Thread replies: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Let's settle this once and for all.
>>
op = a faggot
>>
OP = cucked
>>
>>3103906
wider aperture = less depth of field
>>
>>3103906
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_formulae
>Thus, for a given image format, depth of field is determined by three factors: the focal length of the lens, the f-number of the lens opening (the aperture), and the camera-to-subject distance.
"everything is a meme" is a stupid meme
>>
OP = cock holster
>>
>>3103971
How come the wikipedia article ignores the fourth parameter, pixel size? Or "circle of confusion" in film terms.
>>
>>3103971
Thank god
>>
>>3103992
What does pixel size have to do with depth of field?
>>
>>3103998
this
>>
>>3103998
>>3103999
http://www.scantips.com/lights/diffraction.html
>Pixel resolution is instead just a method of reproduction, not a source of detail. The lens creates all detail. The first basics of digital sampling rules (Nyquist) require digital sampling resolution to be at least twice greater than the maximum lens resolution, to prevent moire (that improvement that reduces artifacts being entirely due to the smaller pixels). Sampling hasn't been twice higher until very recently when megapixels became just sufficient (in some cases).
>Smaller pixels have absolutely no effect on creating detail or diffraction (only the lens can do that).
>Pixel sampling only tries to reproduce the actual lens image well, with digital samples.
>Diffraction reduces the analog lens resolution.
>Diffraction does Not reduce or affect the sampling resolution to reproduce that image digitally.
>The final result of bad diffraction is a high resolution reproduction of a low resolution lens image.
>>
>>3103992
The formulae on that page take into account the size of the circle of confusion.
>>
>>3103996
Rays of light bounce off of objects and into your eye/lens, so the scene you see is basically a collection of billions of tiny point lights. When these points are out of focus, they gradually expand into the circles we call bokeh. When you focus your lens, you're just changing the size distribution of these circles. In reality, even when things we consider detail are perceived under scrutiny, you will see that they are still disks, just very tiny ones. When you're limited by resolution, the limit for what can be considered "sharp" is lowered because the disk only has to be the diameter of two pixels for it to seem "in focus". Now let's consider two cameras, one with 15mp and another with 60mp, the later has twice the linear resolution, so details previously rendered across two pixels are now rendered across four. This means the disk size that was previously adequately masked is now very obvious, once again making that area seem out of focus. This of course works only on the following assumptions: the lens can deliver the necessary resolution, and the aperture is large enough to avoid diffraction. For example, when the 7D first launched, its pixel density was so high, that users found that it began revealing diffraction as early as f/5.6.
>>
>>3104320
200mm is bigger than 50mm so the aperture must be wider.
Checkmate, atheists.
>>
>>3103971
Exactly the true rule of thirds.
Thread posts: 20
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1