What's the physics behind photography?

[Primoz]

Hey, no offence taken, buddy! =) Maybe the title really was a little misleading... I agree that when you explain something you should know at least twice as much background of what you're explaining...
But I personally believe, that fundamental laws of nature phenomena can be described in a very simple way if done properly.
You know that feeling, when you have two books about the same topic - and reading one makes you go like "WHAAAT?!" while reading the other one you prefectly understand everything... =P

I have decided not to do it anyway... I can see most photographers are much more knowlegable about optics than I thought... =)

 

[480sparky39 38]

The response for me isn't listed.

"I know some things about the topic, but I would watch it because I may learn something new."

 

[pgriz]

I'm a big fan of solving the right problem. So... What problem will you be solving with the physics of optics video? Obviously for those who have an idea of how optics work, you can give information that they will place in the correct context. But then there is the issue of "you don't know what you don't know" on the part of beginners, and they may have no idea of the reason that they are not getting good results is due to their not understanding basic optics. So they may be searching for "blurry photos" and not "chromatic aberration". Perhaps a more promising approach would be to take the top three technical causes of blurred and poor photos, and show how to correct those, bringing in the physics if necessary. And, I think there are already lots of videos covering these - some do better than others.

 

[apples]

i always hated optics so having someone explain it to me in terms that i will actually care to learn would be nice. (i wasnt into cameras when i took physics, but i still kida find optics boring when i look things up)

 

[analog.universe]

It would be cool if they went sufficiently in depth. It seems there are so many videos that all cover the same beginner topics, but there's not much about more complex subjects. I'm always interested in learning new physics, but, because of that I know a bunch already and beginner videos on this sort of thing end up not being interesting.

 

[F_Stopped]

Absolutely, I love watching videos on interesting subject matter, even when I already know about the subject. Always looking to see what I don't know and how I can improve. Looking forward to it.

 

[LRYoung]

Btw, for those of you wanting to know more about optics and lenses, check out this link
Everything About Camera Lenses | Pixiq

 

[Helen B]

Btw, for those of you wanting to know more about optics and lenses, check out this link
Everything About Camera Lenses | Pixiq

I didn't see anything about optics in that article, just repeated statements that you didn't need to know anything about optics because it was too difficult.

 

[analog.universe]

Btw, for those of you wanting to know more about optics and lenses, check out this link
Everything About Camera Lenses | Pixiq

I didn't see anything about optics in that article, just repeated statements that you didn't need to know anything about optics because it was too difficult.

Agreed, this is exactly the issue I was talking about. There is a lot of text on that page, and none of it gets beyond the beginner topics that pretty much every other article covers. You get a lot more info just wiki-ing "camera lens". I'd love to see an article that really gets into the physics (with or without the math).

 

[LRYoung]

What level of physics are you looking to get into? For example, do you want to know about circles of confusion - or is that too detailed?

 

[analog.universe]

What level of physics are you looking to get into? For example, do you want to know about circles of confusion - or is that too detailed?

Circle of confusion I think is something any photographer needs to understand on some level, so I wouldn't consider that particularly detailed.

I'm interested in the various types of aberrations that lens designs need to overcome, and how various approaches accomplish that. I'm interested in the factors that determine the characteristic of the bokeh and other subjective elements. I'm interested in how some lenses achieve better diffraction performance at small apertures than others. I'm interested in the math behind tilt-lenses... I've never seen a really fleshed out explanation of how the tilt of the lens and focus distance actually correlate to the effective tilt of the focus plane (wedge, whatever). I'd like a better understanding of the optical cause of coma and astigmatism. etc...

I'm of the opinion that if you've got a really solid grasp on an effective theory, then specific issues that arrive along the way all have straightforward explanations. Without the theory, certain lens behaviors would seem "unexpected". For instance, trying to explain aperture and DOF in a practical sense without circle of confusion is possible, but that explanation will be more lengthy and less complete than one than explains circle of confusion first.

 

[Helen B]

I'm interested in the math behind tilt-lenses... I've never seen a really fleshed out explanation of how the tilt of the lens and focus distance actually correlate to the effective tilt of the focus plane (wedge, whatever).

I could do that quite easily if you are interested. It will take longer to draw the diagrams than give the basic maths for the simple version of the explanation.

 

[analog.universe]

I'm interested in the math behind tilt-lenses... I've never seen a really fleshed out explanation of how the tilt of the lens and focus distance actually correlate to the effective tilt of the focus plane (wedge, whatever).

I could do that quite easily if you are interested. It will take longer to draw the diagrams than give the basic maths for the simple version of the explanation.

I have seen the diagrams, but not the math. If it's quite a simple explanation I would certainly appreciate it. Don't go out of your way drawing diagrams or anything though...

Thanks