Can someone explain hyoerfocal distance to me. Am retard. [EXIF

>>3121279
*Hyper. Like I said

File: hyperfocal-distance-diagram-1.jpg (43KB, 500x260px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x260px

The closer you get to the subject, smaller your DOF gets.

The distance to the closest object that is in focus when you focus your lens to infinity.

or

The distance to the closest object that is in focus when you focus your lens such that the objects at infinity are in focus.

In focus means that the circle of confusion is smaller than your sensor pixel.

>>3121303
>>3121286
These are the people advising you on gear, telling you your photos are shit (they are, but that's beside the point), and generally painting the walls with their ignorant shit.

Op, fucking google that shit. There are dozens of good explanations. The tl;dr/non-technical rule of thumb is that hyperfocal distance is where you focus to maximize depth of field. Generally, you put the center of focus about a 1/3 into what you want in focus.

>>3121305

your explanation is wrong too, fucktard.

>>3121311
Sure thing guy. I bet you're the one who copied/pasted that shitty definition from a google search in this post >>3121303

>>3121305
>you put the center of focus about a 1/3 into what you want in focus
>implying someone even think about doing that shit

>>3121313
Oh, you're a stroke victim. Sorry for being mean. It's remarkable you can communicate as well as you can.

>>3121312

No, I'm a different guy who knows that hyperfocal distance is literally just the distance you focus into a scene to have the furthest edge of your depth of field render objects at infinity in acceptable focus.

I mean, go into any depth of field calculator. Hyperfocal distance is a single number, not a set of numbers.

>>3121319
I thought if you want everything in focus just focus at the farthest thing. Does this apply to autofocus.

>>3121319
Sure, you know that. That's why you copied verbatim the definition google gives.

Also, how exactly is that different from maximizing depth of field? You're so stupid you don't even know the meaning of the words you're trying to claim knowledge of.

>I mean, go into any depth of field calculator. Hyperfocal distance is a single number, not a set of numbers.
For a given combination of focal length, aperture, and sensor resolution, you are almost right that there's a single number that pops up, but you're also ignoring (or more accurately unaware of the fact) that "acceptable focus" isn't an objective thing. I can't wait for you to try to argue it is an objective, fixed thing while trying to ignore (or again, remain entirely ignorant of) how intended viewing distances affects acceptable detail levels. Additionally, it's rather ignorant to think of it as a single number because, holy fuck, there's a lot of hyperfocal distances for any given focal length because of how aperture affects it. There is no single hyperfocal distance for a 50mm. There is one for a 50mm@f/1.8 on a FF 25mp camera (ooohhh, another fun fact, most hyperfocal calculators don't even account for differing resolutions! They just look at the overall sensor size and pretend the individual sensing sites are all the same size!).

Basically, at least fucking read an article before you open your retardhole again.

The best way to understand hyperfocal distance is to look at a manual focus lens with DOF markings. For example, take a Nikkor at f5.6, the blue lines. At infinity, depth of field extends beyond infinity and short of infinity. The hyperfocal distance at f5.6 would have one edge of the depth of field at infinity, and the other closer than if the lens was focused at infinity.

>>3121321

Autofocus has nothing to do with anything, it works the same no matter what.

Keep in mind that when you focus your lens to a distance, you're actually focusing with the middle (roughly, it's actuall the first 1/3) of your depth of field, not the far end of it. So if you crank your focus dial all the wall to infinity, you're wasting a lot of the far depth of field, as the back 2/3 extend well past infinity. You can actually focus closer and still have everything out to infinity be in focus. So, hyperfocal distance is the distance focus to where the far limit of your depth of field extends to infinity. The benefit to this is that the near limit of your DOF will be closer, and more of the scene will be in focus than if you had just focused all the way out.

Hyperfocal distance also changes with aperture, and the more you stop down the closer it gets.

>>3121325

the edge on this fucktard, so sharp and astounding. So desperate to be right and backpedal at the same time.

it's different from "maximizing depth of field" because hyperfocal involves infinity, and your retard definition doesn't, thus degrading the integrity of the term. so if you aren't going to be precise, at least be right, if you're neither, fuck off.

Also, circle of confusion doesn't have room in the formula for sensel size, since the reproduction ratio doesn't actually increase. Sorry kiddo.

File: Untitled.png (27KB, 990x438px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 990x438px

>>3121329
>the edge on this fucktard, so sharp and astounding. So desperate to be right and backpedal at the same time.
I'm not remotely backpedaling.
>it's different from "maximizing depth of field" because hyperfocal involves infinity, and your retard definition doesn't, thus degrading the integrity of the term. so if you aren't going to be precise, at least be right, if you're neither, fuck off.
I wasn't attempting to rigorously define it. Autism in addition to a stroke? That's a rough hand you've been dealt.
>Also, circle of confusion doesn't have room in the formula for sensel size, since the reproduction ratio doesn't actually increase. Sorry kiddo.
Reproduction ratio? Wow, congrats on throwing more jargon that doesn't affect this conversation in the slightest. This is the second time that CoC has been brought up and if you think that viewing distance, pixel size, and the desired minimum CoC aren't all massively intertwined, you need to head back to google.

>>3121313
I figured this out on my own by just using a camera. It's pretty simple, I think the way people are explaining it makes it sound more complicated than it really is.

>>3121333

>using a retarded google definition of uncertain provenance when the OP definition is much more precise and correct

it also doesn't need a "rigorous" definition, because it's not a slippery concept or at all difficult to understand. there's literally no debate about what it means.

Also, reproduction ratio is literally one of the 3 factors that affects circle of confusion my man. go read an article before you post lmfao

>>3121337
>it also doesn't need a "rigorous" definition, because it's not a slippery concept or at all difficult to understand. there's literally no debate about what it means.
...that is the rigorous definition. You're thick.
>Also, reproduction ratio is literally one of the 3 factors that affects circle of confusion my man. go read an article before you post lmfao
I never said it wasn't one of the factors to CoC. I said that it was irrelevant to this particular conversation. Have any more irrelevant strawmen you want to throw out there? A watermelon is a berry, not a fruit.

>>3121326
Oops, I'm a retard. F16 is blue. Brown is f5.6. The point stands.

File: L1045042_450.jpg (93KB, 450x300px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 450x300px

This thread is funny because all you have to do to understand hyperfocal is to look at a lens with DoF markings for different apertures. Or, you know, use it once.the fact there are 9 people arguing over this topic is very telling :^)
Never change, /p/.

>>3121406

Fuck off retard.

>>3121406
Isn't hyper focal distance a bit different than zone focusing? At least that's what I think...but regardless you're right. Just look at the lens OP lol

>>3121446
knowing the hyperfocal distance is a mechanism of zone focusing

if you want to focus at 9 feet and set f16 so that everything from 9 feet to infinity will be in focus you're zone focusing