I don't think you need to apologize. The issue here is that what
you're describing is a characteristic of an individual lens, not of the
lens and format really. I don't know of a term for the OOF point of
light on a sensor or film as any other than CoC.
True, in real life the blur of light
> On Sep 15, 2019, at 9:33 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> The "standard" circle of confusion, for any format was calculated based on
> "acceptable sharpness" results for a given print size, (which is kind of
> arbitrary), for a print at standard viewing distance, but these values are
> publishe
The "standard" circle of confusion, for any format was calculated based
on "acceptable sharpness" results for a given print size, (which is kind
of arbitrary), for a print at standard viewing distance, but these
values are published.
Standard viewing distance is defined by focal length times
> On Sep 15, 2019, at 5:42 PM, P. J. Alling wrote:
>
> You also have to take into account viewing distance, and the resolution of
> the viewing device. The higher the resolution of the viewing device the more
> accurate you assessment of DOF will be when printed.
I’m not so interested in abs
You also have to take into account viewing distance, and the resolution
of the viewing device. The higher the resolution of the viewing device
the more accurate you assessment of DOF will be when printed.
On 9/15/2019 3:23 PM, Larry Colen wrote:
Bruce Walker commented on facebook about how wi
Bruce Walker commented on facebook about how with medium format you get a
particular transition from in focus to out of focus which finally made
something click for me. Everybody talks about depth of field as if it is a
sharp transition, but it isn't, and the same image could have different dept
6 matches
Mail list logo
