Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 17

Thread: DOF Question, non-mathematically

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Purcellville, VA
    Posts
    1,776

    DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Friendly note: Optical and related formulae offered in response to this question may serve others, but will be out of reach for me.

    Question: Doesn’t depth-of field follow a widening curve, rather than straight lines, with increasing distance? Is there some region of change in this, perhaps around half the hyperfocal distance (just guessing?)

    Reason for question: When I first read Stroebel’s View Camera Technique long ago, I was struck by illustrations that showed the DOF widening out like a trumpet bell as distance increased. As I thought about it, that made sense, since the increase of DOF as distance increases does this, as shown with an online DOF calculator; for instance, doubling the distance each time (with focal length and aperture constant). I later purchased Merklinger’s Ins and Outs of Focus, in which his lines are always straight. Given his elaborate calculations (which I had to skip over), I hesitate to imagine that his illustrations contradict the data. But, leaving aside the special instance I know of, that DOF is reportedly equal before and beyond the plane of focus at very small distances, one of these gents must be more correct than the other, no?

    Example: DOFMaster.com shows DOF for a 50mm lens at f/5.6 progressing thus (distance in ft/total DOF in ft): 2.5/0.24; 5/1.01; 10/4.25; 20/19.7 (DOF increases slowly beyond a multiple of 4); 40/205.6; 80/INF (very rapid increase from 10 ft). Hyperfocal distance is 48.5 ft.
    Philip Ulanowsky

    Sine scientia ars nihil est. (Without science/knowledge, art is nothing.)
    www.imagesinsilver.art
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/156933346@N07/

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2015
    Location
    Bellingham, WA (displaced Canadian)
    Posts
    518

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Sounds to me like Merklinger's illustrations contradict his data. The "trumpet bell" is indeed a more accurate image.

  3. #3
    jp's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    5,628

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    DOF varies from lens to lens; some lenses are easily calculated hyperfocal distance. Lenses like Kodak Portrait, all the DOF is behind the focus and none in front. Lenses like the Nikon DC variety you can change the nature of the not-quite-depth of field variably affecting the DOF some. And with a normal lens, not only does depth of field decrease with distance, the focal length increases as bellows are racked out for closeup work, again changing any calculations.

    Bokeh is a big buzzword, but it's essentially describing how not quite DOF is imaged.
    http://jtra.cz/stuff/essays/bokeh/

    If you want a non-math way to understand how depth of field affects your photography, shoot a whole year with one lens. You'll learn subject matter can also affect your image's depth of field as much as any math.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulophot View Post
    Friendly note: Optical and related formulae offered in response to this question may serve others, but will be out of reach for me.

    Question: Doesn’t depth-of field follow a widening curve, rather than straight lines, with increasing distance? Is there some region of change in this, perhaps around half the hyperfocal distance (just guessing?)

    Reason for question: When I first read Stroebel’s View Camera Technique long ago, I was struck by illustrations that showed the DOF widening out like a trumpet bell as distance increased. As I thought about it, that made sense, since the increase of DOF as distance increases does this, as shown with an online DOF calculator; for instance, doubling the distance each time (with focal length and aperture constant). I later purchased Merklinger’s Ins and Outs of Focus, in which his lines are always straight. Given his elaborate calculations (which I had to skip over), I hesitate to imagine that his illustrations contradict the data. But, leaving aside the special instance I know of, that DOF is reportedly equal before and beyond the plane of focus at very small distances, one of these gents must be more correct than the other, no?

    Example: DOFMaster.com shows DOF for a 50mm lens at f/5.6 progressing thus (distance in ft/total DOF in ft): 2.5/0.24; 5/1.01; 10/4.25; 20/19.7 (DOF increases slowly beyond a multiple of 4); 40/205.6; 80/INF (very rapid increase from 10 ft). Hyperfocal distance is 48.5 ft.

    For the DOF math you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_...e_DOF_formulae, sections 10 and 11. Also this article shows the limitations that calculation has.

    The in focus range is also related to the Circle Of Confusion (CoC) you would tolerate to say an spot is in focus, in general you tolerate larger CoC for larger formats, because an array of reasons we could debate.


    DOFMaster.com is a nice tool that's a very good guide for general usage, also you have Apps for the phone, but if wanting refined calculations we need to go to the Through Focus MTF charts, basicly this is plots of actual "sharpness" of a particular lenses as you go outside of the perfect "plane" (not completely flat!) of focus.

    Here you will find some TF MTF charts, this would show how actual out of focus roll-off may behave in reality: http://cinematechnic.com/optics/super-baltar

    ...just to know why that different lenses have different personality for the OOF roll off, but anyway you will find that DOFMaster and other tools are a good guide as an initial guess about what you will obtain, always thinking in that you will have to refine the way you use DOF from the results you are obtaining, comparing to what you want to get.

    Bokeh is another thing...


    Quote Originally Posted by jp View Post
    This is a really nice article !

  5. #5
    Jac@stafford.net's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Winona, Minnesota
    Posts
    5,413

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Quote Originally Posted by MAubrey View Post
    Sounds to me like Merklinger's illustrations contradict his data. The "trumpet bell" is indeed a more accurate image.
    And consider the odd DOF of a lens with profound spherical aberration.

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,856

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Look at the DOF scale of a 35mm camera lens, and that might simplify it. It shows based on those scales that what you are seeing is that equal movement of the lens in either direction affects near vs far in a way that's very easy to see on those scales, and that the controlling factor in calculating DOF is lens movement, not distance. Distance is an effect, not a cause. This makes sense if you regard it as a circle of confusion issue, inasmuch as the diameter of the cone of light forming a point will be equal as it is equal distances ahead and behind the film, affected by film or lens movement, not subject distance.
    https://www.google.com/search?q=dept...ms&tbm=isch&sa
    Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
    Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
    Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
    You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    8,467

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Stupid question of the day: Why do we use lenses instead of pinholes? Pinholes are generally believed to give infinite depth of field. Fuzzy from near to far. Why isn't that good enough for everyone?

    I was raised to believe that depth of field given how much the negative is to be enlarged -- that's what the widely feared circle of confusion defines -- is controlled by magnification and relative aperture and nothing else. It is the same for all lenses given CoC, magnification and relative aperture. Why am I mistaken?

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    1,856

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    I'm a bit more conservative on it than you are: I believe that there is no such thing as depth of field. There is "in focus" and then there is "out of focus", no matter how you choose believe you are masking that, it's there, and some size of print will reveal it.
    Thanks, but I'd rather just watch:
    Large format: http://flickr.com/michaeldarnton
    Mostly 35mm: http://flickr.com/mdarnton
    You want digital, color, etc?: http://www.flickr.com/photos/stradofear

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Chichester, UK
    Posts
    462

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Quote Originally Posted by mdarnton View Post
    I'm a bit more conservative on it than you are: I believe that there is no such thing as depth of field. There is "in focus" and then there is "out of focus", no matter how you choose believe you are masking that, it's there, and some size of print will reveal it.
    I would describe it as a 'zone of acceptable sharpness'. 'Acceptable' varying from photographer to photographer; so what is good enough for one photographer is not good enough for the next or vice-versa, depending on usage, expectations and various other variables. The only way to nail down what is right for you is to do real-world testing, not rely on the opinions of others or formulas because their are so many variables, and lot of people express opinions rather than stating facts. If you can match a CoC value to your testing and final output, then you are in business.

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Posts
    4,566

    Re: DOF Question, non-mathematically

    Quote Originally Posted by mdarnton View Post
    I'm a bit more conservative on it than you are: I believe that there is no such thing as depth of field. There is "in focus" and then there is "out of focus", no matter how you choose believe you are masking that, it's there, and some size of print will reveal it.
    Michael, it has to be a matter of nomenclature, what's in focus for you it's in your depth of field.

Similar Threads

  1. 8 x 20 question
    By kwin in forum LF DIY (Do It Yourself)
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 18-May-2014, 13:11
  2. 810 GG question
    By atlcruiser in forum Gear
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 22-Dec-2011, 10:07
  3. D.O.F Question?
    By mandonbossi in forum Lenses & Lens Accessories
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 5-Oct-2010, 19:23
  4. Question??????
    By ignatiusjk in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 20-Feb-2010, 16:38
  5. Hello and question(s)
    By ovimo in forum Darkroom: Film, Processing & Printing
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 16-Feb-2009, 14:26

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •