest of his post, he clearly meant "DOF"! Some people!

Good thing you ignored that! You wouldn't want to actually be helpful, even accidentally. Better to make an obscure point that doesn't even matter. :thumbup::er:

Bitter Jeweler · Jan 1, 2013

j-digg said:
iHateBokeh said:

I can't find any info online on how to REMOVE bokeh. Everyone seems to love it and all the results are about how to increase the blurry background effect, but I wish to eliminate it. I hate to have to keep refocusing and would like to have the whole shot in focus. So my question is , how do I film close objects (ie, things 1-2 ft away) and have the whole thing be in focus? It seems that bokeh is even more apparent with closeups (ie, video of skyline has no bokeh etc for obvious math reasons), so how does one record video of close up objects and have the whole scene in focus? I'm trying to record skits using toys (ie, gi. Joes, roomboxes, etc). I have a t3i and a 50mm 1.4 lens. I hate bokeh.

Click to expand...

Go out and purchase an expensive tilt-shift lens and learn how to use it, that will solve your problem.

amolitor · Jan 1, 2013

BrianV said:
He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.

Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.

Diffractive imaging produces bokeh as well, if you want to get all fancy. They just all render as Airy discs, I think.

unpopular · Jan 1, 2013

Bokeh is a stupid concept. The japanese word simply means "blur" and is used to describe senility. It's misappropriation adds a sense of mystery or romance. There really isn't anything precise about the idea of "bokeh", and nothing technically new that hasn't been defined before it's introduction in the 1990s.

I personally think we'd be better off just doing away with "bokeh" as if it's something magical like unicorns. It's just the airy disk with a fancy wapanese name to add a certain mystique to it - it's just an attempt by some magazine writer to make something out of nothing, like he's invented a concept already discovered in the 1880's.

unpopular · Jan 1, 2013

amolitor said:
BrianV said:

He wants to eliminate Bokeh. It does not matter what the DOF will be, Bokeh will still be there. The Circles of Confusion will be smaller, but still there. You could eliminate the frequency of the Bokeh that he finds objectionable. Or better yet, he should eliminate Bokeh completely by getting rid of the refractive optics that produce it.

Basically, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer department.

Click to expand...

Diffractive imaging produces bokeh as well, if you want to get all fancy. They just all render as Airy discs, I think.

An airy disc pattern is all that bokeh is!

amolitor · Jan 1, 2013

I dunno, it's definitely a something. There truly is a character to the out of focus crud in a photograph, and we haven't got a word for that crud. We could call it 'the character of the out of focus crud' but that seems unwieldy. I admit that anyone using the word "bokeh" automatically loses like 500 coolness points with me instantly, but I'm still stumped by what the heck to call it if not "bokeh".

unpopular · Jan 1, 2013

"Airy Disc Pattern" just doesn't have the same romantic quality, but that's really all it is.

amolitor · Jan 1, 2013

Wouldn't "Airy Disc Pattern" be the same for all lenses, though? It sounds like something that it purely aperture dependent.

unpopular · Jan 1, 2013

If the lens were ideal and the aperture perfectly round, then yes. In practice spherical aberration and aperture shape, and I'm sure a whole host of other things influence the actual pattern ...

but now that I am reading it, traditionally the airy disk pattern applies to the smallest possible CoC, not the "bokeh".

Still, though, it's pretty much the same, only measured at a different focus point. Astronomers just weren't so interested in OOF areas as we are.

BTW - good bokeh is circular saw shaped!

Actually this lens does do "bokeh" well, just not with pin light sources, which seems to be the subject most people are interested in with bokeh because it's the easiest to see and interpret.