Reading mode: Light Dark

How to construct a ray diagram for depth of field

Go to last post
bclaff said:
The PhotonsToPhotos Thick Lens Optical Bench is intended more as a tool for the construction of educational diagrams than an instrument of education itself.

If you set Pupil Magnifiication to 1 and Internodal distance to 0 you effectively have a thin lens system.

d3a9e3355e914369a9e45d513fe4de67.jpg.png

With everything drawn to scale the full diagram is not very revealing.

c459b5d5d3e1448cbfea856957299f78.jpg.png

But you can zoom in on the Image plane

b0c6b04a29c84a6b8aae5faa4c0a67d4.jpg.png

And the Object plane

b7c0ff501e784f758b0782387076eaac.jpg.png

Jim, I don't report depth of focus but could add that in the future.
Click to expand...
I'm assuming the three colors are three wavelengths. Is that right?

Consider the drawing below for one wavelength, one focal length, and one subject distance:



51fba54e1ab0485393d3ec1818f727ce.jpg

It seems that if I move the focal plane the same amount forward and backwards, the CoCs are the same size. What am I missing here?

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
using different colors for different field points, or points along an optical axis is kind of conventional with optical softwares.

your question made me curious so I checked just now in OSLO and it is not an option in the GUI to color code rays according to wavelength (although one could always write a short OSLO C program to make the drawings come out that way if one wanted.)
 
OpticsEngineer said:
using different colors for different field points, or points along an optical axis is kind of conventional with optical softwares.
Click to expand...
Gotcha. But my question relates to the situation where there is a single subject distance, as in the diagram that I drew.
OpticsEngineer said:
your question made me curious so I checked just now in OSLO and it is not an option in the GUI to color code rays according to wavelength (although one could always write a short OSLO C program to make the drawings come out that way if one wanted.)
Click to expand...
 
JimKasson said:
bclaff said:
Not wavelengths, distances; far, in-focus, near.

Note here with magnification 1/40th:

3f0a147a259041309cd4692d9ac71c42.jpg.png

No longer appears symettrical.
Click to expand...
That's a different situation than the one that I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
I thought that you were making a generalization. I suspect the lines are of equal length at 1x but not at other magnifications.

--
Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at PhotonsToPhotos )
 
bclaff said:
JimKasson said:
bclaff said:
Not wavelengths, distances; far, in-focus, near.

Note here with magnification 1/40th:

3f0a147a259041309cd4692d9ac71c42.jpg.png

No longer appears symettrical.
Click to expand...
That's a different situation than the one that I'm talking about.
Click to expand...
I thought that you were making a generalization. I suspect the lines are of equal length at 1x but not at other magnifications.
Click to expand...
I was confused by your original diagram because the definition that I had been using for depth of focus is different than what you are using. The situation that you are describing is one where both the sensor and the subject can be in several places. I now understand what you mean, and I have no problem with it. I am talking about a different situation. I talk about depth of field in a situation where the lens and sensor remain in the same place and the subject can be at various distances. I talk about depth of focus in a situation where the lens and subject remain in the same place and the sensor can be at various distances from both. I asked above what I should be calling what I am now calling depth of focus. I am still unclear on that point.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
"...the lens and sensor remain in the same place and the subject can be at various distances."

this leads to the conventional definition of depth of field.

sometimes people accidentally say depth of focus when they mean depth of field.

I haven't been following this thread from the start, so I don't know what kind of discussions there have been.

Here is the picture out of Greenleaf "Photographic Optics" that has the conventional depth of field diagram. I think every place I have worked there has been a copy of this book in some kind of central bookshelf all the engineers had access to.

 

Attachments

  • 4453225.jpg
    4453225.jpg
    2.8 MB · Views: 0
Last edited:
JimKasson said:
...

Consider the drawing below for one wavelength, one focal length, and one subject distance:

51fba54e1ab0485393d3ec1818f727ce.jpg

It seems that if I move the focal plane the same amount forward and backwards, the CoCs are the same size. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

In this diagram, you are considering the image of a fixed point and seeing what happens if the sensor plane is moved. The blur size is the same on both sides of the focus point for equal distances away.

However, if you change the angle between those two marginal rays, then the distance that the sensor has to move (to get a certain blur size) will change.

The depth of focus situation is different because it is considering three different points of focus. The angle of convergence of the rays will be slightly different for each of those three points.
 
OpticsEngineer said:
"...the lens and sensor remain in the same place and the subject can be at various distances."

this leads to the conventional definition of depth of field.

sometimes people accidentally say depth of focus when they mean depth of field.

I haven't been following this thread from the start, so I don't know what kind of discussions there have been.

Here is the picture out of Greenleaf "Photographic Optics" that has the conventional depth of field diagram. I think every place I have worked there has been a copy of this book in some kind of central bookshelf all the engineers had access to.

Click to expand...
The diagram in this book is probably typical of many DoF diagrams.

However, it relies on the use of the lens equation to work out where to put the object points. The diagram itself contains no clues about where to put them.

If you go back and read my OP, you will see that I was suggesting the use of a more complete diagram that does not rely on the lens equation. The location of the object points is constructed purely by the geometry.
 
Tom Axford said:
OpticsEngineer said:
"...the lens and sensor remain in the same place and the subject can be at various distances."

this leads to the conventional definition of depth of field.

sometimes people accidentally say depth of focus when they mean depth of field.

I haven't been following this thread from the start, so I don't know what kind of discussions there have been.

Here is the picture out of Greenleaf "Photographic Optics" that has the conventional depth of field diagram. I think every place I have worked there has been a copy of this book in some kind of central bookshelf all the engineers had access to.

Click to expand...
The diagram in this book is probably typical of many DoF diagrams.
Click to expand...
Not sure
Tom Axford said:
However, it relies on the use of the lens equation to work out where to put the object points. The diagram itself contains no clues about where to put them.

If you go back and read my OP, you will see that I was suggesting the use of a more complete diagram that does not rely on the lens equation. The location of the object points is constructed purely by the geometry.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of diagrams equivalent to your one which show dof by geometry construction.



or even at dpreview:

 
chrisfisheye said:
Tom Axford said:
OpticsEngineer said:
"...the lens and sensor remain in the same place and the subject can be at various distances."

this leads to the conventional definition of depth of field.

sometimes people accidentally say depth of focus when they mean depth of field.

I haven't been following this thread from the start, so I don't know what kind of discussions there have been.

Here is the picture out of Greenleaf "Photographic Optics" that has the conventional depth of field diagram. I think every place I have worked there has been a copy of this book in some kind of central bookshelf all the engineers had access to.

Click to expand...
The diagram in this book is probably typical of many DoF diagrams.
Click to expand...
Not sure
chrisfisheye said:
However, it relies on the use of the lens equation to work out where to put the object points. The diagram itself contains no clues about where to put them.

If you go back and read my OP, you will see that I was suggesting the use of a more complete diagram that does not rely on the lens equation. The location of the object points is constructed purely by the geometry.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of diagrams equivalent to your one which show dof by geometry construction.

https://graphics.stanford.edu/courses/cs178/applets/dof-depth-of-field.jpg

https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/14/7/2748

or even at dpreview:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4468001
Click to expand...
I wasn't claiming it to be original. The idea probably dates back to the nineteenth century.
 
Tom Axford said:
JimKasson said:
...

Consider the drawing below for one wavelength, one focal length, and one subject distance:

51fba54e1ab0485393d3ec1818f727ce.jpg

It seems that if I move the focal plane the same amount forward and backwards, the CoCs are the same size. What am I missing here?
Click to expand...
Hi Jim,

In this diagram, you are considering the image of a fixed point and seeing what happens if the sensor plane is moved. The blur size is the same on both sides of the focus point for equal distances away.

However, if you change the angle between those two marginal rays, then the distance that the sensor has to move (to get a certain blur size) will change.

The depth of focus situation is different because it is considering three different points of focus. The angle of convergence of the rays will be slightly different for each of those three points.
Click to expand...
I understand that. What I have been asking is what to call the quantity that I am defining if it’s not depth of focus.

--

the last word the last word - Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.
blog.kasson.com blog.kasson.com
 
Jack Hogan said:
JimKasson said:
I understand that. What I have been asking is what to call the quantity that I am defining if it’s not depth of focus.
Click to expand...
It seems closer to the concept of focus tolerance Jim, I've seen it used that way by e.g. Hopkins.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a reasonable description. Or maybe focus plane tolerance? I will stop using the term depth of focus for that, but I don't want to discard the metric, since it is so easy to calculate, and so useful for stacking calculations.
 
JimKasson said:
Jack Hogan said:
JimKasson said:
I understand that. What I have been asking is what to call the quantity that I am defining if it’s not depth of focus.
Click to expand...
It seems closer to the concept of focus tolerance Jim, I've seen it used that way by e.g. Hopkins.
Click to expand...
That sounds like a reasonable description. Or maybe focus plane tolerance? I will stop using the term depth of focus for that, but I don't want to discard the metric, since it is so easy to calculate,
Click to expand...
JimKasson said:
and so useful for stacking calculations.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

This means that for focus bracketing you need to move the sensor plane with this distance (if you want the blur size to be smaller than CoC). Just do it as many times as needed for the scene.

With a focus ring, you can estimate the move required for each step.

Similarly, you can focus on a plane in the scene. This time, you move your focus point in the EVF with an equal distance for every step. Will not develop this method, it has been explained in other threads.
 
Maybe you should stick to your original definition, Jim?

I have just noticed that Edmund Optics define depth of focus in the same way as you do.

To quote:
JimKasson said:
Due to similarity in name and nature, depth of field (DOF) and depth of focus are commonly confused concepts. To simplify the definitions, DOF concerns the image quality of a stationary lens as an object is repositioned, whereas depth of focus concerns a stationary object and a sensor’s ability to maintain focus for different sensor positions, including tilt.
Click to expand...
 
Tom Axford said:
Maybe you should stick to your original definition, Jim?

I have just noticed that Edmund Optics define depth of focus in the same way as you do.

To quote:
Tom Axford said:
Due to similarity in name and nature, depth of field (DOF) and depth of focus are commonly confused concepts. To simplify the definitions, DOF concerns the image quality of a stationary lens as an object is repositioned, whereas depth of focus concerns a stationary object and a sensor’s ability to maintain focus for different sensor positions, including tilt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Hmm…

Thanks.
 
Tom Axford said:
Maybe you should stick to your original definition, Jim?

I have just noticed that Edmund Optics define depth of focus in the same way as you do.

To quote:
Tom Axford said:
Due to similarity in name and nature, depth of field (DOF) and depth of focus are commonly confused concepts. To simplify the definitions, DOF concerns the image quality of a stationary lens as an object is repositioned, whereas depth of focus concerns a stationary object and a sensor’s ability to maintain focus for different sensor positions, including tilt.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
It may be looking for your keys under the lamppost (ask me if you don't know the joke), but my definition has the advantage that it's really easy to calculate. You just need to know the f-stop and the CoC diameter, and you can do it in your head.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

T
Depth of field in object space
2
Replies
26
Views
421
chrisfisheye
C
B
Thoughts about bokeh ball diameter
Replies
8
Views
747
LeicaEye
LeicaEye
Satyaa
Why or "how" does wider aperture produce shallow depth of field?
Replies
14
Views
2K
J A C S
J A C S
T
The geometry of depth of field
Replies
4
Views
960
bclaff
B
O
Foreground distance and image height
Replies
10
Views
780
chrisfisheye
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top