frankencamera...

Noons wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:30 PM:
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:

Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most important
aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know that.


Stop being such an ignorant fool, Alan:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/201202...thOfField.html

"At a given image size and viewing distance, finer pixel pitch really doesn't
change depth of field"

"As Glenn correctly points out, depth of field is purely an optical property
which is fixed by optical laws, and thus bears no relation which sensor or film
is recording the image"

Alan, your ignorance will just keep getting exposed every single time.
Better shut up now...

Noons writes:

Noons wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:30 PM:
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:

Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most important
aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know that.


Stop being such an ignorant fool, Alan:

http://diglloyd.com/blog/2012/201202...thOfField.html

"At a given image size and viewing distance, finer pixel pitch really
doesn't change depth of field"

Yep, that's true.

"As Glenn correctly points out, depth of field is purely an optical
property which is fixed by optical laws, and thus bears no relation
which sensor or film is recording the image"

That's sort-of true. If you're planning to take a picture with one of
two cameras with different sensor (or film) sizes, and you're planning a
print of a particular size -- the degree of enlargement will be larger
from the camera with the smaller sensor (or film). And degree of
enlargemend *does* affect DOF.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-04-25 15:01 , Ryan McGinnis wrote:
"HURRRR DURRRR, I'M AN ASS TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS! GIVE ME
ATTENTION! HURRR DURRRR!"

Makes me pine for the old days of Usenet, when trolls were interesting
and talented.

I pine for day that people remember to ignore them.

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

Ryan McGinnis wrote,on my timestamp of 26/04/2012 5:01 AM:

"HURRRR DURRRR, I'M AN ASS TO PEOPLE ON THE INTERNETS! GIVE ME ATTENTION! HURRR
DURRRR!"

OK, take the bone. Now, go choke on it somewhere else, OK?

Makes me pine for the old days of Usenet, when trolls were interesting and
talented.

Me too. Unfortunately, uninformned idiots like you are the norm nowadays.
Hence why the Usenet is dying.

Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 26/04/2012 9:59 AM:


I pine for day that people remember to ignore them.

And remarkably, what you pine for has never succeeded.
Must suck to be so ignored, eh?

Dearest Noons...
Dear Alan Browne...

And Anyone else interested in this fascinating subject... Depth of
field. DOF for short. The first and most critical subject for Portrait
specialists to comprehend and understand. Well maybe understanding light
and shade might be so I'll call it equal to light and shade...

All of you are entirely correct and completely wrong at the same time,
depending on the application of the subject. Precision in wording is
missing from all your posts. Specific detail lost in your rush to best
your opponent. What a shame and complete waste of effort. Still I guess
if you no longer have a darkroom to while away your idle hours...

As a general rule, small sensors WILL produce a greater depth of field
than larger ones IF the picture is the same compositional size. A quick
and dirty example is comparing an iPhone to my pride and joy- a Phase
One (actually an updated Mamiya 645AFDII). The same photo at the same
screen composition size will have a seriously deep DOF on the iPhone but
barely hold focus for a few inches with the P1 at the same aperture and
compositional size. --Take note I said nothing about the lens focal length.

The reason for this DOF conundrum is in the focal length of a lens
needed to achieve the same compositional size wrongly referred to by the
gorgeous Alan Browne as "Enlargement Ratio"... An entirely different
subject.

85mm (I call this the useless size once supplied as a standard lens I.E.
equal to 50mm with 35mm frame size) on my P1 it is a "standard" lens but
I only ever use it for shooting art prior to making LE prints.

The iPhone "Standard" lens has a 3.9 mm focal length although you can
digitally zoom it to about 12mm FL if you feel adventurous. And here
lies the conundrum ladies... Forget all about the size of the
composition, it's the focal length and aperture of a lens that dictates
how much or how little DOF a camera will have.

TO see why you are all right and wrong at the same time, look up some
DOF specs of various focal length lenses. There is a canyon of distance
between what will stay in focus with a 4mm focal length lens and an 85mm
FL lens. In fact many phone cameras use such a wide angle lens,
everything past 3 feet is in focus all the time.

What you have as a DOF with a "full frame" DSLR using a 50mm lens at
f2.8 (almost nothing useful for sharpness) will be measured in feet,
even meters with a 4mm lens at the same aperture.

But when you start swapping and assuming, picking up and interposing
snips of relevant and irrelevant information you've picked up as you
surf through the plethora of bull**** written on the subject... You'll
all be right and wrong at the same time and as this thread demonstrates
so eloquently, end up not knowing when to apply what piece of
information about what subject. all you've done is try (but fail
miserably) to demonstrate that bull**** beats brains. Well it might in
newsgroups but not when your income depends of the brains.

TO Noons... Pull you head in Sweetheart. Be specific if you intend to
use this sort of information in an argument or to start one. That way
you'll be right from the start and not have to learn as your combatants
make similar mistakes.

TO Alan Browne... When you get cold, go inside and light a fire, don't
try to start one here with flaming people. Your cut and paste knowledge
starts to show up. So until you are prepared to do what you so often
expect others to do... Be specific... Shut up!

Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field. It's all about
focal length and aperture. Nothing more or less. Trying to display your
technical ineptitude by posting stuff you once read and (wrongly)
thought was correct only shows up your true self... Someone who thinks
photographing snow flakes in a winter storm with Ektachrome E100G is
artistic creativity.

Chloe
--
© This manuscript is copyright material.
A license is granted for newsgroup reading, electronic storage as part
of a greater newsgroup, copying and sending electronically to individual
people. No license is granted for printing, use in publications
including web sites, newsletters, electronic books, sending to more than
one addressee at a time or educational application of any type without
written permission from the copyright owner and original creator.
chloe(underline


On 21/04/2012 6:30 PM, Noons wrote:
Alan Browne wrote,on my timestamp of 21/04/2012 6:06 AM:

Yep. Enlargement ratio (negative size to print) is actually the most
important
aspect of DOF presentation. I'm surprised that Noonsie doesdn't know
that.

And what'that got to do with size of sensor, moron?
DOF doesn't change ONE bit with size of sensor.
And you know that perfectly well.


f/0.7 Zeiss designs for NASA (Apollo program) and then further
modified. It's
not clear to me if Kubric borrowed/rented/bought/stole the lenses from
NASA or
if they were new lenses made for him.

And of course those were frankemcameras with large sensors?
In fact, I'm quite sure that sensor size is defined in "fn.n" units.
And that "negative size to print" had a lot to do with it, of course...

Chloe writes:

Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field. It's all about
focal length and aperture.

Focal length, aperture, focal distance, and circle of confusion, surely?
All of those enter into the real formulas.

And the choice of suitable circle of confusion is conventionally based
on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
amounting to "enlargement ratio".
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On 2012-04-27 14:02 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
amounting to "enlargement ratio".

Doh! You're supposed to let "her" ramble some more and really dig
"her"self into the ground first!


--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

On 2012-04-27 10:08 , Chloe wrote:

TO Alan Browne... When you get cold, go inside and light a fire, don't
try to start one here with flaming people. Your cut and paste knowledge
starts to show up. So until you are prepared to do what you so often
expect others to do... Be specific... Shut up!

Grow up. You're a mental midget with delusions of adequacy.

Enlargement ratio has SFA to do with depth of field.

Besides the commonly understood (photography 101) relationship of FL,
aperture and distance to subject, enlargement ratio is the most
important aspect of DOF perception. If you actually spent time printing
at various sizes and examining the result this would be obvious. Even
to you!

Now, let's see some of your great iphone videos that are better than the
one Bret posted. Really - put up or evaporate Douglas, er, "Chloe".

--
"I was gratified to be able to answer promptly, and I did.
I said I didn't know."
-Samuel Clemens.

Alan Browne writes:

On 2012-04-27 14:02 , David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

on film size and intended degree of enlargement; those last two
amounting to "enlargement ratio".

Doh! You're supposed to let "her" ramble some more and really dig
"her"self into the ground first!

Oops, sorry! Had no intention of interfering with the roasting!
--
David Dyer-Bennet, ; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info