![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really necessary to use the non-metric units at all? And if so, why always name them before the metric ones?
Both articles seem to be on the same subject - the optical phenomenon of one thing being critically focused, and other thing in front and behind falling gradually out of focus. A portrait, as contrasted with a landscape.
Wikipedia ( and its readers ) would benefit from taking the best parts of both articles, and consolidating them. And the people who are donating their time to improve WP won't be duplicating work. ForrestCroce 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - They are different concepts, and they each deserve separate articles, not in the least in order to prevent them being confused or mislabeled. They have different effects. Should every physical property of a lens belong on the same page? If it were merging to a larger article, such as optics, as a subsection, there might be some merit. However, depth of field and depth of focus are two different but comparable concepts. Are a negative and print the same thing? After all, they both require development...
As for medium and large format cameras, they are moving the lens and film plane in relation to each other, which is essentially what lenses with focusing elements do internally - the depth of focus concept is specifically tied into the concept of flange focal distance and back focus - ie, the relation of a fixed lens mount to the film plane. It's a technical consideration, not an artistic one like depth of field. Girolamo Savonarola 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons given above. -- MichaelMaggs 10:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I also question the propriety of including a source several months before it's published, and was initially frustrated to see that no publication date was given, and that all queries for the ISBN failed. It finally occurred to me that it has yet to be published, which a further search confirmed. Assuming that Alipson is one of the authors, the work may be presumptively reliable but at this time is unverifiable. I think a good case could be made for removing (or at least commenting out) such a source until publication. If the ref is retained, I think the link to the publisher's site is essential, because without it, there's no way to find anything about the book or even tell whether the reference is real, and unless there's some good reason for removing it, I'm going to restore it.
I am generally of the opinion that without a page number, a reference is essentially unverifiable, but perhaps one is not yet available. Perhaps Alipson can provide one; I presume he will get a gratis copy as soon as it's published. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The section on calculation, as it stands, calculates depth of field, not depth of focus. I'm still trying to get my head around depth of focus; if somebody could fix this section, it would be good, otherwise I'll try when I understand it well enough. Groogle ( talk) 02:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
Is it really necessary to use the non-metric units at all? And if so, why always name them before the metric ones?
Both articles seem to be on the same subject - the optical phenomenon of one thing being critically focused, and other thing in front and behind falling gradually out of focus. A portrait, as contrasted with a landscape.
Wikipedia ( and its readers ) would benefit from taking the best parts of both articles, and consolidating them. And the people who are donating their time to improve WP won't be duplicating work. ForrestCroce 17:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose - They are different concepts, and they each deserve separate articles, not in the least in order to prevent them being confused or mislabeled. They have different effects. Should every physical property of a lens belong on the same page? If it were merging to a larger article, such as optics, as a subsection, there might be some merit. However, depth of field and depth of focus are two different but comparable concepts. Are a negative and print the same thing? After all, they both require development...
As for medium and large format cameras, they are moving the lens and film plane in relation to each other, which is essentially what lenses with focusing elements do internally - the depth of focus concept is specifically tied into the concept of flange focal distance and back focus - ie, the relation of a fixed lens mount to the film plane. It's a technical consideration, not an artistic one like depth of field. Girolamo Savonarola 20:57, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons given above. -- MichaelMaggs 10:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
I also question the propriety of including a source several months before it's published, and was initially frustrated to see that no publication date was given, and that all queries for the ISBN failed. It finally occurred to me that it has yet to be published, which a further search confirmed. Assuming that Alipson is one of the authors, the work may be presumptively reliable but at this time is unverifiable. I think a good case could be made for removing (or at least commenting out) such a source until publication. If the ref is retained, I think the link to the publisher's site is essential, because without it, there's no way to find anything about the book or even tell whether the reference is real, and unless there's some good reason for removing it, I'm going to restore it.
I am generally of the opinion that without a page number, a reference is essentially unverifiable, but perhaps one is not yet available. Perhaps Alipson can provide one; I presume he will get a gratis copy as soon as it's published. JeffConrad ( talk) 07:26, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
The section on calculation, as it stands, calculates depth of field, not depth of focus. I'm still trying to get my head around depth of focus; if somebody could fix this section, it would be good, otherwise I'll try when I understand it well enough. Groogle ( talk) 02:49, 14 April 2024 (UTC)