A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

film vs CMOS



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 25th 18, 10:55 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
+++ATH0
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default film vs CMOS

On 2018-08-14 09:08, nospam wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens focal
length, not field of view of the subject.


actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.
Ads
  #2  
Old August 25th 18, 11:06 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.


actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.
  #3  
Old August 25th 18, 11:06 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.


actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.
  #4  
Old August 25th 18, 11:56 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
+++ATH0
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default film vs CMOS

On 2018-08-25 15:06, nospam wrote:
In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?
That's an interesting viewpoint.
  #5  
Old August 25th 18, 11:56 PM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
+++ATH0
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5
Default film vs CMOS

On 2018-08-25 15:06, nospam wrote:
In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?
That's an interesting viewpoint.
  #6  
Old August 26th 18, 12:23 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?


for the same subject size and same image quality (coc), no.

That's an interesting viewpoint.


not really. it's just math.
  #7  
Old August 26th 18, 12:23 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with lens
focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes, and
in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is actual light
transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?


for the same subject size and same image quality (coc), no.

That's an interesting viewpoint.


not really. it's just math.
  #8  
Old August 26th 18, 02:05 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default film vs CMOS

+++ATH0 wrote in
:

On 2018-08-14 09:08, nospam wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.


actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.

That is correct. For any given focal length, the smaller the aperature, the
greater the depth of field. That is why pinhole cameras focus from closeup
to infinity without a lens.
  #9  
Old August 26th 18, 02:05 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default film vs CMOS

+++ATH0 wrote in
:

On 2018-08-14 09:08, nospam wrote:
In article , NY
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.


actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.

That is correct. For any given focal length, the smaller the aperature, the
greater the depth of field. That is why pinhole cameras focus from closeup
to infinity without a lens.
  #10  
Old August 26th 18, 02:13 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default film vs CMOS

nospam wrote in
:

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.

nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes,
and in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is
actual light transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?


for the same subject size and same image quality (coc), no.

That's an interesting viewpoint.


not really. it's just math.


No matter what the focal length of the lense is, the further away the
focal plane is, the greater the depth of field will be for any aperature.

As an example, if one is taking a head and shoulders portrait with a
large aperature, it is quite likely that part of the subject will be out
of focus slighty. Moving back a few feet with the same lense and
aperature will result in a deeper depth of field, so that all of the
subject should be in focus. The drawback is that the image size will be
smaller, and thus require more enlargement to obtain the same size image,
with the resulting loss of resolution with the enlarged image.
  #11  
Old August 26th 18, 02:13 AM posted to alt.windows7.general,alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt,alt.comp.os.windows-10,sci.electronics.basics
Tim[_10_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 249
Default film vs CMOS

nospam wrote in
:

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.

nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes,
and in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is
actual light transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.


Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?


for the same subject size and same image quality (coc), no.

That's an interesting viewpoint.


not really. it's just math.


No matter what the focal length of the lense is, the further away the
focal plane is, the greater the depth of field will be for any aperature.

As an example, if one is taking a head and shoulders portrait with a
large aperature, it is quite likely that part of the subject will be out
of focus slighty. Moving back a few feet with the same lense and
aperature will result in a deeper depth of field, so that all of the
subject should be in focus. The drawback is that the image size will be
smaller, and thus require more enlargement to obtain the same size image,
with the resulting loss of resolution with the enlarged image.
  #12  
Old August 26th 18, 02:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , Tim
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.


actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.


That is correct.


nope.

For any given focal length, the smaller the aperature, the
greater the depth of field.


in other words, physical aperture.

physical aperture is often confused with f/stop. the former is the
diameter of the entrance pupil and the latter is the ratio of focal
length to that diameter.

That is why pinhole cameras focus from closeup
to infinity without a lens.


pinhole cameras have no refractive elements, so everything is 'in
focus' (ignoring diffraction effects and optimal pinhole diameter).
  #13  
Old August 26th 18, 02:54 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,718
Default film vs CMOS

In article , Tim
wrote:


No matter what the focal length of the lense is, the further away the
focal plane is, the greater the depth of field will be for any aperature.


from your description below, you mean subject distance, not focal plane.

As an example, if one is taking a head and shoulders portrait with a
large aperature, it is quite likely that part of the subject will be out
of focus slighty. Moving back a few feet with the same lense and
aperature will result in a deeper depth of field, so that all of the
subject should be in focus. The drawback is that the image size will be
smaller, and thus require more enlargement to obtain the same size image,
with the resulting loss of resolution with the enlarged image.


you're changing the distance, resulting in photos with different size
subjects, so not a valid comparison. maintain the same subject size at
different distances (via different lenses) and the dof will be the
same, although the perspective won't be.
  #14  
Old August 26th 18, 03:34 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Keith Nuttle
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,844
Default film vs CMOS

On 8/25/2018 9:13 PM, Tim wrote:
:
d thus require more enlargement to obtain the same size image,
with the resulting loss of resolution with the enlarged image.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camera_lens

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardin...)#Nodal_points

The relationship between the censor size (film Size) the focal length of
the lens and the aperture, (whether fixed or variable) works the same
whether it is digital or a chemical film.

One of the laws of nature that can not be altered, which some people
thing are no longer in effect.


--
2018: The year we learn to play the great game of Euchre
  #15  
Old August 26th 18, 04:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default film vs CMOS

On Sun, 26 Aug 2018 01:13:11 GMT, Tim wrote:

nospam wrote in
:

In article , +++ATH0
wrote:

One other factor to bear in mind: the depth of field varies with
lens focal length, not field of view of the subject.

actually, it's aperture.

actually, it's the ratio of focal length to aperture.

nope. depth of field is a function of physical aperture.

what you describe is f/stop, which is used for exposure purposes,
and in some cases (usually movies), t/stops are used, which is
actual light transmission through the lens, not a simple ratio.

Are you claiming that focal length has no bearing on depth of field?


for the same subject size and same image quality (coc), no.

That's an interesting viewpoint.


not really. it's just math.


No matter what the focal length of the lense is, the further away the
focal plane is, the greater the depth of field will be for any aperature.

As an example, if one is taking a head and shoulders portrait with a
large aperature, it is quite likely that part of the subject will be out
of focus slighty. Moving back a few feet with the same lense and
aperature will result in a deeper depth of field, so that all of the
subject should be in focus. The drawback is that the image size will be
smaller, and thus require more enlargement to obtain the same size image,
with the resulting loss of resolution with the enlarged image.


Thee are several ways of thinking about depth of focus and several
independent variable to consider. That's why people get so het up when
arguing about this: it's too complicated to discuss rationally without
mathematics. There is also the complication of whether you mean depth
of focus or depth of field. I suggest
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_focus as a good place to start
sorting all this out.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.