There's a set of llustrations somewhere around page 120 in Eric renner's book that illustrates the effevct of different pinhole size at the same distance from the image. Very few people so far as I know have deliberately ventured toward the "too small" size. ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Brownlow" <li...@johnbrownlow.com> To: <pinhole-discussion@p at ???????> Sent: Sunday, November 17, 2002 8:20 AM Subject: [pinhole-discussion] Experiments with pinhole diameter
> The standard formula for optimum pinhole diameter is quoted everywhere, but > has anyone actually done some experiments to see if photographic results > confirm it? I saw a quote by Larry Bullis somewhere to the effect that he > had not observed any diminishing returns in going smaller. Here it is: > > http://www.???????/resources/articles/makingholes.php > > Looking at the derivation of the standard formula it seems to make some > assumptions that might not reflect the way we actually perceive photographic > sharpness. In particular the notion that the outer diffraction rings are > strong enough to be perceived as lack of sharpness at all pinhole diameters > beyond the 'optimum' bears scrutiny. > > Just wondering. > > -- > John Brownlow > > http://www.pinkheadedbug.com > > > _______________________________________________ > Post to the list as PLAIN TEXT only - no HTML > Pinhole-Discussion mailing list > Pinhole-Discussion@p at ??????? > unsubscribe or change your account at > http://www.???????/discussion/ >
