Why does this happen? Why does more light blurs the background?

>>2979114
God works in mysterious ways

>>2979114
It is not the light, it is the aperture physically restricting the angles where the light propagates through the lenses and makes the circle of confusion smaller when not around the plane of focus.

>>2979115
I would have thought that it might be more logical to get 'clearer' image with more light in..

>>2979118
more light = more focused images (fewer parts focused)
less light = less 'focused' frame (everything in focus)
?

>>2979123
that is stupid

it's like having a funnel with a 45degree cone versus a 10degree cone, the water will roll down the interior walls of the funnel. think of the water as light rays entering the funnel, but instead of dripping out as a droplet would the light rays continue along their course and impact the sensor. the angle affects the positions of the light rays across the face of the sensor

>>2979115

/p/. You've got the questions, we've got the answers.

>>2979123
>more focused images

ur retarded m8. stick to your japanese cartoons.

>>2979115

>God works in mysterious rays

ftfy

>>2979127
This is not bad.

>>2979131

good one, reddit!

>>2979131
kek

>>2979114
poke a small hole in a piece of card
look at small text far away you can barely make out
hold the piece of card up to your eye
hey presto, you can read it.

this works better if you're short/long sighted and take off your specs.

>>2979131
Did your wife's son come up with that one? I tip my hat to you

>>2979114
Your question is about exposure. Exposure is comprised of three elements: shutter speed, aperture, and sensitivity (ISO).

With a fixed shutter speed, and a selected ISO, the only element your camera can control is the aperture. A larger aperture (smaller f/stop number) lets in more light faster, but gives a more-shallow depth-of-field (read: blurred background). A smaller aperture (larger f/stop number) lets in less light, and has more depth-of-field.

Reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

>>2979120
Brighter does not mean clearer

>>2979165
My wife's son is the son of God. Top that, m8.

>>2979397
I banged your wife 9 months ago.

Same reason people squint their eyes when trying to read something very small.

>>2979114
https://youtu.be/OydqR_7_DjI

>>2979114
>>2979123
The blurred background isn't caused by more light, it's caused by the large aperture.

Your thinking:
Large aperture causes more light causes blurred background.

How it actually works:
Large aperture causes more light.
Large aperture causes blurred background.

You can also think about it this way: Set your aperture to a certain size and take a long exposure in a dark room. Keep the aperture the same size and then turn on the lights and take another picture with a shorter exposure time. The blurriness will look the same even though you added more light.

I bet no one in this thread or even on this board can explain WHY this happens, and not just WHAT happens.

>>2979480
who cares, you don't need to know physics to be good at photography

>>2979480

"why" is a stupid question that makes people make shit up like god, angels and "destiny". "what" and "how" is what gets shits done, you fucking simpleton pleb.

>>2979480
Hold your forearms up in front of your body, making an X.
If your hands are close together you are emulating a narrow aperture, where your arms overlap is the focussed circle of confusion, and as your arms diverge towards your wrists and elbows you get a progressively out of focus image.
If you make the same X with your hands and elbows far apart, you are simulating a wide aperture, with a relatively small circle of confusion at the arm overlap, and rapid out of focus divergence towards hands/elbows.
Light is loosely analogous to this. A wider aperture gathers more light and therefore diverges the light more rapidly after the focal point. A narrow aperture the opposite.

Squint.

if more light makes a photo blurrier, why is flash photography so sharp?

>>2979525
>>2979544
No.
You are just too fucking stupid to comprehend a fairly simple concept.

File: illustration-how-aperture-works-2[1].gif (25KB, 360x410px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 360x410px

here you go retards

>>2979580
maybe they're just so intelligent that they SEEM stupid
I bet they have trouble understanding certain types of humour too, extreme intelligence has a way of limiting perception of lower beings, kind of like how huge amounts of light passing through a lens aperture blur a perfectly good photograph

>>2979114

For the same reason your pupil contracts or expands depending on how much light there is in your environment.

Light hits your eyes, or film, or a digital sensor, from all possible directions, reflecting off, refracting through, objects.

A wider aperture lets in more light, but since the light is hitting the sensor from so many different directions, the result is a blurry mess.

A narrower aperture restricts how much light hits the sensor, and more, restricts the direction from which the light comes: this means you get a narrower beam of light, more focused.

Bigger aperture = brighter picture, but more light makes it blurry

Narrower aperture = darker picture, but less light means a more focused image.

tl;dr - more light blurs the background because it hits the sensor from many directions, jumbling the data. Imagine listening to ten songs at once, you wouldn't be able to tell all of them apart. One song at a time, you can focus on it.

This awful explanation has been brought to you by someone whose opinions probably shouldn't be shared.

>>2979193
That wasn't what OP was asking though. I'm sure they realize that a wider aperture has a more shallow depth of field but OP was specifically asking what properties of a wide aperture causes the background to fall out of focus.

The answer has to do with the angle at which light rays can enter the lens and interact with the film plane/image sensor. Ambient light is omnidirectional so having a smaller aperture blocks out a majority of light that is traveling in any direction other than straight at the camera. Or in other words, there's less of a chance that light rays will be able to bounce around and obscure the light hitting the sensor.

When you use a wide aperture there is a higher chance that the angle of the light rays will converge and obscure whatever isn't in pin-sharp focus

>>2979673
did you just call isi extremely intelligent

>>2979477
/thread

>>2979480
gimmie a sec let me go get my PHD in physics and I'll be back with an answer.

>>2979493

>makes people make shit up like god, angels, and "destiny"

or they could embrace rational thinking and science and the verification of your hypotheses through direct observation and experimentation

ijs

>>2979493
Anon who can't explain coc spotted

>>2980074

are you a coc expert?

>>2979127
this also explains why tele has more bokeh than wide angle.

>>2979480
smaller coc is the answer

https://sites.google.com/site/marclevoylectures/home
Watch it on YouTube at 1.5 or even 2x if you think you want to watch it all. He covers it though I think early on if irc. Dithering/demosaicing was interesting btw

>>2979115
LOL! Catholic /p/tard spotted.

>>2979115
keked

>>2981761
great lectures chur anon

why are earth attract red apple but repel red balloon?? checkmate atheists

>>2979588
>retards
>gif