This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm not an expert, but the first sentence of the article seems incorrect to me. Surely all the sample images took up roughly the same area on the 35mm film? Soundray 21:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This page could really use a chart converting 35mm focal lengths to angle of view. Also, the formula to do this, with the film size as a parameter.
I just added the term 'sensor' as the digital alternative for 'film'. But steve's digicams says "Consumer digicam focal lengths are usually stated in terms of their 35mm film equivalents." So should the given focal length then be recalculated for the formula to work?
By the way, that page also says "For digital SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses it's more difficult as different cameras have different size sensors." Which complicates matters. DirkvdM 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the "Calculating a camera's angle of view" section there is an error:
In the first formula (ƒ) should be "focal distance" instead of "effective focal length". Effective focal length is something like 28 for wide-angle, 50 for standard, 200 for telephoto objectives (35mm film), but that's not what it is about. It is about how far the object is from the camera (film or sensor), e.g. 50cm or 5m, or 23m.
The thing is, however, that I don't know how to relate this to macro, and other objectives, so someone should correct this article who knows what he is speaking about.
My understanding is that the Horizontal and Vertical Angle of View are traditionally measured across the Optical Axis (centre of the lens / image) to avoid errors caused by Barrel Distortion or Pincushion Distortion. That way the AoV formula also works accurately for non-rectilinear lenses.
Currently the illustration does not show the diagonal, horizontal and vertical AoV arcs 'meeting' as they pass through the optical axis. The description (definition) should read something like the Vertical Angle of View is measured from the centre of the top edge of the image to the centre of the bottom edge of the image ... etc.
83.100.174.227 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The frame size is needed to calculate the angle of view. A still 35mm film camera has a VERY different frame size than a 35mm motion picture camera (normal, not vistavision).
In a still camera, the film moves sideways and in motion picture cameras, the film moves vertically. That is why there is a vast difference in the size of the frame.
Therefore any reference to a 35mm camera MUST make it clear if this is a STILL or a MOTION PICTURE camera. Just saying a "35mm camera" or "35mm frame" is WRONG!!!! ~~~~ Robert Elliott ( talk) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite popular misuse (and I do it too!), saying that Field of View is interchangeable with Angle of View is simply not true! The funny thing is that knowing your Angle of View is relatively useless in practical photography, which is probably why Field of View is the more familiar term.
Field of View means simply how much of this scene is included in my picture. A larger FOV can be obtained by either increasing the AOV, or increasing the camera-object distance.
"Field of View" and "Depth of Field" are measures of distance (so many feet or so many metres) - they are concerned with objective dimensions. Angle of View is not dimensional, angles are dimensionless. FOV size increases proportionally with distance whereas AOV does not.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In landscape, architectural, underwater, macro and aerial photography, sizes and distances can be so large or critical that 'stepping back a bit' and 'zooming out a bit' are not enough to give the photographer the FOV he wants. Therefore photographers have devised a user-friendly FOV formula - as opposed to the AOV formulae given in the article - for use when 'setting up a shot' on location with minimum fuss.
Where
FOV = D * I / F
D is going to be the most variable factor, so if you let D = 1, then you get a FOV:D ratio of Objective Frame-Size : Distance. This ratio is constant for this prime lens on this camera. Note that the AOV is also derived from I and F (2 arctan (I / (2 F))), but FOV size increases proportionally with distance whereas AOV does not. With practice, and familiarity with the focal lengths of your lenses, this method of setting up a shot is extremely quick and efficient. Even zoom lenses have minimum and maximum AOVs and 'sweet spots' measured as focal lengths.
Lens Manufacturers use the Diagonal AOV reference because it corresponds the diameter of the Useful Image Circle and is unaffected by Aspect Ratio. However, FOV traditionally refers to the Horizontal FOV, because this is most frequently the one a photographer wants to use. Aspect Ratio? easy: if my AR is 4:3, my vertical FOV is going to be 3/4 of my horizontal FOV. (That doesn't work with AOV!)
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
When comparing the actual size/area of the lens' Useful Image Circle to the actual size/area of the camera Sensor, a (dimensionless) "Angle of Coverage" is just useless. The "back focal length" of a lens gives you this information in a useful form, but as this property of a lens system is certainly not adjustable and conforms incredibly precisely to the BFL defined by its Lens mount system, I see no reason to reinvent it here. It would make more sense to talk about a "Field of Coverage at the Focal Plane", but that is exactly what a lens' "Image Circle" is. Even in View Cameras, it is the size of the Lens' Image Circle which is important to Shift, not the angle of divergence of its peripheral rays - and the Tilt angle is relative to the optical axis (the angle of the lens' focal plane is always perpendicular to its optical axis) so again a "Back AoV" just doesn't come up.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Quantifying Radial Distortion in Non-Rectinlinear Lenses is no mystery if you realise that Radial Distortion increases with distance from the optical axis. The corners of a rectangular image are furthest away from the optical axis and thus most distorted. As long as you measure Vertical and Horizontal FOV through the optical axis, ie between the mid-points of opposing sides of the frame, you will get accurate Focal Length readings. Radial Distortion of a lens can be quantified objectively by measuring the Diagonal FOV empirically and comparing it to the calculated (rectilinear) dFOV for the lens' focal length. Barrel distortion stretches the dFOV, whereas PinCushion Distortion shrinks the dFOV in proportion to the hFOV or vFOV. It is that simple. For the 'worst case' measure of radial distortion, you would compare the shortest FOV (usually the Vertical) to the longest (always the Diagonal). Of course marketing 'specs' for lenses usually employ different ways of measuring radial distortion in order to exaggerate how 'rectilinear' the lens is. As with all serious photographic equipment, price is a better indication of quality than marketing material.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be a graph of angle of view vs. focal lenght if not here, on crop factor or focal length. Here's a start: Matlab/Octave code to make such a plot:
fl = 17:300; figure; loglog(fl, 2*atan((repmat([36; 24; 36/1.6; 24/1.6],1,size(fl,2))./2)./repmat(fl,4,1)) * 180/pi); xlabel('Focal length'); ylabel('Angle of view'); legend('135 film width','height','1.6 crop width','height'); grid on;
Feel free to finish it up, or I may get back to it. —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The definition of “effective focal length” in this article seems at odds with common usage (e.g., Sidney Ray's Applied Photographic Optics, 3rd ed, p. 47) and with that in the article focal length. I think what's meant is simply “image distance”. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
From out-of-the-blue WP:content fork, Field of view (image processing). Dicklyon ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for starting on the merge. But there's still a lot of work to do, to get to a coherent article that respects WP:MOS (esp. MOS:BOLD and equation formatting). The big section on Field of view (image processing) is very unclear in its relationship to the rest. The statement "industry standards refer to it most often as FOV" really needs a source; if we could look at what the standards are, or who has drawn such a conclusion, it could guide the integration effort. If different fields prefer different terms, we should be able to clarify that. Etc. I'll be happy to help. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the content seems to be completely incoherent and uninterpretable. You introduce variable names and then don't use them in the example calculations. New terms like "angular extent" are used for no apparent reason. And parenthetical like "(in radians)" appear to not have any actual motivation, as it appears that any system of angular measurement would work equally well, and so need not be specified there. The stuff about display pixels and target sizes is as clear as mud, and in my estimation probably incorrect. The linked sources don't take you where you can attempt to verify.
My recommendation would be to step back, take out your own thing, see what's missing, and add that back in a more integrated way. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
At the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field of view (image processing) there are lots of opinions, but generally support for some kind of a merge. So I've restored the merge and started to make it fit better. On review it became clear that the other article was mostly about a test method for measuring FOV, as opposed to calculating it from the camera parameters (sensor size and f.l.); so I made an appropriate section head for it. I went ahead and did some editing to move the style in the right direction, but there's still a lot of work needed, and it needs to be a lot shorter. I'll go redirect the other now... Dicklyon ( talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the angle of view formula for asymmetric lenses (most photographic telezoom lenses are of this type). I realize that I really also should edit the derivation section, but to be honest this would take more time then I am willing to at the moment. The reference provides a full derivation for those interested and/or willing to draw the new picture etc.
Arjan Mels ( talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Chapter Characteristics, first sentence - I don't think it is right to say that that longer lens has shallower depth of field. DOF is almost exclusively dependent on the aperture. Focal length could be ignored here... Cheerz, Mike. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.148.87.179 (
talk)
23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Location of possible error: 2nd Paragraph, last sentence.
Quote of possible error: "If the angle of view exceeds the angle of coverage, however, then vignetting will be present in the resulting photograph."
I think this is perhaps backwards. It would seem to be more correct (at least according to the preceding sentences of the article if they can be trusted), that it should read instead:
"If the angle of coverage (area of the sensor) exceeds the angle of view (image coming from the lens), however, then vignetting will be present in the resulting photograph."
This re-write would seem to make more sense simply because, if the angle of view (image coming from the lens) (which is a circular image) is bigger (exceeds) the area of coverage (size of the sensor) then you would get your standard cropped rectangular picture and no vignetting.
I wanted to put this into discussion first because I am not 100% certain and don't want to edit the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettatore ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone come to any conclusion. It still sounds to me, with the article yet to be modified, that the original author either has definitions reversed, or has accidentally reversed their terms or perhaps they used "exceeds" instead of "fails to match or exceed". Without adjusting one of these, and I wouldn't know what to adjust or even be sure if I am correct, that there is still some error remaining in that paragraph. Jettatore ( talk) 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Given an initial field of view for zoom level 1 (normal image - no zoom) I know a formula for computing the fov given a zoom level.
Is it ok to have the formula in some paragraph?
Iulian-Nicu Șerbănoiu 14:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian.serbanoiu ( talk • contribs)
Example: when magnifying a picture twice (200%) you will have zoom level 2 (you will see only half of a 'fullscreen' object in the same picture size ). This means that the seen width of a object occupying the entire screen of the newly obtained image will be width / zoomLevel. Given those parameters the formula is fairly easy to obtain (considering the distance D from the camera to the object):
If we divide we obtain the formula above (D is simplified). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian.serbanoiu ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
at the end of your posts; it gets auto-replaced with a signature line.
—Ben FrantzDale (
talk)
17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Angle of view. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I transposed both tables for better readability. While reviewing both tables, I noticed that something should be wrong, some component may be missing in the calculation of the values at shorter focal distances. If you see lenses for APC sensors, a 4.5mm lens, is a fish eye or super wide angle 180 degrees or more lens. While the second table says 146 degrees at 4mm diagonal. The first, projects a circular image. According to the first table, 0mm corresponds to 180 degrees. Those tables do not consider the refractive and physical shape of lenses. There are optical design techniques that allow to project a circular 220 degrees image with a 6mm focal length fish eye lens for full frame sensors, having the lens closest to the sensor at a distance greater than 6mm to have a gap for the mirror travel. Earlier nikkor fish eye lenses could only be used in cameras that can lock the mirror. The same design technique is used in focal reducers. the opposite of those tele converters fitted between the lens and the sensor in DSRLs or 4/3 cameras. That allows to design 220 degrees fish eye lenses, which according to the table would be impossible to make, if 0mm. the closest focal distance, has 180 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.197 ( talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article claims "For comparison, the human visual system perceives an angle of view of about 140° by 80°.[17]" and cites an academic paper .
However the Wikipedia article Field of view "Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field"
That's a huge discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, would you like me to add my two new illustrations to the article? We can make a link to binoculars and to the accommodation of the eye. Sciencia58 ( talk) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In the edit of 4 Aug. 2023, some information was moved from Angle of view (photography) to Field of view, among it a section on perceived size. The latter, unfortunately, is ill-conceived, transporting the popular myth that angular size determines perceived size. It is further unrelated to the FoV since the latter refers to the overall size that is seen, not to its content. I deleted it therefore in the Field of view article and moved it back to the “Angle of view (photography)” talk page here, in case somebody wants to do something with it. It read:
The field of view is the decisive variable for the visual perception of the size or projection of the size of an object.
The perceived size of an object depends on the size of the image projected onto the retina. The size of the image depends on the angle of vision. A near and a far object can appear the same size if their edges produce the same angle of vision. With an optical device such as glasses or binoculars, microscope and telescope the angle of vision can be widened so that the object appears larger, which is favourable for the resolving power of the eye (see visual angle). [1] [2]
Strasburger ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Strasburger ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
References
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
I'm not an expert, but the first sentence of the article seems incorrect to me. Surely all the sample images took up roughly the same area on the 35mm film? Soundray 21:14, 16 Feb 2004 (UTC)
This page could really use a chart converting 35mm focal lengths to angle of view. Also, the formula to do this, with the film size as a parameter.
I just added the term 'sensor' as the digital alternative for 'film'. But steve's digicams says "Consumer digicam focal lengths are usually stated in terms of their 35mm film equivalents." So should the given focal length then be recalculated for the formula to work?
By the way, that page also says "For digital SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses it's more difficult as different cameras have different size sensors." Which complicates matters. DirkvdM 10:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
In the "Calculating a camera's angle of view" section there is an error:
In the first formula (ƒ) should be "focal distance" instead of "effective focal length". Effective focal length is something like 28 for wide-angle, 50 for standard, 200 for telephoto objectives (35mm film), but that's not what it is about. It is about how far the object is from the camera (film or sensor), e.g. 50cm or 5m, or 23m.
The thing is, however, that I don't know how to relate this to macro, and other objectives, so someone should correct this article who knows what he is speaking about.
My understanding is that the Horizontal and Vertical Angle of View are traditionally measured across the Optical Axis (centre of the lens / image) to avoid errors caused by Barrel Distortion or Pincushion Distortion. That way the AoV formula also works accurately for non-rectilinear lenses.
Currently the illustration does not show the diagonal, horizontal and vertical AoV arcs 'meeting' as they pass through the optical axis. The description (definition) should read something like the Vertical Angle of View is measured from the centre of the top edge of the image to the centre of the bottom edge of the image ... etc.
83.100.174.227 00:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
The frame size is needed to calculate the angle of view. A still 35mm film camera has a VERY different frame size than a 35mm motion picture camera (normal, not vistavision).
In a still camera, the film moves sideways and in motion picture cameras, the film moves vertically. That is why there is a vast difference in the size of the frame.
Therefore any reference to a 35mm camera MUST make it clear if this is a STILL or a MOTION PICTURE camera. Just saying a "35mm camera" or "35mm frame" is WRONG!!!! ~~~~ Robert Elliott ( talk) 03:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Despite popular misuse (and I do it too!), saying that Field of View is interchangeable with Angle of View is simply not true! The funny thing is that knowing your Angle of View is relatively useless in practical photography, which is probably why Field of View is the more familiar term.
Field of View means simply how much of this scene is included in my picture. A larger FOV can be obtained by either increasing the AOV, or increasing the camera-object distance.
"Field of View" and "Depth of Field" are measures of distance (so many feet or so many metres) - they are concerned with objective dimensions. Angle of View is not dimensional, angles are dimensionless. FOV size increases proportionally with distance whereas AOV does not.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
In landscape, architectural, underwater, macro and aerial photography, sizes and distances can be so large or critical that 'stepping back a bit' and 'zooming out a bit' are not enough to give the photographer the FOV he wants. Therefore photographers have devised a user-friendly FOV formula - as opposed to the AOV formulae given in the article - for use when 'setting up a shot' on location with minimum fuss.
Where
FOV = D * I / F
D is going to be the most variable factor, so if you let D = 1, then you get a FOV:D ratio of Objective Frame-Size : Distance. This ratio is constant for this prime lens on this camera. Note that the AOV is also derived from I and F (2 arctan (I / (2 F))), but FOV size increases proportionally with distance whereas AOV does not. With practice, and familiarity with the focal lengths of your lenses, this method of setting up a shot is extremely quick and efficient. Even zoom lenses have minimum and maximum AOVs and 'sweet spots' measured as focal lengths.
Lens Manufacturers use the Diagonal AOV reference because it corresponds the diameter of the Useful Image Circle and is unaffected by Aspect Ratio. However, FOV traditionally refers to the Horizontal FOV, because this is most frequently the one a photographer wants to use. Aspect Ratio? easy: if my AR is 4:3, my vertical FOV is going to be 3/4 of my horizontal FOV. (That doesn't work with AOV!)
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
When comparing the actual size/area of the lens' Useful Image Circle to the actual size/area of the camera Sensor, a (dimensionless) "Angle of Coverage" is just useless. The "back focal length" of a lens gives you this information in a useful form, but as this property of a lens system is certainly not adjustable and conforms incredibly precisely to the BFL defined by its Lens mount system, I see no reason to reinvent it here. It would make more sense to talk about a "Field of Coverage at the Focal Plane", but that is exactly what a lens' "Image Circle" is. Even in View Cameras, it is the size of the Lens' Image Circle which is important to Shift, not the angle of divergence of its peripheral rays - and the Tilt angle is relative to the optical axis (the angle of the lens' focal plane is always perpendicular to its optical axis) so again a "Back AoV" just doesn't come up.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Quantifying Radial Distortion in Non-Rectinlinear Lenses is no mystery if you realise that Radial Distortion increases with distance from the optical axis. The corners of a rectangular image are furthest away from the optical axis and thus most distorted. As long as you measure Vertical and Horizontal FOV through the optical axis, ie between the mid-points of opposing sides of the frame, you will get accurate Focal Length readings. Radial Distortion of a lens can be quantified objectively by measuring the Diagonal FOV empirically and comparing it to the calculated (rectilinear) dFOV for the lens' focal length. Barrel distortion stretches the dFOV, whereas PinCushion Distortion shrinks the dFOV in proportion to the hFOV or vFOV. It is that simple. For the 'worst case' measure of radial distortion, you would compare the shortest FOV (usually the Vertical) to the longest (always the Diagonal). Of course marketing 'specs' for lenses usually employ different ways of measuring radial distortion in order to exaggerate how 'rectilinear' the lens is. As with all serious photographic equipment, price is a better indication of quality than marketing material.
83.100.138.9 ( talk) 02:56, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
There should be a graph of angle of view vs. focal lenght if not here, on crop factor or focal length. Here's a start: Matlab/Octave code to make such a plot:
fl = 17:300; figure; loglog(fl, 2*atan((repmat([36; 24; 36/1.6; 24/1.6],1,size(fl,2))./2)./repmat(fl,4,1)) * 180/pi); xlabel('Focal length'); ylabel('Angle of view'); legend('135 film width','height','1.6 crop width','height'); grid on;
Feel free to finish it up, or I may get back to it. —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The definition of “effective focal length” in this article seems at odds with common usage (e.g., Sidney Ray's Applied Photographic Optics, 3rd ed, p. 47) and with that in the article focal length. I think what's meant is simply “image distance”. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:21, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
From out-of-the-blue WP:content fork, Field of view (image processing). Dicklyon ( talk) 01:50, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for starting on the merge. But there's still a lot of work to do, to get to a coherent article that respects WP:MOS (esp. MOS:BOLD and equation formatting). The big section on Field of view (image processing) is very unclear in its relationship to the rest. The statement "industry standards refer to it most often as FOV" really needs a source; if we could look at what the standards are, or who has drawn such a conclusion, it could guide the integration effort. If different fields prefer different terms, we should be able to clarify that. Etc. I'll be happy to help. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:41, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
In addition, the content seems to be completely incoherent and uninterpretable. You introduce variable names and then don't use them in the example calculations. New terms like "angular extent" are used for no apparent reason. And parenthetical like "(in radians)" appear to not have any actual motivation, as it appears that any system of angular measurement would work equally well, and so need not be specified there. The stuff about display pixels and target sizes is as clear as mud, and in my estimation probably incorrect. The linked sources don't take you where you can attempt to verify.
My recommendation would be to step back, take out your own thing, see what's missing, and add that back in a more integrated way. Dicklyon ( talk) 16:55, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
At the deletion discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Field of view (image processing) there are lots of opinions, but generally support for some kind of a merge. So I've restored the merge and started to make it fit better. On review it became clear that the other article was mostly about a test method for measuring FOV, as opposed to calculating it from the camera parameters (sensor size and f.l.); so I made an appropriate section head for it. I went ahead and did some editing to move the style in the right direction, but there's still a lot of work needed, and it needs to be a lot shorter. I'll go redirect the other now... Dicklyon ( talk) 06:12, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
I added the angle of view formula for asymmetric lenses (most photographic telezoom lenses are of this type). I realize that I really also should edit the derivation section, but to be honest this would take more time then I am willing to at the moment. The reference provides a full derivation for those interested and/or willing to draw the new picture etc.
Arjan Mels ( talk) 21:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Chapter Characteristics, first sentence - I don't think it is right to say that that longer lens has shallower depth of field. DOF is almost exclusively dependent on the aperture. Focal length could be ignored here... Cheerz, Mike. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
91.148.87.179 (
talk)
23:57, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Location of possible error: 2nd Paragraph, last sentence.
Quote of possible error: "If the angle of view exceeds the angle of coverage, however, then vignetting will be present in the resulting photograph."
I think this is perhaps backwards. It would seem to be more correct (at least according to the preceding sentences of the article if they can be trusted), that it should read instead:
"If the angle of coverage (area of the sensor) exceeds the angle of view (image coming from the lens), however, then vignetting will be present in the resulting photograph."
This re-write would seem to make more sense simply because, if the angle of view (image coming from the lens) (which is a circular image) is bigger (exceeds) the area of coverage (size of the sensor) then you would get your standard cropped rectangular picture and no vignetting.
I wanted to put this into discussion first because I am not 100% certain and don't want to edit the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jettatore ( talk • contribs) 15:27, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
Has anyone come to any conclusion. It still sounds to me, with the article yet to be modified, that the original author either has definitions reversed, or has accidentally reversed their terms or perhaps they used "exceeds" instead of "fails to match or exceed". Without adjusting one of these, and I wouldn't know what to adjust or even be sure if I am correct, that there is still some error remaining in that paragraph. Jettatore ( talk) 21:09, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Given an initial field of view for zoom level 1 (normal image - no zoom) I know a formula for computing the fov given a zoom level.
Is it ok to have the formula in some paragraph?
Iulian-Nicu Șerbănoiu 14:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian.serbanoiu ( talk • contribs)
Example: when magnifying a picture twice (200%) you will have zoom level 2 (you will see only half of a 'fullscreen' object in the same picture size ). This means that the seen width of a object occupying the entire screen of the newly obtained image will be width / zoomLevel. Given those parameters the formula is fairly easy to obtain (considering the distance D from the camera to the object):
If we divide we obtain the formula above (D is simplified). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian.serbanoiu ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
~~~~
at the end of your posts; it gets auto-replaced with a signature line.
—Ben FrantzDale (
talk)
17:28, 15 November 2011 (UTC)Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Angle of view. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:23, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
I transposed both tables for better readability. While reviewing both tables, I noticed that something should be wrong, some component may be missing in the calculation of the values at shorter focal distances. If you see lenses for APC sensors, a 4.5mm lens, is a fish eye or super wide angle 180 degrees or more lens. While the second table says 146 degrees at 4mm diagonal. The first, projects a circular image. According to the first table, 0mm corresponds to 180 degrees. Those tables do not consider the refractive and physical shape of lenses. There are optical design techniques that allow to project a circular 220 degrees image with a 6mm focal length fish eye lens for full frame sensors, having the lens closest to the sensor at a distance greater than 6mm to have a gap for the mirror travel. Earlier nikkor fish eye lenses could only be used in cameras that can lock the mirror. The same design technique is used in focal reducers. the opposite of those tele converters fitted between the lens and the sensor in DSRLs or 4/3 cameras. That allows to design 220 degrees fish eye lenses, which according to the table would be impossible to make, if 0mm. the closest focal distance, has 180 degrees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.233.106.197 ( talk) 14:24, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This article claims "For comparison, the human visual system perceives an angle of view of about 140° by 80°.[17]" and cites an academic paper .
However the Wikipedia article Field of view "Humans have a slightly over 210-degree forward-facing horizontal arc of their visual field"
That's a huge discrepancy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeroXero ( talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, would you like me to add my two new illustrations to the article? We can make a link to binoculars and to the accommodation of the eye. Sciencia58 ( talk) 12:59, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
In the edit of 4 Aug. 2023, some information was moved from Angle of view (photography) to Field of view, among it a section on perceived size. The latter, unfortunately, is ill-conceived, transporting the popular myth that angular size determines perceived size. It is further unrelated to the FoV since the latter refers to the overall size that is seen, not to its content. I deleted it therefore in the Field of view article and moved it back to the “Angle of view (photography)” talk page here, in case somebody wants to do something with it. It read:
The field of view is the decisive variable for the visual perception of the size or projection of the size of an object.
The perceived size of an object depends on the size of the image projected onto the retina. The size of the image depends on the angle of vision. A near and a far object can appear the same size if their edges produce the same angle of vision. With an optical device such as glasses or binoculars, microscope and telescope the angle of vision can be widened so that the object appears larger, which is favourable for the resolving power of the eye (see visual angle). [1] [2]
Strasburger ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC) Strasburger ( talk) 11:26, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
References