![]() | Depth of field was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 18, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assuming a lens with focal length and f-stop both modified by the same sensor format conversion ("crop factor"), I get the part where the equivalence breaks down as macro magnification becomes a big deal. But I don't understand the part about the equivalence breaking down at "as distance approaches the hyperfocal distance for the smaller format (the DOF of the smaller format approaches infinity)". As I calculate it, assuming also-scaled CoC, the hyperfocal distance should be the same for both formats. What am I missing? Thanks! Matthew Miller ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Two of my previous edits were reverted on the basis that they are incorrect, namely changing "increases" to "decreases" in the Effect on Lens Aperture section. The way the facts are presented contradict information elsewhere in the article.
This contradicts the first paragraph. From what I understand of DOF (and the first paragraph) is that put simply, a larger (deeper) DOF means more of the scene is in focus. A smaller (shallower) DOF means only a specific range of objects will be in focus. So by reducing the aperture diameter, it brings more things into focus which would mean it INCREASES the DOF. But the Effect on Lens Aperture paragraph states otherwise. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding DOF or am missing something here with aperture sizes.
Also, I was told my edits were unsourced. I did not state any specific facts or impart any new information to the article, I was merely making it consistent. How would one suggest I have sourced that better? Hergio ( talk) 18:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The chart is an interesting illustration, but it has several issues:
I also wonder if the chart is as appropriate here as it is in Hyperfocal distance. The bulk of the illustration is the effect of successive values of H/x; though it’s interesting, it usually isn’t useful in practical photography.
Some of the comments are largely personal preference, but at the very least, the outright errors should be corrected if this chart is to remain here or in Hyperfocal distance. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve addressed most of the easy-to-fix issues. The WLs to Exposure (photography) and Distance remain. I think the first should be changed to Aperture or perhaps removed. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We’ve occasionally discussed a possible excess of images, especially ones illustrating shallow DOF. We’ve also done some housecleaning from time to time, though it’s been a pretty haphazard process. This article is now protected as a result of a silly edit war (or at least the beginning of one) over replacing one image of a cat with another. I don’t think we really need two images of a cat, and it’s not obvious that the proposed replacement is superior to the existing image.
I hope we never imply that a new image cannot be added, or that an existing image cannot be replaced with one that better illustrates a point. But we need a process for managing the image collection–a process that has at least some reasonable basis. Though it might be reasonable for an editor to propose an addition, and especially a replacement, before making the change, this approach will probably be very much the exception rather than the rule, and we have no basis for demanding it. But edit warring isn’t the solution, either, and I would think after a couple of reverts to a change or addition, it would be reasonable for the editor to discuss the issue here.
For any discussion to be productive, we need to have some criteria for what we want in images. Though I feel as if I’m stating the obvious, it seems to me that
We should also have a process for objecting to an addition or replacement with which we disagree. One approach is to mention the objective here before doing anything else, but that seems overly restrictive. I would think that, at the very least, a revert would offer a brief reason why the change or replacement was not thought helpful, with a request to discuss the proposed change here. In some cases, making comment here as well as in the edit summary may be a good idea. But as obvious as this may seem, the comments in the recent mini-war weren’t very descriptive.
Perhaps it would help if we created a simple road map of images that we think we should have, and compare that with what we do have, to arrive at additional images we want, current images for which we might want a better replacement, and perhaps some current images that really don’t further this article’s purpose. JeffConrad ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how clued up you are with photography, but the one of the boy is an awful photo, as stated previously (I will do the same here) it is poorly lit, of poor quality, and has no points of reference, something which the cat picture does, it is also the only picture to do so. Personally, I find the other picture hurts my eyes, it is far too harsh. I am also cheesed off I was followed by the Gang of 4, who undid a load of my edits.
Jamesington (
talk)
10:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)jamesington
No one has made any suggestions, so I offer a few.
Current images
New image
– One at the nearest object to be sharp, with a large aperture
– One at the farthest object to be sharp, with the same aperture
– One at the harmonic mean, with the same aperture
– One at the harmonic mean, with an aperture that has the DOF extend from the near object to the far object
I’m not sure where this would go (perhaps the lead), and some additional text might be needed to explain it. The purpose would be to illustrate what’s going on for a reader unfamiliar with photography. We’re currently loaded for bear on some of the more complex aspects, but may fall a bit short on the simpler ones (as do many other treatments). The current macro image could serve as a contrast showing a small DOF.
JeffConrad ( talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have seen my name before you know why I am here... The picture of the boy I have replaced with a cat, as it has been edited in photoshop. as it is chopped I dont think it should be highlighting depth of field when it could be an entirley fake image and some guy is just puhing his kid, just like people claim I am doing with the cat. Wikipedia is something anyone can edit right? So then instead of reverting my edits and suggesting similar pics of what I have already added why not just let me edit for gods sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of adding complexity to a long and nuanced article, this line caught my attention: "The DOF beyond the subject is always greater than the DOF in front of the subject." While that is certainly usually true, isn't it not the case for an object- telecentric system? My sense is that the typical near:far asymmetry is due to the combination of both NA and magnification decreasing with distance. For a telecentric system, I'm thinking: (1) the entrance pupil is at infinity so the angle subtended by the EP doesn't depend on distance, and (2) the magnification is uniform with distance.
On graph paper, this looks right. I have a nominal point at x=−2, a paraxial converging lens at x=0, a 2-unit-diameter stop at x=2, and an image plane at x=4.
If that's correct, then the near:far distinction breaks down for a telecentric lens, No? —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The plot is confusing (well, to me, anyway) and needs at least a clearer explanation, and part of the caption reads "the depth of field is increased by using a shorter focal length or smaller aperture." Shouldn't it be *longer* focal length or smaller aperture? Sergivs-en ( talk) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
in this section you can find following statement (take a closer look regarding info about perspective):
... the DOF ratio is the same as that given above, but the images differ because of the different perspectives and angles of view....
a few lines below one can find something different regarding the very same perspective:
... so the DOF ratio is in direct proportion to the format size. The perspective is the same for both formats, but because of the different angles of view, the pictures are not the same.
in my opinion this is of course mistake. the perspective IS THE SAME. angles of view are different because of sensor sizes, but perspective is absolutely the same. we SEE different portion of the picture but from the same perspective.
my explanation: imagine two cameras sharing the same perspective (like in 3D stereoscopic rig) with 50% transparent mirror. ignore inverting the picture, color balance and image flipping which is caused by mirror. both cameras are matched to each other, so both cameras are seeing the same picture. ZERO PARALAX, SAME OPTICAL AXIS. SAME PERSPECTIVE, SAME LENS, SAME FOCAL LENGHT, SAME F STOP, SAME SENSOR SIZE. and obviously - everything is the same. ok.
NOW - we are CHANGING one of the two cameras. this new camera has SMALLER sensor size. everythig else is as before: ZERO PARALAX, SAME OPTICAL AXIS. SAME PERSPECTIVE, SAME LENS, SAME FOCAL LENGHT, SAME F STOP. what is different now? perspective? no. just the portion of the image sensor is seeing! perspective for sure is the same, because we didn't change that.
when trying to explaing this in a different way i am often using a POSTCARD as an explanation. if we see certain landscape with the, say house in the midle of this postcard (this is our camera with bigger sensor size) we cannot change PERSPECTIVE by cutting out outer part of this very postcard, so only house in the middle is now visible (smaller sensor camera). we will see just different INFORMATION on this postcard but from the very same perspective.
that's it.
thank you,
Filip kovcin ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC) filip kovcin, warsaw, poland
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Glass ochem dof2.png will be appearing as picture of the day on July 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The final step, using the found equations for V_N and V_F in the thin lens formula gives a different result than shown in the wiki page. Solved by hand and using wolfram alpha give this result:
idk how wikipedia editing/math works but someone who does should fix this
80.246.200.217 ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned in the change summary, a lens focuses on a plane rather than a point. It's important for an understanding of DOF to recognize that the DOF is with respect to the plane of focus rather than the sensor (film is a sensor) plane; although for the special case of a system with limited adjustments where the lens axis is always perpindicular to the sensor plane, the DOF distances can easily be converted to be with respect to the sensor plane. This conversion has been done for decades by camera and lens makers to achieve convenient and practical use of cameras that don't have lens swing or tilt capability. That this is common practice may lead many of us to stop thinking generally and tend to think in terms of these limited-capability imaging systems that have been in widespread use for over 50 years. Editors please beware of this trap. 4.7.25.146 ( talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed misleading synonyms for DOF. With my limited resources, I couldn't find a reliable reference that equates "focus range" or "effective focus range" with DOF. It wouldn't be a big surprise if it is contained somewhere in the context of limited adjustment cameras; or in operator's instructions written with marketing or public relations in mind; however, it would add to the misconception that DOF may generally be obtained by simply measuring from the imaging system to objects imaged with acceptable clarity, and subtracting the nearest from the farthest. This will only work when the lens axis is perpendicular to the sensor plane of a flat sensor. 4.7.25.146 ( talk) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the article is extremely long! Over two-thirds of the article is taken up by the sections "DOF Formulae" and "Derivation of the DOF Formulae". These seems unnecessary and possibly be split into their own articles or removed outright. Not even the physics or mathematics articles have such lengthy derivation sections. MarkH21 ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should make an article Depth of field formulae and derivations or Depth of field calculations or something like that to preserve the bulk of the removed material? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Some bits I'd like to do in the future - I thought I'd put them here so a) I don't forgot and b) people have a chance to object.
I'd keep the Bokeh stuff in its own article. I like Merklinger's work, and it's respectable enough, being cited, though self-published. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at Depth_of_field#Object_field_methods and having read the main source I've got a few issues....
I'm unsure how to rewrite (or restructure) to get this right - does anyone have any ideas (or the Adam's source)? Joe ( talk) 19:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Did a couple of fairly violent changes just now - thought I'd stop to let other people check them over.
Comments welcome - going to edit somewhere else for a bit. Joe ( talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been continuing my near-violent changes. I think we are nearly there thought.
The three things that I think need to be done before submitting for GA review are:
I got most of the way thought the referencing a while ago - it only needs a bit more work - particular on the difraction section that came back. I did a fair amount of work on the formula section today - getting steadily more unhappy with it as I went. I think we need to get a single consistant mainstream textbook or source and start it from scratch. At the very least we should be using the same symbols thoroughout the section. Will investigate the library and come back in a few days to see were we are. Joe ( talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
LEAD
The lead still seems too POVish; but, now the POV is not hidden from the casual reader. Salvaggio et al clearly stated their assumption. The reference and link to "focus stacking" was removed because that article seems to have no reliable basis. Also the 'can't be done by traditional methods' comment was removed as being unsupportable.
1st CAPTION
Reworded the caption
SECTION TITLE AND CONTENT
Changed section title to "Overcomming DOF limitations" to more accurately reflect the intent. Made a few improvements to the wording. Left "focus stacking" in but maybe "image stacking" is a more widely used term (Adobe uses "image stacking") and there doesn't seem to be a reliable reference for "focus stacking".
POV
The article is written from the POV that cameras have a lens axis perpindicular to the sensor plane; that can be very misleading. May want to consider using Conrad, Merklinger, Ray, Wheeler, and others that show what DOF is more generally. The general still applies to the current POV.
208.54.86.201 ( talk) 02:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kingsif ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this with comments posted soon (if just to learn more about f-stops myself) Kingsif ( talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurry hearts illustration has more to do with the fact that aperture shape affects the shape of blurry spots; but within the DoF, the blurriness is not noticeable. This is looking like a "how-to" photography-art guide. Seems appropriate for an article that discusses aperture shape and artistic blur; which, might not belong in WP (textbook stuff?). - NewageEd ( talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a new logic I have been working on, no publication so far but I will appreciate if somebody is interested in writing an article on this topic. Feel free to contact me, thanks.
he key point is that when we work in the image dimension instead of the scene the equations become very simple. The size of the focus blur varies linearily along a plane in the image
The relation is;
where:
The demonstration is here
A first conclusion is that the focus is at exactly at the middle distance between the near and far dof limit. Again this is true in the image and along a plane.
Then we have a relation to set the f# for having everything in focus between the focus plane and the near/far limit
There is also a relation taking into account diffraction:
The links are here:
![]() | Depth of field was nominated as a Natural sciences good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (September 18, 2019). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Assuming a lens with focal length and f-stop both modified by the same sensor format conversion ("crop factor"), I get the part where the equivalence breaks down as macro magnification becomes a big deal. But I don't understand the part about the equivalence breaking down at "as distance approaches the hyperfocal distance for the smaller format (the DOF of the smaller format approaches infinity)". As I calculate it, assuming also-scaled CoC, the hyperfocal distance should be the same for both formats. What am I missing? Thanks! Matthew Miller ( talk) 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Two of my previous edits were reverted on the basis that they are incorrect, namely changing "increases" to "decreases" in the Effect on Lens Aperture section. The way the facts are presented contradict information elsewhere in the article.
This contradicts the first paragraph. From what I understand of DOF (and the first paragraph) is that put simply, a larger (deeper) DOF means more of the scene is in focus. A smaller (shallower) DOF means only a specific range of objects will be in focus. So by reducing the aperture diameter, it brings more things into focus which would mean it INCREASES the DOF. But the Effect on Lens Aperture paragraph states otherwise. Please correct me if I am misunderstanding DOF or am missing something here with aperture sizes.
Also, I was told my edits were unsourced. I did not state any specific facts or impart any new information to the article, I was merely making it consistent. How would one suggest I have sourced that better? Hergio ( talk) 18:19, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The chart is an interesting illustration, but it has several issues:
I also wonder if the chart is as appropriate here as it is in Hyperfocal distance. The bulk of the illustration is the effect of successive values of H/x; though it’s interesting, it usually isn’t useful in practical photography.
Some of the comments are largely personal preference, but at the very least, the outright errors should be corrected if this chart is to remain here or in Hyperfocal distance. JeffConrad ( talk) 00:34, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
I’ve addressed most of the easy-to-fix issues. The WLs to Exposure (photography) and Distance remain. I think the first should be changed to Aperture or perhaps removed. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
We’ve occasionally discussed a possible excess of images, especially ones illustrating shallow DOF. We’ve also done some housecleaning from time to time, though it’s been a pretty haphazard process. This article is now protected as a result of a silly edit war (or at least the beginning of one) over replacing one image of a cat with another. I don’t think we really need two images of a cat, and it’s not obvious that the proposed replacement is superior to the existing image.
I hope we never imply that a new image cannot be added, or that an existing image cannot be replaced with one that better illustrates a point. But we need a process for managing the image collection–a process that has at least some reasonable basis. Though it might be reasonable for an editor to propose an addition, and especially a replacement, before making the change, this approach will probably be very much the exception rather than the rule, and we have no basis for demanding it. But edit warring isn’t the solution, either, and I would think after a couple of reverts to a change or addition, it would be reasonable for the editor to discuss the issue here.
For any discussion to be productive, we need to have some criteria for what we want in images. Though I feel as if I’m stating the obvious, it seems to me that
We should also have a process for objecting to an addition or replacement with which we disagree. One approach is to mention the objective here before doing anything else, but that seems overly restrictive. I would think that, at the very least, a revert would offer a brief reason why the change or replacement was not thought helpful, with a request to discuss the proposed change here. In some cases, making comment here as well as in the edit summary may be a good idea. But as obvious as this may seem, the comments in the recent mini-war weren’t very descriptive.
Perhaps it would help if we created a simple road map of images that we think we should have, and compare that with what we do have, to arrive at additional images we want, current images for which we might want a better replacement, and perhaps some current images that really don’t further this article’s purpose. JeffConrad ( talk) 08:38, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I am not sure how clued up you are with photography, but the one of the boy is an awful photo, as stated previously (I will do the same here) it is poorly lit, of poor quality, and has no points of reference, something which the cat picture does, it is also the only picture to do so. Personally, I find the other picture hurts my eyes, it is far too harsh. I am also cheesed off I was followed by the Gang of 4, who undid a load of my edits.
Jamesington (
talk)
10:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC)jamesington
No one has made any suggestions, so I offer a few.
Current images
New image
– One at the nearest object to be sharp, with a large aperture
– One at the farthest object to be sharp, with the same aperture
– One at the harmonic mean, with the same aperture
– One at the harmonic mean, with an aperture that has the DOF extend from the near object to the far object
I’m not sure where this would go (perhaps the lead), and some additional text might be needed to explain it. The purpose would be to illustrate what’s going on for a reader unfamiliar with photography. We’re currently loaded for bear on some of the more complex aspects, but may fall a bit short on the simpler ones (as do many other treatments). The current macro image could serve as a contrast showing a small DOF.
JeffConrad ( talk) 02:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
If you have seen my name before you know why I am here... The picture of the boy I have replaced with a cat, as it has been edited in photoshop. as it is chopped I dont think it should be highlighting depth of field when it could be an entirley fake image and some guy is just puhing his kid, just like people claim I am doing with the cat. Wikipedia is something anyone can edit right? So then instead of reverting my edits and suggesting similar pics of what I have already added why not just let me edit for gods sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesington ( talk • contribs) 23:14, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
At the risk of adding complexity to a long and nuanced article, this line caught my attention: "The DOF beyond the subject is always greater than the DOF in front of the subject." While that is certainly usually true, isn't it not the case for an object- telecentric system? My sense is that the typical near:far asymmetry is due to the combination of both NA and magnification decreasing with distance. For a telecentric system, I'm thinking: (1) the entrance pupil is at infinity so the angle subtended by the EP doesn't depend on distance, and (2) the magnification is uniform with distance.
On graph paper, this looks right. I have a nominal point at x=−2, a paraxial converging lens at x=0, a 2-unit-diameter stop at x=2, and an image plane at x=4.
If that's correct, then the near:far distinction breaks down for a telecentric lens, No? —Ben FrantzDale ( talk) 14:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
The plot is confusing (well, to me, anyway) and needs at least a clearer explanation, and part of the caption reads "the depth of field is increased by using a shorter focal length or smaller aperture." Shouldn't it be *longer* focal length or smaller aperture? Sergivs-en ( talk) 09:02, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
in this section you can find following statement (take a closer look regarding info about perspective):
... the DOF ratio is the same as that given above, but the images differ because of the different perspectives and angles of view....
a few lines below one can find something different regarding the very same perspective:
... so the DOF ratio is in direct proportion to the format size. The perspective is the same for both formats, but because of the different angles of view, the pictures are not the same.
in my opinion this is of course mistake. the perspective IS THE SAME. angles of view are different because of sensor sizes, but perspective is absolutely the same. we SEE different portion of the picture but from the same perspective.
my explanation: imagine two cameras sharing the same perspective (like in 3D stereoscopic rig) with 50% transparent mirror. ignore inverting the picture, color balance and image flipping which is caused by mirror. both cameras are matched to each other, so both cameras are seeing the same picture. ZERO PARALAX, SAME OPTICAL AXIS. SAME PERSPECTIVE, SAME LENS, SAME FOCAL LENGHT, SAME F STOP, SAME SENSOR SIZE. and obviously - everything is the same. ok.
NOW - we are CHANGING one of the two cameras. this new camera has SMALLER sensor size. everythig else is as before: ZERO PARALAX, SAME OPTICAL AXIS. SAME PERSPECTIVE, SAME LENS, SAME FOCAL LENGHT, SAME F STOP. what is different now? perspective? no. just the portion of the image sensor is seeing! perspective for sure is the same, because we didn't change that.
when trying to explaing this in a different way i am often using a POSTCARD as an explanation. if we see certain landscape with the, say house in the midle of this postcard (this is our camera with bigger sensor size) we cannot change PERSPECTIVE by cutting out outer part of this very postcard, so only house in the middle is now visible (smaller sensor camera). we will see just different INFORMATION on this postcard but from the very same perspective.
that's it.
thank you,
Filip kovcin ( talk) 22:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC) filip kovcin, warsaw, poland
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Glass ochem dof2.png will be appearing as picture of the day on July 22, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-07-22. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! — howcheng { chat} 23:02, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
The final step, using the found equations for V_N and V_F in the thin lens formula gives a different result than shown in the wiki page. Solved by hand and using wolfram alpha give this result:
idk how wikipedia editing/math works but someone who does should fix this
80.246.200.217 ( talk) 14:35, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
As mentioned in the change summary, a lens focuses on a plane rather than a point. It's important for an understanding of DOF to recognize that the DOF is with respect to the plane of focus rather than the sensor (film is a sensor) plane; although for the special case of a system with limited adjustments where the lens axis is always perpindicular to the sensor plane, the DOF distances can easily be converted to be with respect to the sensor plane. This conversion has been done for decades by camera and lens makers to achieve convenient and practical use of cameras that don't have lens swing or tilt capability. That this is common practice may lead many of us to stop thinking generally and tend to think in terms of these limited-capability imaging systems that have been in widespread use for over 50 years. Editors please beware of this trap. 4.7.25.146 ( talk) 21:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Removed misleading synonyms for DOF. With my limited resources, I couldn't find a reliable reference that equates "focus range" or "effective focus range" with DOF. It wouldn't be a big surprise if it is contained somewhere in the context of limited adjustment cameras; or in operator's instructions written with marketing or public relations in mind; however, it would add to the misconception that DOF may generally be obtained by simply measuring from the imaging system to objects imaged with acceptable clarity, and subtracting the nearest from the farthest. This will only work when the lens axis is perpendicular to the sensor plane of a flat sensor. 4.7.25.146 ( talk) 19:16, 7 April 2018 (UTC)
Right now, the article is extremely long! Over two-thirds of the article is taken up by the sections "DOF Formulae" and "Derivation of the DOF Formulae". These seems unnecessary and possibly be split into their own articles or removed outright. Not even the physics or mathematics articles have such lengthy derivation sections. MarkH21 ( talk) 10:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Maybe we should make an article Depth of field formulae and derivations or Depth of field calculations or something like that to preserve the bulk of the removed material? Dicklyon ( talk) 05:18, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
Some bits I'd like to do in the future - I thought I'd put them here so a) I don't forgot and b) people have a chance to object.
I'd keep the Bokeh stuff in its own article. I like Merklinger's work, and it's respectable enough, being cited, though self-published. Dicklyon ( talk) 18:13, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
I'm looking at Depth_of_field#Object_field_methods and having read the main source I've got a few issues....
I'm unsure how to rewrite (or restructure) to get this right - does anyone have any ideas (or the Adam's source)? Joe ( talk) 19:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Did a couple of fairly violent changes just now - thought I'd stop to let other people check them over.
Comments welcome - going to edit somewhere else for a bit. Joe ( talk) 19:54, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
I've been continuing my near-violent changes. I think we are nearly there thought.
The three things that I think need to be done before submitting for GA review are:
I got most of the way thought the referencing a while ago - it only needs a bit more work - particular on the difraction section that came back. I did a fair amount of work on the formula section today - getting steadily more unhappy with it as I went. I think we need to get a single consistant mainstream textbook or source and start it from scratch. At the very least we should be using the same symbols thoroughout the section. Will investigate the library and come back in a few days to see were we are. Joe ( talk) 17:17, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
LEAD
The lead still seems too POVish; but, now the POV is not hidden from the casual reader. Salvaggio et al clearly stated their assumption. The reference and link to "focus stacking" was removed because that article seems to have no reliable basis. Also the 'can't be done by traditional methods' comment was removed as being unsupportable.
1st CAPTION
Reworded the caption
SECTION TITLE AND CONTENT
Changed section title to "Overcomming DOF limitations" to more accurately reflect the intent. Made a few improvements to the wording. Left "focus stacking" in but maybe "image stacking" is a more widely used term (Adobe uses "image stacking") and there doesn't seem to be a reliable reference for "focus stacking".
POV
The article is written from the POV that cameras have a lens axis perpindicular to the sensor plane; that can be very misleading. May want to consider using Conrad, Merklinger, Ray, Wheeler, and others that show what DOF is more generally. The general still applies to the current POV.
208.54.86.201 ( talk) 02:00, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Kingsif ( talk · contribs) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I'll be reviewing this with comments posted soon (if just to learn more about f-stops myself) Kingsif ( talk) 01:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)
The blurry hearts illustration has more to do with the fact that aperture shape affects the shape of blurry spots; but within the DoF, the blurriness is not noticeable. This is looking like a "how-to" photography-art guide. Seems appropriate for an article that discusses aperture shape and artistic blur; which, might not belong in WP (textbook stuff?). - NewageEd ( talk) 10:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
This is a new logic I have been working on, no publication so far but I will appreciate if somebody is interested in writing an article on this topic. Feel free to contact me, thanks.
he key point is that when we work in the image dimension instead of the scene the equations become very simple. The size of the focus blur varies linearily along a plane in the image
The relation is;
where:
The demonstration is here
A first conclusion is that the focus is at exactly at the middle distance between the near and far dof limit. Again this is true in the image and along a plane.
Then we have a relation to set the f# for having everything in focus between the focus plane and the near/far limit
There is also a relation taking into account diffraction:
The links are here: