Depth and the myth of the telecommunications sector
Newsmeldung von slashCAM: Dezember 2006
Depth and the myth of the fieldof tele-rob - 27 Dec 2006 11:53:00 Ok, here is the question: Same picture, same but Aperture Wide Angleund times a times a telephoto lens - changing the depth of the telephoto lens - yes or no? Who says yes, it should follow the link and who says no, there is perhaps still worth reading. In this sense ... in that the depth focus ... or is it?
Antwort von ruessel:
Well, that's not a myth but physics.
If a standard lens (50 mm focal) sharp to 5 m., then there is the focus point of a 4.9 m distant object approximately 49 mm behind the lens and also 1 mm in front of the film.
If a telephoto lens (200 mm focal) sharp to 5 m., then there is the focus point of a 4.9 m distant object approximately 196 mm behind the lens and also 4 mm in front of the film.
Antwort von domain:
That is correct RUSSELS, but you can not compare, because the light rays to have a telephoto lens of house in a much shallower angle to the camera occur. The depth was always an illusion and case definition, is really sharp so only when the object is mapped exactly to the film plane is focused. Everything brennpunktmäßig before or behind phsikalischen meaning is already blurred, but according to convention yet wearable sharp. Through the dim angle of the incoming light, however, so narrow that very abrasive and the intersection form is the "secret" of the larger depth of field with smaller apertures. The findings of Walter Graff are correct, however, does not change the slightest that in telephoto shots clear of the background appears blurred than wide shots.
LG domain
Antwort von tamil:
hmm,
I think it's not about the sharp points of weitwinkel and zoom to 5m - but it's really clear that as the focus point changes. it is about the same field of view - ie different distances to the object with the same extracts, the expected the crucial difference - and there is indeed a lot of myth in the game, because many people believe that the depth would be at different optics change - what However, it does not do.
lg
tamil
Antwort von beiti:
"tamil" wrote:
- And there is indeed a lot of myth in the game, because many people believe that the depth would be at different optics change - but not what they do.
It courses in some specialized books synonymous the sentence "The depth of field depends only on the magnification from" - which is synonymous, however, a myth, because it is approximated, but not always true. (See synonymous
Antwort von go4java:
The depth depends of following factors:
Aperture Focal Distance to object Blur circle
"domain" is right that only the sharp, what exactly on the film plane. However, it is not a "convention" to say that objects a little before or a little behind is synonymous sharp - that depends on the blur circle from. This is synonymous to the reason why people with HD a lower depth than in SD, the blur circle is in HD is smaller.
Chris
Antwort von JoeFX:
I thought it is called depth of focus and depth blur, when you're in the books ... a sharpened kuckt Depth or wa?;)
Antwort von beiti:
"JoeFX" wrote:
I thought it is called depth of focus and depth blur, when you're in the books ... a sharpened kuckt Depth or wa?;)
The word "depth" means (according to rules of German grammar) "Depth of Focus", ie the designated area or the depth in which something appears sharp. English says one way, "depth of field".
The word "depth" is in countless books, but it is - purely linguistic - strange. Sharpness in the Depth? In what depth?
Antwort von Axel:
[quote = "Anonymous" This is synonymous to the reason why people with HD a lower depth than in SD, the blur circle is in HD is smaller. [/ quote]
The blur circle for HD V is small, accurate, and therefore the depth of field is higher, even extremely high: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schärfentiefe
Antwort von go4java:
@ Axel
As you lying sadly wrong, for the same conditions for HD is the depth GERINGER! Is it logical that the blur circle for HD is smaller, because the pixels are smaller (with the same CCD size). Smaller pixels mean synonymous a smaller blur circle, so they are not as tolerant of not exactly in the image plane depicted Punke = blur.
When DV is mostly everything (more or less) sharp in HD can be much easier with the depth of play, and precisely for this reason.
Chris
Antwort von deepcode:
Depth of focus is primarily dependent of: - Aperture - Focal - Quotient object <-> Image Size the latter is the mathematical factor which ensures that the famous "35mm look" only with a corresponding large image area and not with small 1 / 3 inch sensors is achievable! It can be through strong telephoto settings synonymous with small sensors good depths (un-) schärfe reaching effects, BUT: The effect / to an image or a setting / scene is crucially influenced by Focal. A brief, shallow Dartellung (Tele) stands in stark contrast to a dynamic, perspective view (wide angle). Furthermore, it is hardly possible, with high Teleinstellungen staged work (such as inside a room). The lower limit for the staged deployment of DOF are 2 / 3 inch sensors, but only with extremely large apertures <1.4 (only possible with Primes, since zoom lenses usually only start in Aperture 2.8).
aDDy: the sensor Resolutiondes (HD, SD) and the film emulsion has absolutely no influence on the depth of field. Only the Total sharpness of the picture.
Time here watching:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schärfentiefe
purely mathematical terms, one could of course have 35mm - similar DOF to 1 / 3 inch sensors get to but you would need optics with apertures> 0.5!
Antwort von Bamboo:
@ deepcode
You're lying with the assertion that the district does not blur with the depth has to do, unfortunately, wrong. This is synonymous with link from your wikipedia shows! I want you just synonymous with my own words to explain why. The depth of focus is exactly these 4 factors:
- Blur circle u ' - Focal f - F-number k - Einstellentfernung a
The Hyperfokale calculated as follows: H = f ^ 2 / u '* k
As you can see is the blur circle of Hyperfokale u 'dependent. The smaller the Hyperfokale is, the greater the depth of field. So if u 'is small, then H is greater and the depth of small!
The assertion that the depth of field with smaller CCD 's bigger, of course quite correct, but this has with the focal to be done, which will inevitably be smaller. And since the focal square in the calculation of H, it receives the influence of the smaller u 're gone.
Take for example, take a 1 / 3 "CCD, once again HD and SD, otherwise we leave all other factors equal. So the only difference is the blur circle. It is obvious that the depth is lower in HD! Again, AT THE SAME TERMS, so do not compare apples with pears. The depth of focus with a 2 / 3 "Betacam SP (ie, SD) is of course less than a 1 / 3" SonyFX-1 (ie HDV).
Hope that explains it.
Chris
Antwort von Chris 101984:
Quote:
Chris wrote: ... the blur circle for HD is smaller, because the pixels are smaller (with the same CCD size). Smaller pixels mean synonymous a smaller blur circle ...
I have so far not with video or photography and am very haphazard pushed to this article.
What I can not quite understand why the depth should be less if the larger CCDs Resolutiondes (for the same CCD size, Optics etc.). If I use these recordings (eg, once in SD even in HD) on a chart display, each with the same distance to the display, I would have a visceral estimated that the depth is exactly the same and only a difference in the "general sharpening" consists .
So my question is, can someone a "not studying" explain how the blurring circle of the Resolutionabhängt?
Gruß, Christoph
Quote:
Antwort von Axel:
"101984 Chris" wrote:
So my question is, can someone a "not studying" explain how the blurring circle of the Resolutionabhängt?
I'm not so synonymous doll in physics or math I need is a practical model. You ask why, for the same size of the chip HDV a smaller blur circle than DV. Where but the only difference in the number of pixels is located, ie in the range Optics nothing changes.
I understand it - possibly incorrectly - as with the sensitivity of film emulsions comparable. Highly Film: Less Resolution (as daylight film) by coarser grain photo. In the same situation required a 21 ° DIN film full aperture less than a 18 ° DIN film. The larger the aperture is, the smaller the blur circle, the lower the depth of field.
It is changing so something s.der Optics: Because HDV at the same chip size is less sensitive to light, the next to Aperture.
Insofar as the theory. Please correct my rough comparisons.
In practice this means for a filmmaker HDV the same as for DV filmmakers: Aperture and on the medium to long focal lengths. Because of short focal and aperture 8 (the default situation) HDV is already in the fixed focus mode. Therefore, it is particularly important when Kadrierung on non-troubled backgrounds into account.
Conclusion: In terms of relative uncertainty for HDV apply the same rules as for DV.
Antwort von Axel:
"Axel" wrote:
Conclusion: In terms of relative uncertainty for HDV apply the same rules as for DV.
Edit: Here I have probably my assertion that the depth of HDV is higher than of DV, even disproved.
Antwort von Bamboo:
Chris @ 101984
I choose simple words to explain how the blurring circle of the Resolutionabhängt. The Optics is a point (approximate) sharp in the image plane, as synonymous sharp point. If this point is now bigger, so a circle is actually already blurred. If this circle depicted but smaller than the size of a pixel, it will be displayed sharp! The blur circle is the circle, which is just as sharp tolerated. So the blur circle depends directly of the size of a pixel s.and so obviously synonymous of the resolution (for the same CCD size).
A very interesting topic ...
Chris
Antwort von deepcode:
the thing with the blur circle is for the actual depth is not relevant, since it is only a phenomenon in the (sub-) pixel area. The depth of change is not synonymous when I take a 100 ASA 500 ASA a highly sensitive film used! (assuming of course I keep the same aperture and focal and compensate for the higher sensitivity with a corresponding ND - filter). Similarly, it is irrelevent whether my sensor Mpix 0.5 or 5 sets.
Again: Aperture, Focal, and a factor from the original - object size and image size (and thus image size) - only these factors determine the depth of field.
It may be that the blur circle has a certain influence on the "look" of the transition to sharp-focus image areas, as well as the Bokeh of the number of lamellar Aperture depends.
Antwort von deepcode:
've seen again after - You mean the scattering circle Z - the is a constant, which in turn is from the sensor size is calculated! Since this ratio is magnification or indirectly in it. Z is only dependent of the sensor size.
Antwort von Bamboo:
@ deepcode
Did you calculate the times and a comparison made? Certainly not!
Take the formula and calculate the depth (with identical values for HD and SD and change only the blur circle) and you'll see that the blur circle plays a role. What you need then no longer discuss. Maybe tonight I calculate times for an example closer to you.
If you would have would be all right literature both wrong, as my dissertation.
Z or u ', as it is called is no preference. Z is not solely dependent on the size of the CCD, the number of pixels as synonymous plays an important role. Look in my last post, it is logical, right? The formula for Wikipedia is because, unfortunately, not entirely correct and too general. Especially since the size of the CCD is not equal to the size of the photosensitive surface of a CCD is and is what we need to. The exact form, I now no longer be synonymous in my head, but they will raussuchen and notify me again later.
Chris
Antwort von Axel:
"Anonymous" wrote:
If this circle depicted but smaller than the size of a pixel, it will be displayed sharp! ...
A very interesting topic ...
Salut Chris.
If approved, would be the depth of HDV but probably not lower than DV, because between the double and triple amount of pixels (depending on model), on the same chip size distribution is unlikely to lead to larger-diameter sensor.
If I have corrected me earlier, the s.einem practical test carried out quickly, because I coincidentally a HDV and a DV cam in the house voted. Indeed, the depth at the same picture in the room (open aperture) in HDV low, on the terrace seems to have the reverse effect.
Although you probably result in partial searched, your reasoning is not quite logical to understand. At the same aperture would HDV three (1440) pixels simply place the same (more or less in the focus plane) to dissolve, for DV only when a pixel is responsible. What effects are still the pixel shift or anamorphic Interpretaion at the issue, I do not know. I would just focus on transitions with artifacts reckon - and I think they are synonymous, and in the form of Posterisation.
Antwort von Axel:
"Axel" wrote:
If approved, would be the depth of HDV but probably not lower than DV, because between the double and triple amount of pixels (depending on model), on the same chip size distribution is unlikely to lead to larger-diameter sensor.
Edit (really stupid that these contributions can not edit): But, of course it would. Sorry, this whole Umdenkerei ... Do right.
Antwort von yasu:
ahhh it's complicated:)
ich werd from the article does not really clever ... ... is the depth of field is now weaker in the zoom (tele-) area or not?
it really is a mytos ... one reads for years here and there, in the zoom range tiefenschärfe decreases ... it is said of such a really good people ... you work yourself into this stylish and you think it works (if not synonymous as good as we would like ...)
and in this article will be written QUATCH IS THE ALL ... ALL THE RIGHT garnicht ...
BUT THEN ... Then he writes again BUT THE WAY IS IT ... HÄÄÄÄ? I'm confused ...
as isses denn nun? what would you all for doing practical things s.set (o-ton situation - normally big room) to as much as possible the background blurred to get?
Antwort von domain:
A realization of Graffenstaden article for me was already synonymous new, namely that the details depicted in the background in both wide-angle telephoto lenses as synonymous actually the same sharp, or blurred, at a wide-angle lenses, but only if it represents be increased, thus big as them in telephoto shots of a priori appear. And therein lies the crux of the matter in telephoto shots: there is the background already in the corresponding fuzzy magnification of house before and this is of course very pleasant. It changes so nothing for us photographers by Graffenstaden findings, wants a blurred background with fewer details you have still access to the tele, although of course the important object a certain distance to the background a must.
LG domain
Antwort von deepcode:
"Anonymous" wrote:
@ deepcode
If you would have would be all right literature both wrong, as my dissertation.
Chris
sorry chris, then stay in your faith. Your thesis will probably faulty, would not be the first. Still one last time: The detail of the image sensor, no preference whether chemical / film or sensor, plays in the depth of consideration is irrelevant. Otherwise, developers would all of Full Frame - Film (Dalsa, Arri, Red, Thomson ...) and photo cameras, 35mm adapters and of course, synonymous producers, the expensive 35mm film instead of a lot cheaper to use Super-16, idiot. Why do the 35mm Ein? Resolution? Irrelevant in view of modern materials. Super-16 film is also suitable to achieve the same saturation level. It is exactly the 35mm look, primarily the design via the DOF, which is already at 16mm sark are reduced. Show me only one native 1 / 3 inch Studio, for example, in a typical dialogue - situation around 35mm - 50mm focal so slight wide-angle (relative to 35mm film) and ~ 1.5 meter distance in the sharpness Halbtotalen a significant separation of the two persons acting in shows. This is rudimentary with just 2 / 3 inch sensors, and synonymous only in a very weakened form.
Antwort von Axel:
Very interesting. Plausible arguments. Is it so that one of your bullshit dovetailed, or did you both right in that perhaps the size of the reception area the decisive criterion, but the resolution size is another factor? Had Chris Law, would be in effect all orders of expensive DOF adapter for Katz, since HDV has indentation. Had Deepcode law, could be (at the output) five times higher resolution than in a normal sharpness HDV recording is no longer endure.
Could it be that you both have rights?
Antwort von domain:
The sharpness of an objective circuit in conjunction with the pixel size of a sensor to bring is basically enough. For this reason had to be yes for new HDV synonymous Lenses can be expected. Whether the district sharpness, however with the depth of association may be, I doubt. Thus, for example, the Leitz 50mm NOCTILUX with luminous 1:1 a much larger unpleasant sharpness circle than a normal 50mm lens, say the Elmarit and verhiet still is in terms of depth of field areas just like the "simpler" normal lens. The thus formed NOCTILUX points rather than from small slices, but with tremendous brightness and contrast are still relatively good at night shots, while the Elmarit one point rather than real point density. Regarding the depth of focus, it played no role synonymous whether a high-resolution fine-grained film or a coarse-grained highly increased. The conditions were and are always the same. However, in combination with highly NOCTILUX film was one of the transition of moving sharp to blurred no longer so serious, because, sallop said everything anyway rather was a bit blurred. Hence, Chris obviously quite synonymous, in general principle, but not really. The smooth transition of blur and sharpness to their assessment, I believe nothing circles with sharpness and pixel sizes to be done and is not an abrupt phenomenon synonymous but physiologically related 'soft' convention thing.
LG domain
LG domain
Antwort von torti3005:
@ Deepcode I think you know yourself with the topic only superficially from. Have you ever calculated the depth? Have you ever practical tests? Hast thou not with safety! I have with the subject in the study and especially to my thesis examines durchgerechnet and examples, I think I know what I'm talking about.
Quote:
The detailed resolution of the image sensor, no preference whether chemical / film or sensor, plays in the depth of consideration is irrelevant.
WRONG! The formula refuted this: H = f ^ 2 / u '* k Everyone can see immediately that u '(Z mentioned in Wikipedia) a direct influence on the Hyperfokale and therefore has to have depth! Since you have not even expect! If you do not see it do you completely stubborn! Computed look through! Or is that too difficult for you?
Quote:
Otherwise, developers would all of Full Frame - Film (Dalsa, Arri, Red, Thomson ...) and photo cameras, 35mm adapters and of course, synonymous producers, the expensive 35mm film instead of a lot cheaper to use Super-16, idiot. Why do the 35mm Ein? Resolution? Irrelevant in view of modern materials. Super-16 film is also suitable to achieve the same saturation level. It is exactly the 35mm look, primarily the design via the DOF, which is already at 16mm sark are reduced.
Since you have absolutely right, but now you're talking about things of which the subject with nothing to do! The choice of this equipment has a lot of reasons, one reason is of course synonymous in depth to see. Of course, when HDV cameras the depth is not so low as with a 35 mm Camera! That is entirely logical, since the depth depends synonymous of the size of the image converter and the Focal (qudratisch) ab.
Quote:
Show me only one native 1 / 3 inch Studio, for example, in a typical dialogue - situation around 35mm - 50mm focal so slight wide-angle (relative to 35mm film) and ~ 1.5 meter distance in the sharpness Halbtotalen a significant separation of the two persons acting in shows. This is rudimentary with just 2 / 3 inch sensors, and synonymous only in a very weakened form.
Since you have absolutely right and I agree with you! To do this you'll need at least a 2 / 3 inch sensor. But that has the blur circle with nothing to do! You bring here, "evidence" which s.Thema go, where is the blur circle for your claims? The will did not mention! Strange, huh?
There you can see already that this is the size of the image converter and thus depends synonymous of Focal. The focal is a square in the formula, thus has a much greater influence than the blur circle! It is the main factor is the focal synonymous and thus the size of the image converter!
I have argued that a HDV camera, the depth is less than an SD Camera and under the same Bedingingen! Again, under the same conditions, so do not compare apples with pears, let the 35 mm cameras from the game!
For deepcode personally Hyperfokalen the calculation of H with the following example values:
k = 1.7 f = 4.5 mm u '(SD at 1 / 3 ") = 0.009 mm u '(HDV 1440 x 1080 at 1 / 3 ") = 0.0065 mm
SD: H = f ^ 2 / u '* k = (4.5 mm) ^ 2 / (0.009 mm * 1.7) = 1.323 m
HDV: H = f ^ 2 / u '* k = (4.5 mm) ^ 2 / (0.0065 mm * 1.7) = 1.832 m
The bigger the Hyperfokale, the smaller the depth! The front and rear depth of field must be no longer out to see that the depth of HDV is less.
On the other hand, may balk deepcode so much he wants, but it clearly does little! Well, let him believe what he wants.
Chris
Antwort von torti3005:
@ domain
The Unchärfekreis in the fall with nothing to do with the lens, but it is about the blurring of the image circle of the transducer or film. Of course the synonymous Lens plays a role.
If the blur circle (of the CCD, film, etc.) of A to A 'will be the little sharp point and the big point blurred. If the Unchärfekreis of B to B 'would be the big point synonymous nor synonymous sharp. Note that b is gone as the next s.Also depth plays a role there!
Chris
Antwort von domain:
Now you can not reg it on Chris. You have far right, as an HDV at the transition of sharp to blurred relative to the maximum sharpness of HDV of course much more noticeable. DV is just somewhere in the sharpness of stuck and can not improve next. It is once again holding a debate between theory and practice, which is increasingly emotive. The really important thing is that especially with its focal square in the formula is received. A further reduction of pixel size in the Still Image and video section is no longer to be expected, therefore, we only more and more sensors to improve focus, DOF in order to be able to play better.
LG domain.
Antwort von deepcode:
Purely mathematical, it is true that it is a minor distraction circle of dependence on the depth there. I've analyzed the problem times. The discussion turns into the question s.welchen blur circle a pixel on a pixel of the image converter is mapped (ie 100% is sharp) or through this blur pixel is distributed to several / blurred, so the pixel area is blurred. However, this effect is always relative to the entire viewing area to see! And darn it is precisely that fact in the final image effect is irrelevant. In all changes in HD - Resolutionund higher-resolution film, only the following: There's a - by the higher resolution - appears sharper (core-) focus zone and thus a greater difference between maximum and minimum sharpness. Looking at this difference is purely technical, it actually follows a smaller DOF. An exactly the same sensor / film with coarser resolution can by its larger pixels only for a lower maximum sharpness in the zone of sharpness, thus decreasing the difference between maximum sharpness and blur. Only: From a certain distance is irrelevant to this effect, namely when the eye because the maximum sharpness can no longer dissolve. In addition to this factor plays the main factors Focal Aperture and a minor role.
As an example: One with a Canon Full Frame / 16 Mpix recorded typical portrait (85mm, Aperture approximately 2.8) shows you a nice sharp face, blurry background. Construction of a 100 Mpix - same sensor size and make the same Picture. The depth is mathematically less dramatic, since it is now - by the higher resolution - 100% much smaller core area, there, my only 1 cm in front of and behind the eye. Metrologically ascertainable, but if you get the picture in normal view distance you can not see this effect, since s.einem some point just sharp sharp, so already the zone with my 70% as the maximum sharpness appears sharp.
So we are all happy - the technological dependence of the Resolutionist given consideration of the effect of the overall picture since it is irrelevant, however.
Antwort von domain:
Perhaps we should mention in addition that the analysis of deepcode times in any case voting, if the individual pixel with an angle of about 10 arc seconds or less to arrive on the retina. A further Resolutionbringt absolutely nothing more. Also, the 4K video cameras have the most sense, not necessarily the information content of the images to increase as more a Picture unverpixeltes in the first film series to deliver.
LG domain.
Antwort von yasu:
Your actually talking eh s.thema all gone;) (synonymous if the discussion was very interesting ^ ^)
threads of this topic is really confusing this article!
true now that I theoretically the exact same image at a rausbekomme O-ton situation when I 1. the camera directly in front of the staffing schedule (without zoom) or 2. the camera far away place and reinzoome
(of course if gleichbleibt hide, focus on partner ton-o, same picture setting (medium shot, for example) ...
change because of overall impressive at all?
I would be very interested to know how their s.set practical approach to the optimum out of!
Antwort von domain:
If the person with the mind s.der wall due will not change much, if you have no preference with Wide Angle Tele Or working. In all other cases, there is described the increasing desirability and blur in the background.
LG domain.
Antwort von Axel:
"Yasu" wrote:
... virtually s.set ...
If the actor is 5 meters away, but behind the wall 10 meters, can be determined by the long focal planes separated by the focusing. For most, this is not a real option:
1. If a set is already lit, makes the required size (the space is 15 meters long?) The lighting and the rotation at all. But synonymous Lighting by itself as well as by the image structure can already achieve a great deal.
2. For obvious reasons, the recording with hand-held camera difficult or impossible. And that one would no longer like to forgo. Please make sure times, with extremely calculated how many images (advertising!) Today tripod shots happen. The static Persil-uncle has run out of steam.
3. A long focal sharp squeezes the synonymous level. It creates a different aesthetic. What we wanted to achieve, Depth, is contradicted by a cast slabs in front of the plates also cut acts as the background. Cast movements are reduced, camera movements, the relative Still Wide Angle perspective and emphasize space are two dimensional. Not much gained.
Antwort von torti3005:
@ domain Your voice, which Resolutionins will immeasurably increase only slightly, if one is very close s.Picture. The optimum horizontal angle is 12 to 15 degrees, it follows Berachtungsabstand Of the approximately 4 - to 5-achen image size with SD. For HD, I think it is about the 3-times the picture height. The advertisement promises more and more sharp, but where's the sense of higher Aufösung really? HDV makes sense so the closer s.das Picture approaching and so too can a more realistic perspective without getting to see pixels. If you are a big HD TV to buy next and Shift away wins nothing s.Resolution.
@ Yasu True, we have here, of course s.eigentlichen topic discussed. Therefore, I have the article read times now, even though my English has some gaps.
I consider this article for blödsinn. Initially describes that is math, but nowhere is the mathematically calculated! There are not even technical data delivered to the camera. No one can therefore understand why the image is now an equal depth of which. There are some sample pictures delivered what may be right and in practice have been made. The depth depends on several factors, yes of s.and without knowing all the factors you can not understand because, unfortunately. Then delivered portraits where the background is a sharp (wide) and even blurred (Tele). This contradicts the author but himself. That is the depth, it is low in the tele. Is it possible with the now well-known formula to calculate quickly Hyperfokalen synonymous.
Axel has already with advantages and disadvantages explained how you have a blur in the background can produce, but with a small camera with image converter you will never be as good as achieved in the movies.
Chris
Antwort von torti3005:
Quote:
The optimum horizontal angle is 12 to 15 degrees
Nonsense, I mean the vertical angle of course!
Antwort von yasu:
"Anonymous" wrote:
@ domain
@ Yasu True, we have here, of course s.eigentlichen topic discussed. Therefore, I have the article read times now, even though my English has some gaps.
I consider this article for blödsinn. Initially describes that is math, but nowhere is the mathematically calculated! There are not even technical data delivered to the camera. No one can therefore understand why the image is now an equal depth of which. There are some sample pictures delivered what may be right and in practice have been made. The depth depends on several factors, yes of s.and without knowing all the factors you can not understand because, unfortunately. Then delivered portraits where the background is a sharp (wide) and even blurred (Tele). This contradicts the author but himself. That is the depth, it is low in the tele. Is it possible with the now well-known formula to calculate quickly Hyperfokalen synonymous.
Axel has already with advantages and disadvantages explained how you have a blur in the background can produce, but with a small camera with image converter you will never be as good as achieved in the movies.
Chris
yes exactly ... that was with me the same impression of the article ...
and I think there is now need to talk ... ... because many see the artiekl at the home of Slashcam advertised ... fly over the short articles and then give in so easily satisfied that they previously have thought wrong (because it is so then vote yes, because of Slashcam gefeatured)
but s.schluss of his article he describes how to use a lower depth of field gets and accurately describes the process as the first False / Mytos has been described ...
comes to that, in this thread only now is starting on the items to be discussed ... So there was no comment, but that we continue to believe what you can in practice have long personal experience has ...
very very mysterious ^ ^
Antwort von PowerMac:
Times I ask this friend Jost.
Antwort von dj-senol:
About the Rule of Graffenstaden seriously discuss Needless almost of itself, because it just s.Schluss shows how different Angleund Wide Tele in its overall effect. Of course, a detail in the background are as wide as sharp tele, but only if a nearly infinite resolution is assumed and this detail from Wide Angle Then on the size of the tele afterwards enlarged. So what, who may have details of the background in retrospect on Tele standards inflate?
LG domain
Antwort von dj-senol:
Good day,
I find the article funny synonymous.
The author asserts that the background is only seemingly blurred at the focal length, because when things tele in the background with the same dimensions greater emphasis will be displayed and then in the magnification blurred "appear". This is a bit klugscheisserisch because s.Set of course it is not about a cup on the shelf a certain degree of uncertainty to assign, but it is about the foreground from the background to be separated. And that goes with "Back To Ranzoomen and" better than if you close s.Vordergrund truth is.
And of course a lot remains: the foreground from the background separated by more space (which shows he is synonymous and the synonymous just wrote yes someone here): larger rooms! more space! More budget!
Gruss,
Michael
Antwort von baristursun:
The findings from Graffenstaden Article s.sich are already correct, but the conclusions that one could draw from and a number of unsettled synonymous here were go s.der practice just completely gone. Especially the uncertainty relation between Wide and Tele Anglebezüglich of the background image is in the concrete so the material really essential and not for the fact that in the corresponding magnified details from the wide background of this theory, the same as with the sharp telephoto would.
Antwort von baristursun:
Time, a bissel Mathematics:
a_v = a / 1 + u '* F * (a + f / f * f ^ 2) a_h = a / 1 - u '* F * (a + f / f * f ^ 2)
a - object width a_v - front depth of field boundary a_h - rear depth of field boundary f - focal F - f-number u'converter resolution
It can be really nice rauslesen: The greater depth of field: " The smaller the relative aperture " the shorter the lens focal length " The larger the object width
Has it paid off times in the university keep up:) Nice to be found Uli Schmidt, Professional video equipment
